"Common Sense," Not "Dump"

In response to "7th Heaven" Goes to Hell, by Marley Elizabeth Greiner

Marley Greiner is really upset about the fact that most Americans, most state legislators, most people in the media - and now one of the most popular television programs - applaud "Safe Haven" laws. "Safe Haven" laws, which now are in place in one form or another in most states, are the common sense alternative to finding dead babies in dumpsters.

The Issue of Privacy

Ms. Greiner is extremely clever in the way she "plays dumb" about the implications of guaranteeing a woman privacy. How could a woman "sign" a piece of paper and still have her anonymity? If a woman is in a panic and doesn't want to be identified by people who may be in the emergency room, is it logical to think that she will quietly sit and fill out a medical history form?

As for Ms. Greiner's psychological profiling of women who abandon children or commit neonaticide, there's a major problem. These are, by all accounts, two different sorts of women - if one could even begin to categorize the complex personalities, contexts and stories of all the women faced with the challenge into even two pigeonholes.

And Ms. Greiner is right on at least one count: some women will continue killing their babies or abandoning them unsafely, despite these laws. No laws are perfect, and this is especially so in a society that grants people wide latitude in terms of personal liberty, like the United States. Those who support Safe Haven laws do not do so based on the illusion that every baby that would have been threatened will be saved, but rather because they know that some babies will be saved. As many state legislators have said, "If just one baby is saved because of the law we are passing, it will be worth it." And before long it will be clear that at least one baby has been saved in every state that has passed a Safe Haven law.

Ms. Greiner says, correctly, that some women are capable of making rational decisions. That is precisely the point of Safe Haven laws: they provide an option for women who rationally decide that they need a totally anonymous plan that will keep their babies safe. As for the women who are irrational, one can only hope that a few will, because of the option being available, choose it over the dumpsters.

Brenda Hampton of "7th Heaven" is taken to task by Ms. Greiner, who says the show explaining how Safe Haven works in California, America's most populous state, "failed miserably." Ms. Greiner protests too much: if the show had not been a powerful statement for Safe Haven laws, if it had not humanized the tortures that people go through when they are faced with difficult decisions, and if it had not been such an accurate lesson for young people watching, the Bastard Nation "Executive Chair" would have stayed on her couch and away from her keyboard. No, Ms. Hampton did a beautiful job of presenting a gripping drama.

But for Ms. Greiner, who has a way with words, these laws are a bad idea and to emphasize her disgust, she has created her own contradictory label that supposedly will discourage people from supporting these laws or the women who save their babies and themselves by using them. Ms. Greiner calls these laws "Baby Dump" laws, not because babies are fatally "dumped," but because the laws "dump" the rhetoric of Ms. Greiner and others that such laws end up hurting almost everybody.

As long as the support for Safe Haven laws was confined to web sites and editorial pages where a mass audience would not get to know how they work, Ms. Greiner's rage was held in check. But once "7th Heaven," the most popular of Warner Brothers' television series, decided to include a story about how Safe Haven laws can solve all sorts of problems, Ms. Greiner lost it. And she lost it on adoption.about.com, where she trotted out all of the clichés that she and those who agree with her have been using for the last two or three years. Instead of addressing the core message of the "7th Heaven" show, that Safe Haven laws help women in crisis and save babies' lives, and telling everyone what is more important than saving babies' lives, Ms. Greiner droned on with "when did you stop beating your wife" questions.

"What happens to the baby as s/he trudges the adoption treadmill?" The baby, like most adopted persons, grows up, is normal and has a good and productive life.

"Due to lack of pre-natal care and its unattended birth, will s/he suffer physical or developmental disabilities?" No one knows, but loving adoptive parents will address whatever challenges the baby has.

"Did the mother suffer injuries from the unattended birth? Will she get post-natal care and counseling?" To this Greiner double-headed question, two responses: The mother may have suffered injuries because she chose to go through an unattended birth but at least she will not have the added burden of knowing she killed her baby. As for post-natal care and counseling, she's more likely to approach some agency for help knowing her baby is alive and she won't be prosecuted for child abandonment.

"What if the mother had bled to death or the baby died?" Talk about worst-case scenarios. The story clearly intended to convey that the mother didn't bleed to death; most mothers who deliver, whether attended or unattended, don't. And her baby didn't die but if the baby had died, the likelihood that she would have been prosecuted is tiny compared to what would have happened if she'd thrown the baby in a dumpster or otherwise disposed of the baby.

"Will the baby's father come forward and, if so, what will he do?" Most people who work with pregnant, unmarried women know that the percentage of males who were responsible for the conception who come forward is tiny. Statistically, it is highly unlikely. As for what he will do, one guesses that he will be as irresponsible as he was when he walked away from the woman he impregnated, never checking to see if she was pregnant, how she was doing, and what her plans for the baby were.

"Can the mother retrieve the baby?" Yes, in most states, she certainly can if she changes her mind. Ms. Greiner knows this, too.

"Will the baby really grow up 'happy just to be alive,' or will s/he be angry that the state has erased her/his identity, her/his genetic and social history?" In all likelihood, the baby will grow up happy just to be alive and won't be angry, like Ms. Greiner and her Bastard Nation followers obviously are.

"Why do laws exist that tell parents it's OK to abandon a baby?" Because the American people, represented by people they elected to state legislatures, grew tired of seeing the numbers of dead babies increasing while social workers and people like Ms. Greiner refused to offer any practical alternatives that gave women privacy.