Report on Safe Have Laws Draws Criticism, Support
A report from the respected Donaldson Adoption Institute draws responses from leading advocates and activists in the adoption arena. When something with as much widespread emotional appeal as "safe haven" laws are criticized by a respected research group, you can bet the debate will hit the fan! So when, on March 10, 2003, the highly-regarded Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute presented results of a study of these laws, titled "
Unintended Consequences," claiming that the laws are causing problems, not solving them, the resulting high-decibel mix of reaction was to be expected.
The debate over "safe haven" laws - laws that set provisions for the anonymous abandonment of newborns and infants at "safe places" - began
when the first such law was passed in 1999 in Texas, and the Donaldson report is the latest to be added to the
pile of critiques pointing to shortcomings and short-sightedness of this type of legislation.
The issue is enormously emotionally sympathetic. No one wants babies to be dumped, left to die, or killed. It's such a sympathetic issue that in just a couple of years,
43 states have passed laws and/or developed programs that fall within the "safe haven" definition, despite cautions and criticism from jurists, adoption professionals, and children's advocates, charging that the laws are not addressing the underlying issues that result in baby abandonment, and are damaging to children, women, and families.
Responding to the Donaldson Report Enter two well-known personalities in the arena of adoption-related advocacy and activism:
Bill Pierce (Discovery Institute, IAVAAN, former CEO of the National Council for Adoption) and
Marley Greiner (Bastard Nation,
Baby Dump News) . Both have been highly vocal and visible since these laws were first proposed, Pierce as an ardent supporter, and Greiner as an equally strident critic.
- In Institute vs Institute, Pierce dons his Senior Fellow hat to bring the weight of the Discovery Institute to his point-by-point rebuttal of the Donaldson report, promising forthcoming details to support his assertions. Pierce has long been regarded as a leading voice for conservative adoption policies. (This isn't Pierce's first run-in with the Donaldson Institute published on this site. In June, 2002, he took issue with the results of an adoption attitudes survey conducted by the Institute with the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption.)
- In her Few Bastardly Thoughts, Greiner, Executive Chair of Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization, pulls no punches in agreeing - and disagreeing - with the Donaldson report, reiterating her group's hardline opposition to these laws in any form. (Greiner also took issue with the earlier Donaldson/Thomas study on adoption attitudes here at the site.)
So who's right? Is one Institute more right than the other? Just because states are passing these laws, does that make them right, or are politicians cashing in on a popular view? Are abandonment laws serving that segment of the adoption community that supports anonymity and absolute privacy, absolving women of responsibility for their actions and depriving children of a personal history, while providing another source of babies for adoption? Are these laws reasonable and well-considered alternatives that just need a bit of tweaking in order to encompass the well-being of all concerned? Or are there other solutions?
Just as cautions and criticisms haven't stopped state legislatures from passing "safe haven" laws, so respected groups and spokespeople haven't stopped their questions and challenges, and the debate is sure to continue into the foreseeable future.
More: Laws, information, position papers, and opinions on Safe Havens
Home
Add Your Comments!
We want to know what you think. Your comments are important to us and the other readers. You are what makes this site special.