A bill moving through the Colorado legislature — House Bill 1024 — would extend the time limit to 30 days from 72 hours after a birth in which a person could anonymously abandon a baby at a fire station, hospital or urgent-care facility with no questions asked.
A friend who also opposes the bill humorously quipped, “Get them to raise the age to 17 and I’ll support it.” But the quip raises a serious question: Why only 30 days? Why not 60, or 90, or even a year as in some other states? Supporters — who also pushed failed efforts to legalize and install baby boxes in Colorado — made it clear in a Feb. 10 House Health and Human Services Committee that this was only a first step, with one saying, “Let’s see how this goes from there.”
Proponents say a new mother’s system is flooded with hormones and she should not be forced to make such a momentous decision within 72 hours. Biologically, this is true. Administratively, this is a red herring. What proponents failed to mention is that a mother can relinquish her parental rights at any time through the normal legal process, which requires counseling and already includes a provision for expedited relinquishment of children less than 1 year old. Some legislators may be understandably ignorant of the complicated processes and requirements of relinquishment, adoption and termination of parental rights.
The word “anonymously” was noticeably absent in supporter testimony — but it is in fact a main driver behind the bill. Safe Haven laws only offer a 72-hour window to abandon a baby with no names or questions asked. The original premise behind the law was that a new mother in crisis may not be thinking clearly, and therefore a short-term window as an impulsive option of last resort might save a newborn’s life. Now, proponents claim that, because she is not thinking clearly, she needs more time to contemplate anonymous abandonment. It’s a seismic shift and departure from the original rationale.
No one pointed out or seemed concerned that state law already allows a mother-to-be the option of signing pre-birth relinquishment papers, which can only be revoked within seven days, and must file a legal challenge within 91 days with proof of fraud or coercion.
Colorado has been recognized as a national model of generally good — though not perfect — adoption policy and practice. Over a period of decades, our child welfare laws have been crafted around the following principles:
1) Protect adoptive parents from adopting a child about whom they know nothing. (This bill undermines that policy priority.)
2) Protect relinquishing parents from hasty or coerced decisions. (This bill lengthens the window for an end-run around a carefully considered decision following counseling and exploration of resources. Why the push to make it easier to separate baby from mother?)
3) There are separate legal terms and processes associated with voluntary relinquishment versus child abandonment without prosecution. (This bill seeks to conflate the two. )
4) Protect the safety, interests and long-term well-being of children in a permanent, loving home. Adopted children grow up to become adults who need and deserve access to as much information about their origins, ancestry, medical history and genetic kin as possible. (This bill shuts off any requirement of information gathering, leaving adoptees with a counterintuitive birth story like “she loved you so much she dropped you off at a fire station” upon which to build a self-image and identity.)
Renee Gelin, founder of Saving Our Sisters, a national organization dedicated to helping new mothers avoid making a permanent decision in order to address a temporary situation, testified in opposition to the bill, emphasizing that addressing a lack of resources — not abandoning the baby — is often the solution.
I expressed concern that the two groups with long-term life experience who would be most directly affected by the bill — namely adoptees and birthparents — were excluded from the list of stakeholders included in the conversation. Why would proponents round up a collection of people whose common interest is intake and processing of the baby after separation from the mother?
Teen birth rates are down by about 67% over recent decades, and international adoption rates have dropped by 95%. There are reportedly over 35 hopeful adoptive couples for every available adoptable baby in the U.S. In today’s baby market, demand far outpaces supply.
Proponents claim that a longer ramp for abandonment will save more lives. But a CDC study of Safe Haven outcomes between 2008 and 2017 found that 95% of women who commit infanticide deliver their babies in a hospital, and the greatest risk of infant homicide is on the day of birth.
House Bill 1024 is a misguided solution in search of a problem — and it undermines best practices in adoption. Slippery slopes belong in the mountains, not the world of anonymous transfer of infants.
Richard Uhrlaub, of Lakewood, serves as president for Denver-based Coalition for Truth and Transparency in Adoption.
Kara Rubinstein Deyerin, of Maple Valley, Washington, is the president and co-founder of Right to Know.
The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. Read our ethics policy for more on The Sun’s opinion policy. Learn how to submit a column. Reach the opinion editor at opinion@coloradosun.com.
Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Facebook.
Hence then, the article about opinion colorado bill that would extend infant abandonment window is misguided was published today ( ) and is available on Colorado Sun ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Opinion: Colorado bill that would extend infant abandonment window is misguided )
Also on site :