NCFA Media : Archived News

Safe Haven Testimony on
Massachusetts Bill S766

183rd General Court, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Joint Committee on Human Services and Elderly Affairs Testimony of Thomas Atwood, President, National Council For Adoption Hearing on S766, June 18, 2003

Chairperson Tucker and members of the Committee, on behalf of the National Council For Adoption, I thank the Joint Committee on Human Services and Elderly Affairs for the opportunity to testify regarding S766, An Act Relative To The Safe Placement of Newborns And Infants. In our view this legislation would be a significant step forward in Massachusetts’ efforts to protect infants from unsafe abandonment and infanticide. It would also help to protect desperate birthparents from irrational and reckless actions leading to their imprisonment and a lifetime of guilt and remorse.

The National Council For Adoption (NCFA) is a leading research, education, and advocacy nonprofit whose mission is to promote the well-being of children, birthparents, and adoptive families, by advocating for the positive option of adoption. Since our founding in 1980, NCFA has been a leader in promoting sound child welfare and adoption policies that present adoption as a positive option for women with unplanned pregnancies, make it easier for children to be adopted out of foster care into families, reduce obstacles to transracial adoption, make adoption more affordable through the adoption tax credit, and facilitate intercountry adoptions.

Since the inception of Safe Haven laws in 1999, NCFA has spoken out in favor of these measures. Four legislatures passed legislation similar to S766 this year - New Hampshire, Virginia, Wyoming, and Hawaii - bringing the total to 46 states with Safe Haven laws now. While no proponent of Safe Haven legislation has ever suggested that the policy would end infant abandonment and otherwise be a quick fix, it is indisputable that these laws are saving lives. We are pleased that many Massachusetts leaders at the state and municipal levels recognize this, with the introduction of S766 and the recently approved order of the Boston City Council.

Following is a summary of how S766 would benefit newborns, birthparents, families, and society:

Save newborns’ lives and health: To gain a sense of the extent to which Safe Haven laws actually translate into lives saved, consider the experience of New York. Tim Jaccard, Nassau County police ambulance paramedic and director of Guardian of Angels, New York’s Safe Haven project, reported that 2002 saw the safe delivery of 27 babies to New York Safe Havens, while no infants were found abandoned during that time. An analysis by Safe Haven foundations in 12 states documented 103 infants within their programs. A March 2003 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, entitled "Newborns Killed or Left to Die by a Parent," very conservatively estimated that as many as 85 lives could be saved nationwide annually, were there Safe Haven protections in place. Are opponents of Safe Havens prepared to risk these 27, or 85, or 103 persons’ lives on the hunch that every one of them would have been relinquished safely anyway? Saving just one baby would make S766 worthwhile.

Protect birthparents from imprisonment and a life of guilt and remorse: The other tragedy of infanticide and unsafe infant abandonment is the emotional suffering and criminal punishment birthparents experience. By providing desperate birthparents a non-threatening escape from their crisis, Safe Havens enable them to avoid resorting impulsively to the criminal acts of unsafe abandonment or infanticide. Some young mothers and fathers try desperately and irrationally to hide their pregnancies and births, even from themselves. The ability to leave their child safely, anonymously, and legally provides them the escape they need to avoid harming or destroying their baby’s life, as well as their own. Fundamental to Safe Havens’ effectiveness are the anonymity and protection from criminal prosecution or civil liability they provide.

Connect relinquished babies with loving, forever families through adoption: Children relinquished safely through Safe Havens enter the adoption process and are adopted into permanent, loving, and stable families. Studies show that children adopted as infants grow up just as healthy, productive, and fulfilled in their lives as those raised in their biological families.

Educate birthparents about relinquishing through adoption: Safe Haven workers often provide referrals to adoption counseling and placement services. New York’s experience proves that these actions bear fruit: In 2002, Guardian of Angels’ counseling resulted in 17 out of 27 mothers relinquishing their babies through adoption. Some Safe Haven laws mandate counseling and informational interviews. Others leave these interviews to the discretion of Safe Haven workers, due to the concern that unwanted counseling or information might drive some desperate parents away and endanger their babies.

Identify vulnerable parents in need of social services: Through Safe Havens, birthparents who change their minds and decide not to relinquish their babies can connect with valuable social services to help them parent and avoid future crisis pregnancies.

Provide adoptive parents medical and social histories about their children: S766 would allow Safe Havens to ask the person placing the infant for information about the birthparents, including medical and social histories, which can be made available to the adoptive parents and the child in accordance with Massachusetts law regarding such records. Care should be taken in such interviews to avoid frightening away the birthparents.

Opponents of Safe Haven laws do not deny that the laws save lives. The obvious question, then, is: Just how many babies do Safe Havens have to save from death in a dumpster in order for opponents to consider the laws worthwhile? It is perhaps not surprising that many of the most vocal opponents of Safe Havens are the same organizations and advocates that strive to prohibit women from being able to choose a confidential adoption. A top priority in their agenda is to mandate "open records" for all adoptions, past, present, and future. They see the anonymity allowed by Safe Havens as a threat to this agenda. But it is an unusual set of priorities that values access to medical history more than saving newborns’ lives. Access to medical records is of no use to the baby who dies from unsafe abandonment. Moreover, genetic testing today provides far more information about health predispositions than do the medical histories of biological relatives.

The tragic story of "Baby Rebecca," the infant found dead under a tree in a Dorchester cemetery, must not be repeated. The Massachusetts General Court has the power to rescue future newborns from a similar fate, by passing S766. Thank you for your consideration.