lumigan tramadol tadalafil

Fathers & Families: Don’t Want Your Baby? Call Massachusetts’ New ‘Abandon Your Baby Pickup Service’

2007-12-27
By

Background: For fathers and the children who love them and need them, Massachusetts sometimes looks a lot like feminist hell. In this series, Ned Holstein, Executive Director of Fathers & Families, points to four um…problematic…Massachusetts family law bills.

The first two bills Holstein cites are Massachusetts HB 113 and HB 1396–to learn more, see my blog posts Amazing New Bill Says Dads Can Be Arrested for Leaving the State and Under New Bill, Restraining Orders Can Be Extended Without Notice. On a related note, also see my blog post Massachusetts Joins CA., CT. in Passing Legislation to Protect Hamsters Caught in Abusive Relationships.

The third bill is explained below.

From Holstein:

“Unwanted Baby Deposit Box”     Massachusetts HB 92
 
This bill expands the already-passed “Safe Havens Law.” A better name would be “The Baby Abandonment Law.” This law allows a person to drop off a baby less than 7 days of age at a hospital, police station or fire station  –  no questions asked. Under HB 92, abandonment sites would be increased to include any “emergency respondent” to a 911 call. That’s neat – a baby pick-up service.
 
Similar laws now exist in 48 states, so a lot of people think they are a good idea. The purpose is to provide an alternative for desperate young women who might otherwise leave their unwanted baby in a dumpster in January. So maybe this is a good idea  — but not judging by the number of abandoned babies, since this has been going up, not down, during the last ten years as these laws have been passed (Texas was first, in 1999).
 
But that’s not all. The publicity in most states emphasizes that the process is totally anonymous. Illinois is typical. Their website says, “… you can walk away with no questions asked…. The baby will be cared for and placed in a loving home for adoption. No attempt whatsoever will be made to contact you. No crime will have been committed. This is a TRULY safe process.”
 
Whatever happened to parental responsibility  — you know  — that concept that requires you to pay child support even if you never get to see the child? Does it apply only to men?
 
Which brings to mind the following thought: What if someone proposed a law that said any dad who did not want to pay child support could just drop the baby off?  I can just imagine testimony for such a bill at a legislative hearing: “Yes, Mr. Chairman, we need this bill so that fathers who don’t want to pay child support won’t throw the baby in a dumpster. After all, some of them are desperate, you know.”
 
So think about these scenarios:

a)      Unmarried mom drops off baby anonymously without informing dad, who is a fit parent and eager to raise the child. So much for fathers’ rights. So much for baby’s rights to know his parents, to be raised by a biological parent, to remain out of the foster care and adoption system, and to know his medical history (increasingly important in these days of genetic medicine.)
 
b)      Married mom drops off the baby anonymously without informing dad, who is a fit parent and eager to raise the child, and disappears.
 
c)      Dad drops off the baby anonymously without informing mom, then disappears, thus dispensing with the need to pay child support. (Somehow I don’t think the authors of this bill thought of this one.)

Expose False Allegations with Technology
If you could be falsely accused by an angry woman, use technology to expose the real aggressor.
www.DontMakeHerMad.com
27 views
Didn't make Oprah's Book Club. And Ronnie doesn't care. Man up. Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.


  • http://www.decriminalizefatherhood.com DcFather

    By having a class of people who are above the law based on membership in a group, only tyranny and persecution of non-group-members, can result. This isn’t new, it is a basic principle upon which America was founded.

    Suppose a handful of judicial overlords proclaim that when people with blue eyes come before a court, the “ruling” shall be based on the “choice” of the person with blue eyes. In other words, the law is whatever blue-eyed people want it to be, because they have blue eyes. Yes, the idea goes against everything the judicial overlords are sworn to uphold, protect, and defend, but they justify their disregard by manufacturing a “right to privacy” for people with blue eyes.

    Oddly enough, about half the population goes along with it, despite many of them having ancestors who died to prevent such a law from taking hold. Along with most blue-eyed people, Marxists wanting special rights based on group membership come out of everywhere to support the idea. So we start out with a law that dictates that people with blue eyes can kill their own babies if they so choose.

    Fast forward forty years and what do you have:

    - People who want to protect the babies with blue-eyed parents from being murdered propose a new special privilege for people with blue eyes, that they can just drop off the baby at any government affiliated location no questions asked and with no repercussions. Maybe eventually even an “unwanted baby pick-up service”. Those who want special rights based on group membership like the idea too, because it gives more special rights based on group membership.

    - The Violence Against Blue-eyed-people Act (VABA), which makes simple assault a special crime based on the involvement of a blue-eyed person, and since blue-eyed people are above the law, they can only be victims, never perpetrators, and all other facts and laws are irrelevant depending upon the wishes of the person with blue eyes. Blue-eyed people, as superior beings begin assaulting non-blue-eyed folks, knowing only non-blue-eyed people are prosecuted.

    - Blue eyed people begin to make rampant false accusations against any non-blue-eyed person they don’t like or can’t control, and the judiciary, like a puppet on a string, persecutes and prosecutes the non-blue-eyed person to appease the superior rights class, and without repercussion when the allegations are proven false.

    - Rampant seizing of “custody” of children by blue-eyed people, in order to gain additional special rights, money, and to satisfy vindictive and malicious urges against non-blue-eyed people.

    - Government roundups of “deadbeats” who have not submitted to financial slavery to a blue-eyed person as ordered by a “court of law”.

    On and on it goes. Feminists don’t defend “abortion rights” simply because they enjoy killing babies, although a lot of them do, nor because it is the result of heterosexual relationships, something many of them despise. They defend it because from abortion springs all superior rights for women.

    Democrats, as the party of rights based on group membership, require all party members to support abortion, just as Hitler required all Nazis party members to despise, hate, and kill Jews. Sure you can vote for a Nazi without wanting to kill Jews, but you can never be a true Nazi leader unless you openly advocate for and support special rights and responsibilities based on group membership or lack thereof.

  • http://www.myspace.com/redwriters Red Writer

    What we are facing is the creation of the the Feminazi’s and the media. The continued attacks on males and painting them as ruthless predators and callous brutes that have no emotional attachment to anyone or anything, especially our own progeny.

    Then we have the politicians that have jumped on this train to societal ruin. These politicians see a fast track to popularity, such as Senator Biden and Senator Clinton, by using the feminist movement to propel them further into their political careers. No matter how committed these “PIMPs” are to the true nature of misandry, they will not publicly state that they are concerned about the current path. To do this would be political suicide in their opinions.

    We, as caring citizens and loving Fathers, must confront these Political Ingrates Manipulating People (PIMP) at every turn and opportunity. We must prove to the general public that men are not the monsters they are painting us as, we must appeal to the politicians and general public that they are being manipulated. Our challenge is significant but can be accomplished. For contact with me please email me at RedWriters@aol.com.

  • wtexas

    Its still better than abortion.

  • Robert Stevens

    You must remember something ,the criminals who run the child welfare system already believe ” your children” actually belong to them. The only reason they have declared war on fathers is that fathers will stand up and claim what is theirs, now women , who are socially,legally and morally corrupt, can be manipulated by the system. Being the selfish creatures they are, they can be bought off and conned by the system. A man can not be! A man understands that blood is indeed thicker than water and committed father will ultimately win against a corrupt system.
    The bastards who run this system know it , but won’t admit it , the day is coming they will be held to answer for all the evil that they have done.
    That the punishment will be severe and long lasting , that it will be righteous ,fair and they will deserve it.

  • lieweary

    Does the man still have to pay child support if she drops the baby off? (I’m just kidding, of course he does.)

  • PolishKnight

    The apologists for this law argue that without it, why, it’s unreasonable to expect that women won’t murder babies with the singular motivation that it’s the right thing to do or that it’s a major crime.

    Yet, at the same time, these same people argue that many of these women, who are often over 18, should be allowed to vote and earn the same income as a man.

    Even the rather cynical justification, that this is like paying off a kidnapper but does have the merit that the baby MIGHT not be killed under the circumstances doesn’t wash since if a woman is already not motivated by the above in addition to all the other “outs” young women have, what makes us think they’ll act rationally and know where to call for a legal baby dump?

    Consequently, baby abandonment deaths will continue to skyrocket as the state throws more and more entitlements at morally bankrupt women. Many women are abandoning babies that are months old. There is no more expectation anymore that a woman has to be a decent mother other than knowing how to cash checks.

    I don’t know if #3 kicks in since this bill works for those with custody and the owner, er, “primary parent” of the child is the only one able to do that and usually the mother.

  • mruffolo

    It’s easier for a man to keep his home by using America’s legal system, then it is for a man to keep his children in a America’s legal system.

    “Faced with the threat of foreclosure, many homeowners give up and abandon their homes.”

    “Mr. [Richard] Davet staved off foreclosure for 11 years, until this past January, when a county sheriff’s deputy evicted the couple and changed the locks. ”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119881051300654741.html?mod=hpp_us_pageone

    American democracy.







Right.

Man up.

Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

Search

RSS Amy Alkon

RSS Donna Laframboise