|
|
Tags for This Article:
Media (3292) State (1095) Children (855) Health (823) Hypocrisy (540) Children Teens (236) Hospital (164) Parents (108) Legislators (61) CHILDRENS HEALTH CARE (52) Child Abuse (35) Child Care (33)
|
(more...)
(less...)
Add to My Group
Officials want to revise the law to limit 'safe haven' to abandoned newborns one and younger, in line with other states. What is wrong with people? Last week news outlets around the country reported on ‘deadbeat’ parents who seemingly took advantage of a new safe haven law in Nebraska that allows parents to leave a child, regardless of age, at a licensed hospital without explaining why. The media and so-called child protection reaction has been painful, clearly siding with Nebraska officials that want to change the law to limit care to abandoned newborns one and younger, in line with other states. What is wrong with people? It’s been reported that 16 children, half of them teens, have been dropped off at Nebraska hospitals by a parent since the law took effect in July. If a parent, such as the father of nine whose wife died from cancer last year, can't manage to take care of his children, the youngest age one, and has no place else to go, isn't the new law meeting its purpose to care for unwanted children and get them out of an unhealthy situation? "This was never the intent of the bill," co-author Republican state Sen. Arnie Stuthman told USA Today, adding that the bill was intended to protect newborns but in order to be passed it was revised to include all children. Stuthman said the new law is “a mess” and needs to be fixed. One suspects that these "unintended results" are adding to the strain on diminishing state resources but it also reveals a hidden problem: children -- from babies to teens -- are living in situations where their parents can't or are incapable of caring for them properly. What kind of society so eagerly wants to put these children back behind the curtain and ignore the issue? Yes, some of the parents may be selfish or lazy or addicts. Or they might be mentally or physically ill, or plagued by mortgage foreclosures, staggering health bills, or job lay-offs. The primary focus should be on helping the children whose parents don’t want them or can’t care for them, not on “fixing” the system to prevent parents from dumping their kids. The safe haven law performed beyond expectations. It reveals a need for our society to provide more resources for children whose parents would abandon them for whatever reason. Shame on the legislators, public health officials and the wider media for wanting to sweep under the rug this truth that emerged from Nebraska's new law.
KAT For more than five years I have advocated the Nationalization of Fuel, water, and living subsistence for the unfortunate, "For when, Lord did I feed you when you were hungry, give to drink when you thirsted, house you when you were shelterless, cloth you when you were naked?" "Whenever you did so to the least of your brethren, you did so to me." Avarice, not human sexuality is what will cast one into Hell. Greed should be made anathema a capital crime. by
Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1311 comments)
on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 at 10:27:47 AM
Pete, I am in total agreement We can point to greed, as personafied below, as the cause of all social ills and unhappiness in the world. by
Kathlyn Stone (42 articles, 227 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 665 comments)
on Wednesday, October 1, 2008 at 9:19:08 AM
Government "safe haven" always comes via force Kathlyn, would you and others, who are disturbed by the situation that you relate, steal money from your neighbors, associates and strangers to do what you think would correct the matter? I suspect not. But you (and so many others who write similarly) appear by what you plead to be quite willing to urge employing the legalized use of force, which only government has, to extort money (taxes) from everyone - and then have government make use of that stolen money through an enormous bureaucracy in accordance with some politician passed legislation, which virtually guarantees continuous returns to the well of taxpayer money. (No one should forget that any government's use of force - which it has declared as legal by virtue of it originating with the government - is always threatened and becomes actual if compliance is not prompt.) by
Kitty Antonik Wakfer (22 articles, 4 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 128 comments)
on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 at 7:16:15 PM
Miss Kitty Kathlyn, would you and others, who are disturbed by the situation that you relate, steal money from your neighbors, associates and strangers to do what you think would correct the matter? I suspect not. But you (and so many others who write similarly) appear by what you plead to be quite willing to urge employing the legalized use of force, which only government has, to extort money (taxes) from everyone - From the beginning of civilization, communities have collected some form of taxes for the common good. It is a universally accepted necessity for a successful, workable society. If you see taxation as stealing, you are in the tiny minority of human beings throughout history who have thought so. Others see it as a patriotic and moral duty, which is necessary to ensure a decent society in which the old, the young and the poor are able to live with at least a certain level of dignity. ...and then have government make use of that stolen money through an enormous bureaucracy in accordance with some politician passed legislation... If I'm not mistaken, it is always politicians who pass legislation, except in dictatorships and religious states, and that is generally viewed as a good thing. It's a little-known concept called "representative democracy." It doesn't speak well for your intended purpose - to relieve suffering - to call for the violation of others, despite the fact that you want it to be done by government. If you feel violated, there is nothing stopping you from practicing civil disobedience and refusing to pay your taxes on moral grounds -- like not believing in making sure children and elderly don't starve or have to eat dog food to avoid it. How moral. Then there's always the option of finding another country that shares your beliefs and charges no taxes at all which are then used for the public good. Good luck with that. by
JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments)
on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 at 8:21:26 PM
Kitty, you don't like your taxes going to help others in this case children. You can call me a commie pinko if you want, but I really don't mind contributing to the welfare, safety, health care and education of all children. They are our future and it is everyone's best interest that they be cared for, if not by their parents, then by others. Children don't choose their parents. Where is your compassion? Do you think children 1 year and older should pull up their pampers or pink booties or tighten their sneakers and just get with the program? We are talking about children. They don't have jobs! Not long ago a regular OEN contributor posted her experience of growing up with a mentally ill parent. She was mentally and physically abused until she ran away, and still a child, she continued to suffer on the streets because there was no "safe haven," no hot line to call where she could go and get help from people who would care. Lots of us do care but it's people like you who continue to blame the victim without once seeing that you have benefitted countless ways by the acts of strangers. I really resent the "forced charity" you exact from me when you drive on the roads I have paid for, attend the schools I have built, and use the water that is delivered to your home. If you agree not to use anything that I have provided to you I will excuse you from helping American children. by
Kathlyn Stone (42 articles, 227 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 665 comments)
on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 at 10:25:08 PM
Retired. Male. Western Minnesota. Social Science/Spanish undergrad majors. Master's in Counseling. Socialist.
Nebraska safe haven law. Over the past two centuries the government's main function has been to funnel Americas advantages of natural resources and labor to the powerful and wealthy by way of the representatives they sponsor to go to Washington. The elite benefit from tremendous government largesse but we must not dare to hint that the poor or downtrodden should share in any crumb of help. I know that is the way it is in America and that is what I despise about it the most. Nebraska will probably decide that they only want to do their "safe haven" law on the cheap and limit help to infants only. The rest of them can crawl around and fend for themselves. It reminds me of the wealthy in Chicago during the Great Depression who thought it would be okay for poor people to dig in resraurant garbage cans for something to eat but that they should also pay a fee for the privilege. Only in America. My only hope is that this time when the economy continues its crash to a prolonged depression so that millions of people lose their houses, jobs, cars, and all the other trash they worship, there will be no Franklin Delano Roosevelt to save them from Socialism. Maybe then we can get universal health care and the railroads will transport people again. by
Bryan Emmel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 226 comments)
on Wednesday, October 1, 2008 at 12:45:55 AM
Well said. Soon they won't be able to borrow any more foreign money to fund their sick wars. Wars, the economy and our common quality of life are inextricably bound together. by
Kathlyn Stone (42 articles, 227 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 665 comments)
on Wednesday, October 1, 2008 at 9:25:23 AM
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
