Sentinel & Enterprise

‘Baby Boxes’ aren’t a solution to Roe’s repeal

-

There was a time when U.S. parents who abandoned their children were a rarity and fit a narrow profile. Due to overwhelmi­ng cultural or social pressures, their unplanned pregnancy put them at significan­t risk, so they felt they had no choice but to hide the pregnancy, give birth alone and abandon the infant.

Now, due to the rollback of Roe v. Wade amid limited access to contracept­ion, the profile of at-risk parents is much broader. People facing these circumstan­ces are no longer extreme outliers but are more likely to fit the profile of an average person of reproducti­ve age from any state where abortion is now illegal or highly restricted.

The legal landscape is shifting in alarming ways — which traumatize­s birth parents and children alike through unwanted births, while feeding a profitable adoption system.

Privately funded “baby boxes” — modern versions of medieval abandonmen­t wheels — are being installed in so many locations that they are quietly shaping a national infrastruc­ture. In turn, nine states have updated their safe haven laws to permit parents to use them, and an additional nine states are proposing similar changes this legislativ­e season.

What’s wrong with baby boxes? First, their scaled-up use is a sign that people are increasing­ly forced into pregnancy and childbirth. Second, they’re an indicator of mistrust between communitie­s and state-sponsored services. Due to bias and social stigma, many people don’t feel safe going to alternativ­e surrender sites like hospitals, fire stations, paramedics or child services. Third, many parents are forced to abandon due to economic constraint­s — the current “baby box” system fast-tracks their children to pre-approved economical­ly secure families while the birth parent’s rights are rapidly terminated. Fourth, baby boxes show that while we care about the babies, we don’t extend care to birth parents or struggling families.

At $20,000 each, the 138 boxes across the United States have cost $2.76 million. Indiana alone has 92 boxes and they plan to install even more, having recently approved an additional $1 million in baby box funds. Nineteen percent of single mothers in Indiana live in poverty; many don’t have access to birth control or abortion; half of the pregnancie­s in the state are unwanted or unplanned; and there’s no access to anonymous birth.

These circumstan­ces are not accidental but are the result of intentiona­l laws and policies — and are reflective of parents’ circumstan­ces across the country. Baby box funds could have financed accessible birth control or childcare so the parents could keep their babies, find employment and become selfsuffic­ient.

The media is full of stories that celebrate parents who surrender children as being “heroic” and “selfless,” but none of the articles mention how horrific it is that the birth parent may be hemorrhagi­ng or suffering from a massive infection from having birthed alone, without access to medical care or trauma counseling. These women are not just incubators to complete other people’s families. And yet, because of the rollback of Roe, economists anticipate 50,000 additional unplanned or unwanted births annually. This means current U.S. laws are contributi­ng to tens of thousands of traumatize­d families.

Wemust find ways to increase reproducti­ve freedom, including fair access to contracept­ion and abortion. We should also offer anonymous birth so at-risk birth parents aren’t forced to place themselves and their infants in danger during delivery. Safe haven laws should be revamped to remove “gotcha” clauses that prosecute parents despite their untenable circumstan­ces.

Legislator­s must partner with local communitie­s to determine where parents feel safest if they had to abandon their child, then update the laws accordingl­y. This broken, judgmental system must be amended.

Lori Bruce is a bioethicis­t at Yale University. Views expressed are her own. This column was produced for Progressiv­e Perspectiv­es, which is run by The Progressiv­e magazine, and distribute­d by Tribune News Service.

 ?? ??
 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States