Safe Haven.

Once again I find myself here at home taking care of Baby E. It has been nearly a full week of diarrhea for the boy, and it's putting a fair amount of stress on our little family. Yesterday he visited the hospital again, and they suggested that his situation may be bacterial as well (or instead of) viral. They set up a diagnostic test of his stool to find out, so M. spent the bulk of the day back and forth between medical facilities. When she finally got to the front of the line of the testing center, she was told they would need a bigger sample. It would take about five grams (how much is that?) to get a proper reading. Babies don't poo in big chunks. Anyway, I tried to run it by after work, but they were already closed. Sometimes nothing comes easy.

So E. is taking a nap, and I'm thinking about a story I heard on the news the other day. Nebraska has approved a change to their "Safe Haven Law". I didn't know it, but it turns out that every state in our union has a similar provision on their books. Apparently if you have a kid, yet for one reason or another you can't (or won't) take care of him/her, you can drop your child off at a hospital without prosecution. I guess too many babies were ending up in dumpsters. What made the land of the Cornhusker different was the age limitation, or lack of it. Many states restrict a "parent" from passing off his/her responsibility once the tyke reaches a certain cutoff point. In 13 states, that threshold is thirty days.

For some reason there were no parameters in the Nebraska law. Last Friday the last unwanted offspring (14-years old) was left at a hospital, making him the 36th minor to be abandoned since the problematic law went into effect in July. Reportedly many of these individuals were preteens, and one was actually 17-years old. A majority was said to have serious psychiatric or behavioral problems. Occasionally, people were driving in from out-of-state to ditch their responsibilities. I find that particularly sad. Are people really so desperate in our modern age to free themselves of their burdens? Is our social support system so inadequate that this is the last resort?

Obviously this isn't an option anymore. It's likely that Nebraska will end up imposing a limit of thirty days after birth for its "Safe Haven Law". But it's also clear that the problem is not going away. Todd Landry (Nebraskan state bureaucrat) expressed the official position: "The role of the state’s child-welfare system is to protect children who are fundamentally unsafe." He made it quite clear where the authorities stand on the issue- for "safe" children,"it is not the role of government to intervene". Of course that statement evokes certain questions about how we organize our society. If people are reaching out for help by simply ditching their kids under circumstances where they won't be prosecuted, is the government acting in an invasive manner by lending a hand?

From my point of view, this unfortunate phenomenon should be a wake-up call. A large segment of the populace is adamant that human life begins at conception. "Pro-life" warriors insist that every "act of creation" must be allowed its opportunity to be born. Yet evidently society's responsibility ends once the new being exits the birth canal (or after some arbitrary period like 30 days). Under this perspective, mothers who get pregnant are left entirely to their own devices in providing for the children they bear... regardless of whether or not they truly wanted them in the first place. Perhaps the anti-abortion crowd needs to realize that not every soul is equipped for parenthood. If they are unable to face this simple reality, they should be prepared to step in and provide support for every child that is abandoned, no matter at what age.

The Questions Behind the Issues.

The more I talk to people of different political bents, the more I realize that the entire political dialog in this country is radically stilted. I'm not saying that folks understand how indirect their communication is, but rather that they inadvertently avoid any discussion of the underlying reasons for their beliefs. There is an entire substratum of assumptions that goes unacknowledged. I believe the reason for this is media manipulation. Our corporate "news" purveyors would much rather reinforce the wedge issues that keep our citizenry divided. These are "safe" subjects because there is a tacit agreement among all parties that they regard issues that will never be resolved. They keep everyone distracted.

I've noted a few examples of this in earlier posts. Republicans and Democrats fight over issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, and drilling in ANWR. The intention is to keep things as they are, in order to prevent any real challenges to the status quo. If the power brokers can keep us focused on issues of very little significance to them, then they can continue business-as-usual. Naturally that benefits those currently at the top of the heap. And don't get me wrong- 95% of us would act the same exact way if given the chance. Examine your own personal life... if things are going well, do you feel motivated to allow changes that would shake up your life? I can say that I feel no such compulsion.

Now then, if you don't like the way things are going, then you really have your work cut out for you. You have to cut through all of the bullshit just to communicate frankly with your fellow (wo)man. I'll give you an illustrative example using an aforementioned wedge issue- abortion. Say for argument's sake that you are against abortion. Why? Is it because your priest told you it was a sin? Do you believe that fetuses count as humans? And how does that affect your position on this issue? I think there's a deeper core to this question. It goes beyond queries of sin and soul. The elemental foundation of this political distraction is the belief that there is something inherently special about the species.

If you don't think that humans are "special" or "sacred", then why would you consider abortion wrong? Maybe you are of a religious faith that values all creatures equally. If that's the case, then forgive me, because you have a valid philosophical basis for your opinion. But likely you have formed your thoughts about abortion based upon the Christian principle that humans are meant to exercise their dominion over God's creation. And that somehow leads you to believe that a single human life is invaluable. The rational extension of this type of localized compassion should lead you to oppose the death penalty, war, and policies that privilege one segment of humanity over another. Be honest with yourself. Are you being consistent in your views, or are you a hypocrite like the rest of us?

Do you honestly believe that those who profess to oppose abortion are confronting the underlying premises of their positions? Or are they simply using this emotional issue for expediency and exploitation. I'd like to hear them say instead that all humanity is sacred. Because then we could really assess the integrity of their character. We could hold these coyotes responsible for their decisions. I understand that governance involves complexity and nuance, but I have no sympathy when a politician misleads the flock into thinking that he/she is the "Good Shepherd". I'll gladly embrace the flaws of a human being as long as he/she acknowledges them in him/herself. But the old smoke-and-mirrors trick has made me irredeemably cynical, and I would guess that a lot of others in this nation feel the same way.