Wednesday, December 01, 2021


At National Review, Alexandra DeSanctis argues that sweet Amy Coney Barrett has been viciously libeled:
The Daily Beast Smears Justice Barrett

Reporting on today’s Supreme Court oral arguments in Dobbs, the Daily Beast asserts that Justice Amy Coney Barrett had “indicated she might not be inclined to protect a woman’s right to an abortion, suggesting it wasn’t necessary thanks to the option to give a child up for adoption.” (The headline of the piece is, incidentally, “Amy Coney Barrett Suggests Forced Pregnancy Is Fine Because of Adoption.”)

No such thing happened.
So the Daily Beast was wrong to suggest that Justice Barrett said adoption makes abortion bans okay? So what exactly did she say?
The exchange in question took place near the end of argument, when U.S. solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing against Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban, was taking questions from the justices.

Barrett raised a question ... about safe-haven laws, which shield women from prosecution if they surrender an unwanted child to a safe haven.

... If the aim of abortion supporters is to enable women to choose not to be a parent, why are safe-haven laws not good enough? Why must the government also sanction abortion?
Oh, okay -- Barrett didn't say the availability of adoption makes abortion bans cool -- she said abortion bans are cool because all fifty states allow you to leave your baby in a chute, or make other similar accommodations for it:

As a USA Today story explained in 2019:
Every state has a Safe Haven law, which means there are ways for a person to safely relinquish a unharmed newborn baby without any risk of persecution....

While Safe Haven laws generally allow parents to remain anonymous, meaning some states won't compel them to reveal their identity, it's still not completely anonymous.

"The law has been around for 20 years and says that you can walk into any hospital and surrender your baby anonymously no questions asked, that’s not accurate," said Monica Kelsey, founder of Safe Haven Baby Boxes and an abandoned child herself....

Kelsey cited two cases in Bowling Green, Ky. and Lake Charles, Las where two moms went to a fire station and a hospital, respectively, and left their kids right outside. She said this was most likely due to the fact that the parents didn't want to have to interact with anyone. Despite how close you get to the relinquishing station, if you don't hand your baby over to a person, it's considered abandonment, Kelsey said....

To combat the anonymity problem, Kelsey came up with the idea for Safe Haven Baby Boxes which provide 100% anonymity.

The boxes, typically installed at a fire station or hospital, are devices people can use to surrender their babies. Once they open the box, it triggers an alarm alerting personnel that a baby needs to be picked up. The box has cooling and heating features to keep the child safe until someone arrives within less than three minutes.

She added that there are no cameras around the box, so there's no fear of being recorded.
That certainly doesn't sound traumatic! Hey, if that's available, why are we being such Gloomy Gusses about the near-inevitable loss of legalized abortion in half the country?

Presumably these babies are subsequently adopted -- we hope! But it's a vicious attack on Barrett to say she meant baby adoptions when she really meant baby chutes.

No comments: