Updated, May 1
Massachusetts State Police and Cape and Islands District Attorney Robert J. Galibois are asking for the public’s help identifying the remains of what is now believed to be a newborn baby girl whose mother may live on, have ties to, or recently traveled to Martha’s Vineyard.
The remains were discovered Thursday, April 27, at a regional recycling facility called Zero Waste Solutions at 50 Cranberry Highway in Rochester.
“While there is no threat to the general public, the investigation to date suggests that the health and welfare of the mother may be at risk,” Galibois is quoted in a release issued Monday afternoon. “Identifying her as soon as possible is of paramount importance and urgency.”
State Police say in a statement that the baby was within a trash collection that appears to have originated from Martha’s Vineyard, and was shipped to that facility for disposal.
The Chief medical examiner’s office has begun postmortem examination.
Police issued a press release Saturday morning with no other details.
If you have any information that may assist investigators, you are urged to contact Massachusetts State Trooper Dustin Shaw at 508-790-5799.
Very poor headline.
Thanks for changing the headline.
Pretty sad story, whatever it may be.
I would guess that this kind of thing will happen more often in states that are banning abortion.
May God bless this poor child’s soul.
Unfortunately you don’t know what the reason for this choice. We don’t know if it was a miscarriage or what the situation was.
I remember some years ago that a baby was abandoned here on MV.
I feel bad for the female who felt that she was in a situation where this was her first choice. I hope she can get the help she needs. This is very sad.
I am sad for the baby also, again we do not yet know if it was a viable living breathing baby before disposal of it.
This is why we need to offer birth control and female health care services for all at all ages.
Let’s start helping females before they end up in a situation where they feel they are in a dire position and may make a forever choice.
Family Planning in my day was not evil but offered us the health care services that we needed as females and it gave us control over our bodies and future life choices.
One of my dear friends in school woke up to find that she had been raped at a party. The guy was zipping up her pants as she was waking up.
She did not want or ask for that.
Yes alcohol was involved but it doesn’t give anyone the right to take advantage.
Family Planning is not now, nor was it ever, “evil”. It has been stigmatized by extremists who want to inflict their will on women’s choices.
I’m sure a DNA test will narrow down the culprit.
Why is it ok to support abortion on demand up until the time of birth but not ok one day later when the baby is born. Or is it the disposal method which is alarming?
The difference is that babies breathe air.
Literally no one supports that unless the life of the mother is at risk. Stop spreading lies.
Look at the history of the pro choice movement and you will see lots of people supporting it.
Andy– please show us your version of history.
Not opinions from right wing “media” outlets please– actual facts.
Andrew Engelman, names please, lots of names.
No one is performing abortions “up until the time of birth”. Stop using hyperbole and lies to support your agenda.
andy–once again you are parroting radical right wing talking points.
No lawmaker advocates for such a policy. No state law allows for elective abortion on demand until the time of birth. You should know that.
There are rare situations that occur where a so-called late term abortion is necessary to save the life of the “birthing parent”. I do not think that medical professionals should have to stand by and watch a woman (or a man,if some insist ) die while attempting to give birth to a severely deformed fetus that will die within hours of birth.
Saving the life of the mother is the only reason that such a late procedure would occur.
The right wing media and “pro life” advocates have been using “late term abortion on demand” to whip their followers into a frenzy. and into something that some people actually believe is a reality.
I might as well sit here and say that all lasers should be banned because some people, including a twice elected member of congress, think that a Jewish billionaire uses lasers that are in orbit to set fires in the state of California as a false flag operation to make people think the climate is changing.
You can probably find a few left wing nut cases on the fringes who support elective abortion on demand up until the time of birth, but I can probably find more right wing nut cases that believe the lasers in space conspiracy.
Keller you are wrong once again. Liberals fought for years to get partial birth abortion and abortion on demand up until birth and there were laws that allowed it but got overturned 5 to 4 by the Supremes. Ginsburg voted for abortion on demand. Obama voted ”present” while in Illinois which means he wont decide. As for saving the life of a mother, the legislation was very vague and included emotional not physical issues. Doesnt matter now due to Roe being overturned. Posters here on this news article are showing hypocritical sentimentality over something most of them voted for as pro choice. I am glad you quote ”far left wing nut cases”—there are lots of them out there.
andy– please show us something to back up your assertation about liberals fighting for years for partial birth abortion ON DEMAND.
You can highlight something, hit “”ctrl” and the “c” key simultaneously to copy something– then you can hit “ctrl” and “P” simultaneously to paste it into text.
Like I am doing in reply to your over simplistic interpretation of Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion in Gonzales Vs Carhart and Planned parenthood – April 18 2007
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-apr-20-oe-sunstein20-story.html
Ginsburg took particular issue in her dissenting opinion that there were no medical exceptions—
“Ginsburg also took issue with the lack of a health exception, writing that “the absence of a health exception burdens all women for whom it is relevant—women who, in the judgment of their doctors, require an intact D&E because other procedures would place their health at risk.” In general, the dissent criticized the usurpation of medical decision-making by legislators and the minimization of “the reasoned medical judgments of highly trained doctors … as ‘preferences’ motivated by ‘mere convenience’.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart#:~:text=Carhart%2C%20550%20U.S.%20124%20(2007,Abortion%20Ban%20Act%20of%202003.
Abortion at the time of birth equals BIRTH. I do not know one single person who supports abortion “up until the time of birth” and I hang with a lot of super-lefty, liberal folks. Your hyperbole helps absolutely no one, especially in this extremely sad circumstance.
Honestly.
What is alarming is that a female felt that she was in a position where she could not reach out to ask for help and was in need of support. Again we don’t know the situation.
Teach your boys the word NO, respect and about birth control/condoms. Alcohol and sex are not a good combination.
“Abortion on demand until the time of birth” does not exist.
What does exist is difficulty accessing prenatal and postpartum care, and secure housing, food, and transportation. Another interesting fact – a leading cause of death for pregnant and postpartum women is homicide at the hands of their partners.
Further information is here: https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/advisory-committees/infant-mortality/meetings/violent-maternal-death.pdf
Agree, poor headline. My heart goes out to this woman. Most of us can only imagine her desperation and loneliness.
If anyone reading this knows her, she made need postpartum medical care, please urge her to seek care. Our island reproductive care professionals are compassionate.
I saw nothing wrong with the initial headline. It reflected the DA’s original request for info from the public.
Katie– perhaps you missed the original headline — something to the effect of “newborn or fetus’s remains tied to the vineyard.”
Nothing in that headline mentioned anything about the DA.
The headline on this story has changed a few times.
I appreciate that the Times editor accepted a critique and change it.
The original headline used the terminology from the DA’s first press release. Galibois’ office posted this on April 28th:
“Cape and Islands District Attorney Robert J. Galibois today seeks the public’s assistance in identifying the remains of a fetus or new born infant…”
Other outlets reporting on the story worded their headlines the same way. I see no issue with relaying what they had to go on at the time. As the investigation continued, the DA updated the press release to say that it was a newborn girl.
It’s the disposal of a baby like trash that deeply disturbs me. Not the use of “fetus” or any other term.
We have Baby Safe Haven laws that make it possible for a parent to drop off a newborn in the first week of life at a hospital, police or manned fire station with no repercussions. Unfortunately people may not know this because it’s not often publicized until there is a tragedy.
Some of these comments are confusing. If you’re carrying to term a baby who you are sure you won’t want to keep, perhaps you’d consider letting the baby be adopted. Or, at the very least, leaving the child at a police station or a fire station. We are not sure from what we have been told if this baby was full-term or born alive. How incredibly alone the mother of this baby must feel, in order to discard it. And yes, postpartum care needs to be given to the mother, on a number of levels.
A baby is never in a woman.
Babies breathe air.
Albert,
The WHO, among countless other science-oriented groups, disagrees. Women whose infants are stillborn, for starters, have indeed carried a baby. They’ve lost a baby, regardless of breath. It’s insulting to insist otherwise.
While some sites and medical professionals do employ “fetus”—often interchangeably—there is no biological case to be made against referring to this advanced stage of development as a baby.
That’s why major health organizations continue to use the term in the precise manner to which you object.
https://www.who.int/health-topics/stillbirth#tab=tab_1
https://www.marchofdimes.org/find-support/topics/miscarriage-loss-grief/stillbirth#:~:text=Stillbirth%20is%20when%20a%20baby,happen%20during%20labor%20and%20birth.
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/stillbirth/facts.html
Disclaimer: I am not implying that this specific case involves a stillborn infant. We don’t know those details yet. Just addressing the repeated assertion that the definition of “baby” somehow hinges on breathing outside of the womb. That is untrue within the American medical system.
Alot of other places to leave a baby… even one that is not alive…. but not the trash…. sorry, but its there’s no reason on Gods green earth to throw a baby (alive or dead) in the trash…. my opinion only….
There are some judgement laden even cruel comments in this thread. As a grief counselor who has spent years holding space for parents who experience the bottomless grief when an infant dies please take these words to heart – there is a girl or woman out there, who may be aware of these comments – she may be in need of medical care – and the tone/content of these comments matters. None of us knows her circumstances. But one thing is for sure. Judgement and cruelty doesn’t help anything in this case.
Mark Acker, the only culprit I see is the fools mostly men jumping to conclusions without any foreknowledge or after knowledge of any of the facts.
Carlos– I agree- the use of the word “culprit” is very judgemental and as Susan says, cruel.
My guess is that there are only victims here.
Run the baby’s DNA through any major database. This will identify relatives at a minimum. From there one can ask questions of the relatives and hopefully make the connection.
Comments are closed.