As It Is

I'm a wimp.  I'm not a wimp because of any sort of physical reason ... i'm bigger than most guys, i can lift heavy things, and do most of the things my non-wimp friends can do. 
I'm a wimp by choice.  I wear my seatbelt, i wear my helmet when on a motorcycle, a bike, in a construction area, or while attempting to snowboard.  I drive my car kind of fast, but not dangerously.

I've got a friend who is a health nut.  he tries to live the word of wisdom beyond what most do ... eats natural foods, very little meat, hardly any sugar, grinds his own bread, juices.  Like me, he used to smoke.  The thing that bothers me - and this isn't a judgement against him as much as a defense for myself - is that he rides his motorcycles fast and helmet-less.  He's got my kid convinced that helmets are unneccesary.  I try to teach my kid the importance of helmets, and my wife glares at me, as if i'm being too strict.

here's how my thinking is:

We are bound to observe any commandments we are aware of.  Our Father in Heaven is not going to judge harshly those who lived on some remote island somewhere and never learned all the commandments.  he's not going to judge some nice little old lady on the outskirts of town for drinking coffee if she never knew of the commandment not to.  that's just how it is ... He is a JUST God, and will judge us all JUSTLY.  In order for that justice to be perfect, however, He has to judge us according to the laws we are aware of.  If we're aware that we should not do ____ and ____ on the sabbath, we're judged when we break those commandments.  It's fair.  It's Just. :)

The "Word of Wisdom" tells us some things we should avoid - for our tempooral as well as spiritual well being - as well as some things we should partake of.  We know we shouldn't drink coffee or "strong drinks', that we shouldn't use tobacco for any reason at all, and that we should eat meat sparingly. we also know we should get a lot of sleep and eat grains. 

It doesn't tell us specifically that we shouldn't drink Coke or Red Bull or that fish is healthier than goat.  It doesn't tell us not to ride fast or live dangerously.

Still, by natural extension, we can determine that some things probably aren't good for us.  maybe there is some gray area because certain things aren't as harmful for one person as they are for another.  I know, for me, that caffeine is bad, and all stimulants are bad, and that i should only take medicine or supplements under a physician's counsel, and that i should do my best to avoid certain kinds of food as well as certain habit-forming activities.  I don't play video games, for example, and i don't go to clubs anymore. 

I am cautious.  I am not living in constant fear (despite the accusations made of me) ... but i learn ALL i can about the world, and some things are concerns for me.  I don't like to walk under construction cranes, for example.  i don't like to fly.  those things are not unique to me, they don't indicate i'm strange. 
Like i mentioned before, i wear appropriate safety equipment for the activity i am participating in.  Do i live in constant dread of getting a head injury? no.  Honestly, half the time i only wear my helmet because the kids are watching ... but i am conscious of it.  Years of being belted in while riding and driving in a car makes me notice when i haven;t snapped the seatbelt in place. is this a mark of obsessivbe-compulsive disorder/ no. it's just a good habit i developed. 

The motorcycle thing works like this for me:

If we are living righteously, God will protect us from physical harm unless he has something else in mind for us.  When it's our time to go, it's our time - nothing more needs to be discussed on that.
However ...
If we are commanded not to use alcohol, tobacco or caffeine ... and we're commanded not to get piercings or tattooes because our bodies are gifts from our creator ... some other things stand to reason:
- we probably shouldn't partake of other substances that affect our bodies in strange (unnatural, un-needed) ways or form habits.  Mushrooms, for example, or smoking weed.  Powders. none of those things are mentioned in the WoW, but they're most likely included in the "no" list. 
- if tattooes and piercings are bad, i'd imagine collagen implants or tummy-tucks are too.  and artificial or intentional tans, hair dyes, breast implants and some types of dental work.  yes, we should make the best of what we have, but does that mean we should change it or adorn it to satisfy some kind of worldly requirement for attention?
- if we're to take care of our bodies, what is the difference between lighting a cigarette or driving as fast as you can without a helmet?  both only satisfy some need of the flesh, both can be addictive to some people, both carry a potential for death.  when i'm driving fast in my car, i'm not doing it for a thrill ... i'm doing it so i can get to point B quickly, because i have much work to do while i am still on this earth.  i imagine, then, if i am doing my best to follow the laws, be safe, be engaged in a good cause ... i am probably under some sort of protection, because the Lord giveth no commandment save he also prepare a way for us to achieve that which he hath commanded ... (or whatever the right words are). If i were just driving around like a maniac because it is fun, i am engaged in no good cause, except for indulging in a thrill (a thing of the flesh), and if i own a helmet, and there is a law that i should be wearing a helmet, but i am not ... i am breaking a law of the land AND not doing my part to keep myself safe.  Will the Lord send angels to watch over me? i guess that's up to him, but i would suspect that if i am disobeying several commandments so i can go get a physical thrill, there are probably some natural consequences of my actions.

My friend is a good person.  he attends the temple more regularly than i, and he probably treats his wife and children better than i do.  like i said, this wasn't a judgement of him, but a justification or defense of me.  it hurts me when i'm teased (or, in the case of my wife, glared at) because i'm not as skilled at fruitless activities, breaking the law, or causing contention.  i don't need those things any more than i need immorality or hatred or ignorance.

nothing i do ... (or mostly nothing i do) is without purpose.  i try to ALWAYS be learning or creating.  the books i read give me very real knowledge.  they don't build 'creativity' because i don't need more of that.  i don't read fiction most of the time because i don't need to read a story of a character who does some everyday thing, or who does some extrodinary thing, or who does some fantastic and unreal thing.  while someone who was not in authority to speak such things "officially" once said something about learning from fiction, i see a likeness in something a general authority of the church said about joining fraternal organizations: why join some other organization to learn some man-made mysteries and pay dues when you could pay tithing and attend the temple to learn useful things pertaining to your eternal salvation?
i think the same goes for fiction.  all aspects of humanity that we NEED to know about are in the scriptures.  the scriptures put all aspects of humanity in their rightful place: sin is sin, faith is true faith, good is good, etc.  fiction, on the other hand, is "wisdom" made by man.  while some fiction can be inspired or inspiring, it's a little more thorny to wade around through the brambles of the man-made world trying to pick those few small fruits.  a more efficient way of living this mortal probation would be to avoid those things, and read instead the striptures and other writings that we know already are uplifting and inspired.  It is a waste of time to read 200 pages of a book that is filled with lies or half-truths or immorality, just to look for a few small grains of 'good", and you never know you'll be wasting that time until you finish the book.  While it is true that not all nonfiction is uplifting or 'good', or even true for that matter, it is less likely that a book on cooking or on hiking or on gardening or history is going to contain content as useful or damaging as most contemporary fiction. 

why bother with something that is likely to send you off track?

anyway, as i was saying, everything i do has some purpose.  it might be to further my knowledge on a particular subject, it might be to build a tradition for my children, it might be to teach a family member, or to make my living space more inviting for good to come in ...
but i have few enjoyments that are "just for fun", and i know that is what i need to do with my life. 

The Supreme Court is ruling against the 4th Amendment (right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure). I think it's a set-up to prepare for them shooting down the second amendment, repealing the Tiahrt amendment, and seizing our guns.

I've been offline a few days, and i'm sure there is other terrible news, but it's late and i need to get some sleep.

The thought occurred to me over the weekend ... that the progressives/liberals/democrats/socialists had a huge upper hand in the recent election, largely due to unprecedented "grassroots' support. their idealogy was so appealing that people were flinging money and man-hours at them left and right (or 'left and left-er). This manipulation of the people brought in more than six times the cash the opposing party received from the traditional source, blah blah blah. As shown recently, some even volunteered to stand outside polling places in military uniforms, weilding sticks, and intimidate the demographic that was allegedly less supportive of their man.

So if the general population can be brain-washed into supporting the PLSD party that way, couldn't they also be manipulated into serving as the fists of violence, oppression, censorship, intimidation, etc? During the election we saw hints of their evildoing ... the Seattle Stranger publishing photos and addresses of rival supporters in the area (families with pro-republican signs), providing easy targets for vandalism and other harassment (which happened routinely to republicans in the area during the 2004 elections). In Idaho, democrats "accidentally" published the name, home address and social security number of a rival politician in a widespread ad.
as twisted as this stuff is ... 'grassroots' groups are a boon for those they support. These groups tend to spread their message and support virally, the support is more emotional and more polarized (it 'gets under people's skin'), and if these 'unofficial' groups go too far, the politician and 'official' group can easily distance themselves (as we saw Obama do numerous times, distancing himself from his terrorist friends, from Jeremiah Wright, etc).

I've been offline for the past few days because our phone and internet service was deliberately cut. I can't suggest who did it, because really, i don't know. A couple days after our phone and internet service were sabotaged, someone did a 'drive-by paint-balling' and hit my wife's truck. Had they done that and hit my pregnant wife, our son or baby daughter, my first reactionary projectile may not have been paint.

Anyway, we've involved the local law enforcement, and both incidents have been documented through them and in private ...

But i still have to wonder what purpose someone has in tampering with our life.

Protest grows outside Wash. Capitol over atheist display

09:38 AM MST on Monday, December 8, 2008

By kgw.com Staff

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Hundreds of demonstrators rallied in front of the Washington state Capitol Sunday, outraged over an atheist display inside.
The display stands next to a nativity scene. It has a sign that says "there is no God" and that “religion is but a myth and superstition.”
Outside, the protest included an opposing sign that portrays Governor Christine Gregoire as the Grinch. It also shows a balloon featuring Bill O’Reilly punching the governor.
When asked what the poster was supposed to mean, the protester carrying it said Jesus Christ was “spiritually” knocking the sense of God into the governor.
The display inside the Capitol, which went up last Monday has sparked nationwide attention.
A spokesman at the Capitol said they were getting calls from across the country at a rate of about 200 an hour.
Many were upset the the governor allowed such a sign in the Capitol. But state officials said the group that sponsored the display went through the proper legal submission process, just like the group that sponsored the Nativity scene and holiday tree.
“We're not in a position where we're endorsing any point of view. We have to be careful not to do that,” said Jim Erskine, with the Washington State General Administration Office.
"It's not a religious display; it is an attack on religion,” Freedom From Religion co-president Dan Barker said. His group was behind the atheist display.
As news of the controversial display circulated across the U.S., conservative TV personality O'Reilly called the display "political correctness gone mad" and urged viewers to call Gov. Chris Gregoire's office to complain.
“Washington state is ground zero for just about every nutty secular cause on Earth,” O’Reilly said. “She is a weak and confused leader who allows a fanatical group parody in Christmas displays. I mean, how crazy is this?”
Gregoire and the state’s attorney general responded to criticism by citing the First Amendment and releasing this joint statement:
“Once government admits one religious display or viewpoint onto public property, it may not discriminate against the content of other displays, including the viewpoints of non-believers."

[source: http://www.ktvb.com/news/regional/stories/ktvbn-dec0808-atheist_protest.4225cd84.html]

-----

AGAIN ... a display of hate used to claim a desire for tolerance.  Having a 'christmas tree' or a 'nativity scene' does not parade around hateful feelings, regardless of how the godless want to twist it.  there is nothing offensive in these displays, just as there is nothing offensive in the displays of menorahs or persons observing ramadan. 
Unfortunately, however, the liberal haters - last month the gays, this month the athiests - are attacking people for their beliefs, rather than observing their own. If the christians (or whoever the group is) were to follow the lines of the athiests, instead of a christmas display, they would have put up giant banners that said something like "repent and believe in God, or you're going to hell!" or whatever ...

i am actually sad some of the protesters have resorted to stooping to the level of the bitter and selfish athiests ... because now neither has taken the high ground. 

i'm glad we don't live in that disgusting state anymore.  wow.  Gregoire is kind of an idiot ... pushing canned food taxes on the poor, whining about not being able to get into a bar because she forgot her ID, writing nasty form-letter emails back to people who wrote her about gay marriage in 2006 (or 2007?). i also don't like her because of her campaigns cheap "win" in 2004, in which they illegally used felon votes and kept 'finding' votes until she was elected (the mysterious 3rd recount had her winning, after two prior recounts did not).

for those persons who still don't believe athiesm is also an organized religion, check this out: ATHIESM IS AN ORGANIZED RELIGION

I don't think mixing political biases and religion equates to a merging of "Church and State" when discussed by private individuals, or groups of individuals who are not in a position of public office. The more i think about it, the athiest-enforced gag order on churches preaching their political beliefs from the pulpit is unfair and ridiculous ... after all, there are numerous other 'pulpits' from which political beliefs are preached: rock shows, hollywood, television, coffee houses, farmer's markets ... and if it really comes down to an issue of whether or not a non-profit should have any political affiliation, then we need to also address Planed Parenthood/Obama, ACORN/Obama, and the numerous other 'friendships' that have been made between politicians and non-profit organizations. The American Atheists themselves routinely endorse political views and politicians ...

Today in the news, there was an article that was something to the effect of "Catholics Told To Repent For Obama Vote". I clicked on it, expecting some official decree from the Pope, but it was a video clip, and i really don't like the bandwidth issues and the 'don't wake up the baby!' issues associated with video clips, so i bookmarked it, and vowed to view it later ... and did a search for "repent obama Vote".

One of the links that appeared was a blog by some girl who was LDS, and offended that most other LDS folks voted Republican.

I think a quick bit of history should be tossed in here ...

The LDS pioneers, or "mormons" as they were called, were persecuted heavily by Democrats, like Missouri Gov. Lilburn W. Boggs, who issued an execution order against the LDS church members in 1838, and President James Buchanan, a democrat who in 1857 sent the U.S. Army to Utah to attack the LDS Church members who had set up their own city and territorial government, and place a non "mormon" leader over the territory.  

In the 1960's, the southern Democrats were predominantly anti-black, frequently attacking Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and other prominent blacks. Even President JFK, hailed in history as 'pro-civil rights', and his brother, Attorney General RFK, authorized wiretaps on Dr. King's phone by the FBI in Dr. King's office and home, as well as phones in hotels he stayed in throughout the country.  The Democrats continued to spread rumors (communist, womanizer, etc) about Dr. MLK, jr. throughout his lifetime, and even after his death placed heavy opposition against Republican president Ronald Reagan when he made Dr. King's birthday a national holiday. 

Socially, the Democrats have supported abortion, homosexuality, atheist attacks on organized religion, forced 'contributions' to welfare, government systems that discourage traditional marriage (instead providing incentives to single parents), mandating 'sex education' and other social and scientific theories be taught to children (homosexuality, evolution) against the wishes of parents, and taking prayer out of schools.  Democrats are supported by numerous 'progressive' groups who aim to promote widespread introduction of anti-christian philosophies as well as legislation that will burden and weaken organized religion, while undermining the pillars of faith in God, integrity of the family structure, and self-reliance. 

That said, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does not tell or suggest to its members who they should vote for. Instead, the church urges all members (that are able) to do their civic duty and vote in elections.  The church urges its members to be 'subject to' governments in whatever land they dwell, and to 'uphold' the law in the lands in which they live.  The LDS church does not even have an 'official' position on abortion.  The church does urge members not to attack or harass those people who live a lifestyle different from ours, while at the same time recognizing the need for us to be able to live apart from those lifestyles we deem to be inappropriate as sons and daughters of God.

Why so lenient?  Because it is God's will that we learn to make the right choices, that we have the freedom to make choices - whether right or wrong - and that we understand we are accountable for those decisions we choose to make.

That said, we can easily suppose from passages in the Bible (and other scripture) what god would like us to do: 
"Thou shalt not kill, nor do anything like unto it."
"be fruitful and multiply"
"he that lieth with another, like unto a woman, the same is an abomination unto God"
"they that seek after strange flesh"
"lean unto their own understanding"
"put evil for good and good for evil"
"they that say 'why do you follow in the vain traditions of your fathers, for there is no god'."
"men will be lovers of their own selves, without natural affection"
"proud, blasphemers, despisers of those that are good"
... and many, many other things (i was quoting from memory, so some of the wording will be off, but not the meaning). 

We also know, because of our knowledge of God's plan, that we might be able to choose good or evil, that it is wrong to force someone to "do good" - whether by literal physical force, or by legislation, because to force someone to feed the sick, clothe the needy, go to church, etc ... we are robbing them of the exercise of free will, and being dragged through a process gives no understanding to the 'giver'/'doer', and they are no better off than before.  (i.e., you can't think that you will receive blessings for being forced to do something).  This seriously calls into question, then, the 'good' ideas of taxing people and 'spreading the wealth around' (because even though helping the poor is good, forcing people to help robs them of the opportunity to 'do good' under their own choice and means). 
In a similar vein, we are a people who know that one important trait to acquire on this earth is the ability and desire to work.   Sad as it may be, government 'welfare' programs are horribly inefficient compared to the church welfare programs.  The government programs lose a lot of money in having to pay their 'volunteers' and others who work in the programs, the the programs themselves are so heavily laden with legislative restrictions that those in need are given just enough to get by, and there are no realistic 'worker development' or 'job transitioning' programs available (or required).   This difference is why people who go through the church welfare program are eventually out working and supporting their families, while those who subsist on government welfare merely become addicts to the system. 

We believe in working for things, in earning things.  Not that a person can only 'earn their way into heaven' - we know there is still an element of grace - but we know from scripture after scripture that God requires some measure of effort from His people, whether it be building an ark, walking across a desert, putting mud on your eyes or bathing in a river.  We know that God holds individuals accountable for their actions and works, that we are judged as individual souls, and not as a nation or religion or lifestyle. A form of government that lowers the amount of work required to live muddies the ability of the individual, and fosters laziness.  A form of government that removes personal accountability in favor of group equality blurs the lines of laws and right or wrong. I would suppose, in this way, the gospel is a little closer to Capitalism than Socialism.

Those of my faith who consider themselves 'democrat' go on and on at length about how they feel 'persecuted' by 'holier than thou' members who have differing views.  I would be target of this same accusation because i am opposing that way of thought.  It is important to point out, however, that going on at length about "members who call my righteousness into question because of my political views" or "they're only voting republican because their grandparents did. no one even looks at the issues anymore" are strikingly similar to the arguments made by persons who oppose religion in general ... "they all think they have the right answer, and they judge me" and "they're all a bunch of lemmings, blindly following the traditions of their fathers". 

I've had friends in the past who were so wrapped up in their political view, and perhaps in the friction it caused, that they felt it ok to miss church when their candidate was in town, or when there was going to be an 'important protest'.  I personally don't know of anything that makes it worthwhile to put aside the commandment to 'keep the sabbath day holy', and as fun as protests are, i can't help but always hear a scripture in my head: "contention is not of me, but is of the devil".

in the last two elections, which party was, by far, best represented in the numerous protests that erupted? which party was involved in the most vandalism, arson, assembling without a permit, and hateful chanting? the followers engage heavily in contentious assembly, attacks, rioting, websites, and other forms of ungodly force to accomplish their tasks and 'get their point across'.  if such contentious acts are 'of the devil', why would one want to associate with them? for all the attacks Bush got for 'with us or against us', the bible itself frequently says the same thing. 

When faced with the reality that they are supporting a part who supports abortion, inevitably the arguments also surface "_____ can't really change the stance on abortion anyway, so it's not really an issue" or "well, that's one bad thing, but think of all the good that will be done to the environment and healthcare and the war ...".  I don't know where to start with those arguments ... other than going on about 'complacency' and 'leaning unto their own understanding instead of God' ...
i've already addressed the dangers in socialism (eliminating personal accountability and decision), but what about the war?  we know from scripture that most other Christian churches ignore, that there are two major reasons to go to war:
1) to defend your family, your faith, your liberty.
2) to defend another who is unable to defend themselves against tyranny or another nation.
it is the same decision outlined by the 2000 stripling warriors, by the doctrine of baptism for the dead, and by the atonement of Jesus Christ himself ('dying for our sins').  It is our duty to choose to work on behalf of others.

But what about the environment? 
it is true that we should be good stewards of the earth.  God gave us this earth, and all the plants and animals thereon, for our use.  we know that all things have some measure of intelligence.  we also know that only mankind has the added option of decision between right and wrong.  i don;'t remember where i heard it, but i once heard something along the lines of "animals and plants know their duty and place, and all are incapable of denying the savior, and are not given the same level of agency as man".  should we run around killing them, then?  no. God also wants us to avoid meat when possible, "except in times of cold or famine". 
we know also, that before the coming of Christ, much of the earth will 'burn', and after the coming of Christ, the earth will be 'renewed to its paradisiacal glory'.  Look at patterns of 'global warming'.  i heard last night that in a heatwave in europe a couple years back, over 20,000 people died of the heat.  i've seen reports on the increasing ice in glaciers in some parts of the world, while in others the same are retreating.  parts of scorched africa are beginning to receive moisture, and new plants are appearing in the far north, in areas that rarely had much snow-free time in the past.
No person, no group of people know what is best for the earth.  many times in the past we've been wrong about things we thought were 'right' and 'wrong'.  I don't think we should live carelessly and wastefully, but i also do not think governments should legislate 'right and wrong' living ... and more particularly, i don't think, in choosing a candidate, 'environment' trumps 'abortion'. 

Still, we all have the responsibility to vote according to our conscience.  I would urge people, however, to not view this freedom as "there is no right or wrong answer", because there is always a 'right' and a 'wrong'.  remember, that it is not good that "man should be commanded in all things". 

I would also remind people that we live in a time where we, being disgusted that people once sacrificed their children to Molech, seem to remain unaware that each year we sacrifice 40 million babies for lesser comforts and lifestyles. Our society has become far worse than Sodom and Gomorrah, and voting for a person or thing that includes parts that are contrary to God is not in the best interest of the preservation of our society!

I think the so-called "Safe Haven" or "Baby Moses" laws, while on the surface seem to be a good thing (in supposedly lowering abortion and neglect rates), are actually a bad thing, encouraging parents to 'give up' on raising their kids.

First of all, I'm not really sure how it discourages abortion, because (as far as i'm aware) women who commit abortion are those who don't want to be pregnant or mothers.

If a 'safe haven' law was a fix for abortion, we'd see two things: a drop in the abortion rate in areas that had such a law, and a high rate of adoptions in areas that don't have such a law. We have neither.

As far as neglecting or killing children, such cases are (fortunately) low, and most instances of a parent killing children are not related to 'not being able to care for them anymore' as much as from mental illness or revenge against the other parent (which is premeditated evil, and not worthy of the protection designated under the 'illness' definitions).

What we are seeing ... especially in Nebraska, where the 'Safe Haven' law was written to cover all children under the age of 18 ... is an abuse of the law. Parents from around the country are flocking to Nebraska to dump off their kids. 

This does not support the abortion argument at all.  It does, however, point to a further collapse of society by way of attack on the family:  Parents have "evolved" from neglecting their children to friends, video games, day care and drugs, and are now throwing them away. 

Look at the case of the 17-year old girl who ran off when she realized her mother was taking her to a Nebraska hospital to drop her off under the states "Safe Haven Law".  The mother also dropped off her 14 year old son. 

I hope you have no pity for these parents.  These aren't teenage moms dropping off their babies because they can't find an orphanage.  These aren't elderly grandparents dropping off a severely disabled teenager.  These are worldly, selfish parents who probably would have chosen abortion if they could do it all over again, abusing their children in the WORST way possible:  showing them they are considered worthless.

Just knowing that a 17 year old girl ran away when she saw what was about to happen really hurts me.  The girl was obviously 'normal' because she knew what was going to happen, and the mother was obviously being sneaky about the whole thing because the kids didn't know until she pulled up to the hospital.  What could have happened if the mother spent as much time planning and scheming on ways to surprise her children with love rather than abandonment?

I feel an aching in my soul when i think of what fate awaits the 'parents' who were successful in abandoning their kids.  Is God going to say "I don't know you ... you're too unruly" and kick them out of his kingdom to be left in some sort of hospital of outer darkness?

SAFE HAVEN LAWS ARE NO SOLUTION, and are a symptom of the greater problem in our society - 'well meaning' people who lean unto their own understanding (not seeking wisdom from God) and create laws forcing everyone else to comply with their personal concept of 'what is right', with no regard for the consequences.  This is the kind of thing that happens when we give up on the unit of 'family' and start trying to invent our own social units, and when those fail, we put the burden on government - the very entity that should NOT have that kind of power or influence that reaches so far into our lives.

The (Nebraska) Department of Health and Human Services found (in a study of 30 of the 34 latest safe haven cases):
* 27 children had received mental health treatment
* 28 came from a single parent home
* 22 had a parent with a history of prior incarceration
* 20 of the 30 children are White, 8 are Black, 2 are Other.

The state also has 6,600 children in state custody, a per-capita figure ranking as one of the highest in the country (according to the report)

Sources:
Aunt Drops Off 15 Year Old Under safe haven law - law intended for infants, first time a teenager abandoned under the law.
14 Year Old girl from Iowa Abandoned In Nebraska - the first time a parent from out of state abused the nebraska law.
Father Abandons Nine Children Under Nebraska Safe Haven Law - wife died 17 months ago
Girl Runs During Safe Haven Attempt - 17 year old girl bolts after realising why her mother pulled up to a hospital. her 14-year old brother now in state custody.
Nebraska Rushes To Change Safe haven law, Fears "Rush" As Parents Try To Abandon kids before law passes
Safe haven law on Wikipedia - a general overview
Other Links:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/08/nebraska.safe.haven/index.html