It is estimated that, in the beginning of the 1990s, former Communist countries were caring for over half a million abandoned children. In Romania there was talk of nearly 100.000 children abandoned in the care of the state – this was the number of children officially registered by orphanages. In reality, their number was much higher.
Approximately 50.000 more children were not even being cared for by the state.
It is estimated that at the beginning of the ’90s ex-communist countries were caring for over half a million abandoned children. In Romania there was talk of nearly 100.000 children abandoned in the care of the state – this was the number of children officially registered by orphanages. In reality, their number was much bigger.
Other approximately 50.000 children were not even cared for by the state.
“Children of no one” were abandoned everywhere in the medical system. And it was not because they needed medical care, but because both the parents and the state, reluctant to care for them, were using hospitals as a convenient temporary solution for unwanted children. `Children of no one” were being abandoned everywhere in the medical system. The temporary solution would often last for years.
Despite joining the European Union and its reformation of the child protection system for which Romania was hailed as a champion among ex-Communist countries, the percentage of abandoned children in Romania has not changed significantly.
Today, every 20 hours a child is abandoned in a hospital in Romania. Does it sound like a lot? It is far better than 30 years ago, when every hour a child was abandoned in a pediatric or maternity ward. It only seems far better. But it is not. Because, when correlated with the dramatic decrease in the number of children in Romania (in only 25 years, the child population has diminished by 40%), these statistics actually show us that the rate of abandonment remains alarmingly high.
Nobody’s children were abandoned everywhere in the medical system. And that was not because they needed medical care, but because both the parents and the state reluctant to care for them were using hospitals as a handy temporary solution for unwanted children. Nobody’s children were being abandoned everywhere in the medical system. The temporary solution would often last for years.
Despite joining the European Union and its reformation of the child protection system for which Romania was hailed as a champion among ex-communist countries, the percentage of abandoned children in Romania did not change significantly.
Today, every 20 hours a child is being abandoned in a hospital in Romania. Does it seem a lot? It is a lot better than 30 years ago, when every hour a child was being abandoned in a pediatric or in a maternity ward. It just seems a lot better. But it is not. Because if correlated with the dramatic decrease of the number of children in Romania (in only 25 years the child population has diminished by 40%), these statistics actually show us that the rate of abandonment has actually stayed alarmingly high.
In October 1966, Ceaușescu signed the collective birth certificate of the “Decreeborn”, namely the children born following Decree 770, which outlawed abortion on request. The effect was a 400% increase in births. In the following two years, four times more children were born than in the previous corresponding period – 1,6 million. A misleading pro-natalist accomplishment. Shortly after, the birth rate diminished, only to return to the same numbers as in 1966, in 1983. The same could not be said of the rate of abandonment.
It was not only natality that increased after the decree, but also the abandonment of children in maternity wards and hospitals, which, far from fading out in the following years, as the birth rate dropped, shortly turned into a mass phenomenon that has been going on for years. This was done with the support of the system’s most reliable allies: the medical staff.
It was said that banning abortion was the source of this horror. Should only the decree be considered the reason of this phenomenon? Could a presidential decree in good faith entail monstruous mutations in the conscience of a nation? If we were to only account for the large numbers of parents abandoning their children, it would mean that all parents abandoning children would have resorted to abortion. Could we presume the reasons backing those two decisions to be that similar? Does abortion compare to abandoning a child? History proved the contrary. After the liberalisation of abortion, the rate of abandonment remained almost unchanged for 25 years.
In October 1966 Ceaușescu signs the collective birth certificate of the decree babies, namely the children born after the 770 decree through which abortion on request was prohibited. The effect was 400%. In the following two years 4 times more children were born. 1,6 million. A misleading pro-natalist accomplishment. Shortly after the birth rate diminished, only to reach the same numbers as in 1966 in 1983. Unlike the rate of abandonment.
It was not only natality that increased after the decree, but also the abandonment of children in maternity wards and hospitals, which, far from fading out in the following years, as the birth rate dropped, shortly turned into a mass phenomenon that has been going on for years. This was done with the most reliable allies of the system: the medical staff.
It was said that banning abortion was the source of this horror. Should only the decree be the reason of this phenomenon? Could a presidential decree in good faith entail monstruous mutations in the conscience of a nation? If we were to only account for the large numbers of parents abandoning their children, it would mean that all parents abandoning children would have resorted to abortion. Could we presume the reasons backing those two decisions to be that similar? Does abortion compare to abandoning a child? History proved not. After the liberalization of abortion, the rate of abandonment has remained almost unchanged for 25 years.