JUNEAU — The Alaska Senate passed a bill that would allow parents to surrender infants in safety devices, or “baby boxes.”

The measure passed 18-2 on March 31, with supporters saying the bill could save lives while critics say it would leave adoptees without knowledge of their background, among other concerns.

As of 2008, under Alaska law, a parent is able to turn over an infant under 21 days old to a doctor, nurse, firefighter or peace officer without being prosecuted.

The bill — introduced by Republican Sen. Robert Myers of North Pole — would also allow for a parent to surrender an infant into a baby box, installed at facilities like fire departments and hospitals, without being prosecuted.

Since 2013, three Alaska infants have been abandoned, according to Myers. One in Fairbanks was found alive in 2021, despite subzero temperatures. One in Eagle River died in 2013, and another in Anchorage died in 2024, about a block from a fire station.

The idea behind the boxes is that they allow for anonymity, as shame and fear can be barriers to surrendering a baby directly to a person, Myers said.

Manufacturers design the devices to be installed into the exterior wall of a facility. The boxes are temperature-controlled and have a livestream camera on the inside. When a baby is closed inside, the outside door automatically locks. Opening the boxes also triggers an alarm — with a slight delay to allow for the parent to leave anonymously — after which a responder can retrieve the baby from an inside door.

Adoptee advocacy groups from the Lower 48 opposed the devices in written testimony about the bill, saying they are a “gimmick” solution to the broader societal issues that lead to a person surrendering an infant. Stop Safe Haven Baby Boxes Now and Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization wrote that the devices represent relinquishment practices that are “rooted in shame and secrecy,” and “create a population of adopted people who have no birth records, identity, or history.”

Sen. Löki Tobin, an Anchorage Democrat, cast one of two no votes on the bill in the Senate. The other no vote was from Sitka Republican Sen. Bert Stedman, who declined to comment on why he voted no.

Tobin said that although she agrees with the underlying premise, she cited a series of concerns about the boxes, including that a lack of person-to-person interaction takes away informed consent and could lead to increased coercion in the surrender of infants, and that could leave the non-surrendering parent without a say.

When an infant is surrendered to a nurse, for example, that nurse must advise the parent that they may, but are not required to, provide the infant’s or parents’ names and medical history.

After an infant is surrendered, the child goes to the custody of the state Office of Children’s Services.

Infants are then placed in OCS custody, which conducts a “diligent search” for relatives, including contacting tribal and community partners, according to the Alaska Department of Family and Community Services.

That process would still apply to a baby surrendered in a baby box, said Carla Erickson, chief assistant attorney general for child protection in the state Department of Law, at a committee meeting in February 2025.

Erickson said that in her experience, OCS had never begun a case where the child’s surrender was completely anonymous.

During the Senate floor debate ahead of the vote on March 31, Tobin said the boxes could leave OCS guessing whether the infant is a tribal member. That, Tobin said, could open up the possibility of violations of the Indian Child Welfare Act, which requires the state to try to place Native children up for adoption within their tribe.

“It is our responsibility to pass law rooted in sound public policy supported by evidence. Baby boxes are not that,” Tobin said.

Myers responded saying that the same documents used to request health and family information at in-person surrenders would be available in the baby boxes.

He also said questions of identity are secondary to ensuring the child is safe.

“It’s tough to find out what your heritage is when you’re not alive,” Myers said.

Safe Haven Baby Box Inc., the primary infant surrender device manufacturer in the U.S., has contracted installation for over 400 baby boxes across the Lower 48, according to its website. Time magazine reported last year that about 62 babies had been left in boxes since the nonprofit’s founding in 2016, according to its founder, Monica Kelsey.

The bill does not require the state to install or pay for baby boxes, so installation would come at the expense of facilities themselves.

The state Department of Public Safety estimates that each box would cost $16,000, excluding installation. A Fairbanks City Council member said at a February 2025 committee hearing that he estimates a baby box would cost about $22,000 for his community.

Doug Schrage, fire chief at the Anchorage Fire Department, said at the same hearing that members of AFD have consulted with Safe Haven Baby Boxes Inc. and led fundraising efforts to raise enough for a baby box in Anchorage.

Christian and anti-abortion organizations have also said they plan to fundraise to install the boxes, as well.

Pamela Samash of Nenana, and a member of Interior Right to Life, said at a committee meeting for the bill last session that the organization is “just waiting” to do a fundraiser for this cause.

The bill now heads to the House for committee hearings.

Imagine receiving a call from a law enforcement agency, state or federal court or some other “official” government entity saying you have an outstanding fine, fee or warrant. Pay it immediately or you’re going to jail. The phone number matches that of the identified agency, thanks to AI, and you’re directed to a nearby “Bitcoin ATM” to send cash.

This isn’t hypothetical. This happens to dozens of Alaskans every day. In 2024, Alaskans lost more than $26 million to online fraud, with seniors bearing a third of those losses. These cryptocurrency kiosks have become a preferred tool for criminals because they offer instant, irreversible and often anonymous transactions.

Unlike traditional banks, these kiosks currently operate in a regulatory “black hole.” Scammers exploit this by using high-pressure tactics to force victims into making untraceable transfers. To protect our most vulnerable residents, I introduced Senate Bill 249. This legislation creates a necessary shield for Alaskans by requiring:

• Clear warnings: Operators must post conspicuous notices warning users about common scams.

• Identity verification: Requiring a government-issued ID creates a vital “speed bump” to break the spell of a high-pressure scam.

• Blocking fraud: Operators must use analytics to block transactions to known illicit or overseas criminal wallets.

• Fee and transaction limits: There are limits on fees for using the machines, but more importantly there are daily and monthly transaction limits to minimize the financial damage from these scams.

Our seniors spent decades building their life savings. They deserve the same financial “guardrails” in the digital age that we expect in every other sector. SB 249 doesn’t ban technology; it simply brings it out of the shadows. It is time to provide our seniors with the protection they’ve earned and stop digital predators from draining Alaskan bank accounts.

Sen. Cathy Tilton represents Senate District M in the Alaska State Senate. Senate District M is composed of House districts 25 and 26 in the Mat-Su. Sen. Tilton is a former speaker of the Alaska House.

• • •

The Anchorage Daily News welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.

In 1867, Russia’s decision to sell Alaska to America turned out to be a historic mistake that was to go unnoticed for years to come. The sum paid by the US was only $7,200,000. Although, in the light of the circumstances at the time, it appeared logical, retrospectively, the act looks extremely shortsighted. Russia found itself economically constrained, geographically far away from the region and fearful of its falling into the hands of the British without any compensation. In reality, however, the region had proved immensely valuable both strategically and naturally.

Why Russia agreed to the Alaska purchase

The choice of selling Alaska was based on economic and political reasons. By the middle of the 19th century, the Russian Empire experienced financial difficulties as a result of the expensive Crimean War. It had become increasingly hard for the country to manage such remote and thinly populated areas as Alaska.According to EBSCO, “the Russian-American Company was in decline, and the colony failed to yield any profit”. In addition to this, the lucrative fur trade had declined, making the territory much less economically valuable for the empire.At the same time, Russia was afraid that Britain might capture Alaska in case another war broke out between the two countries. Selling the colony to the friendly United States appeared as a logical step. As the Office of the Historian states, William H. Seward, U.S. Secretary of State, “it was a chance to expand its influence in North America and hinder further growth of Britain”.For Russia, the transaction was a chance to minimise the losses. However, it greatly undervalued the potential of Alaska.

The hidden wealth Russia gave away

Another thing that Russia did not expect was the amount of riches that Alaska possessed. Within several decades after the acquisition, the state saw discoveries of enormous deposits of gold, oil, and other minerals.“Alaska has produced more than 40 million ounces of gold,” according to the US Geological Survey. Furthermore, Alaska is home to some of the world’s most significant undeveloped mineral deposits, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). But even more importantly, the state’s oil deposits turned out to be extremely valuable. The Prudhoe Bay oil field was discovered in 1968 and became one of North America’s biggest.In retrospect, the amount paid by the Americans, $7.2 million, or two cents per acre, was rather laughable. According to Howard I. Kushner, the deal “robbed Russia of an enormously rich territory, the true value of which would only be recognised in the twentieth century.”

Strategic and geopolitical consequences

In addition to resources, there is the question of strategy and how important Alaska is to the United States from a strategic standpoint. This is a very good place when it comes to defence strategy. It borders on the Arctic Ocean and also happens to be close to Russia.During the period of the Cold War, the Alaskan region became a frontier area for the United States, becoming home to military facilities and warning systems.According to Col. Michael J. Forsyth, U.S. Army, the closeness of Russia and Alaska, only about ninety kilometres apart across the Bering Strait, meant that this region became highly significant to the United States’ defence plans.From today’s point of view, the strategic location of Alaska makes the state very important to the policies of the U.S. related to the Arctic, energy security, and even environmental policies.Thinking back, what seems clear to us now is that the Russians sold Alaska due to immediate needs rather than future considerations. In order to solve the problem, they lost a valuable resource for Russia.Conclusively, the Alaska Purchase should not have been done as it has had a significant impact that will remain throughout history.