Some people would say that this shows a need for unrestricted access to abortion. I say it shows a need to stop the disconnect between sex and procreation (first), then make sure that young women know that there is somewhere to go if you don't follow God's plan and the natural consequences of sex happen to you. (In other words, you get pregnant.) There are plenty of resources that are available to this young woman, but in her desperation, she chose to kill her newborn.
What is interesting is that had she done so just an hour before the child was born, people wouldn't give it much thought, as it's her "right" to kill her unborn child. It's just not acceptable in "polite" society to do so after he's born.
Paul VI was right - there is a disconnect now between sex and it's procreative forces, at least in our minds, and this has cheapened the marital act. Because that is cheapened, the results are also cheapened. Children are seen as burdens that you only take on if you are "ready" to do so, or willing. And so they are expendable, too. If you don't want a baby, you just dispose of it. And if you can do so right up until delivery day, why does location make such a difference?
And if it makes a difference, then you must ask yourself why? Why is it okay if the baby hasn't been born, but not okay after passing through the birth canal? What magic happens that changes whether or not it's okay to kill that human being?