My sweet baby girl Luna was born at CBP at 37 weeks gestation, happy, healthy and full of life. It is ludicrous that one unfortunate death could take away all South Carolina women's rights to decide where they can have a SAFE, professionally assisted birth. Hospitals have a much higher infant/mother mortality rate than birth centers, so what gives? Are they going to shut down maternity wards in hospitals as well? Of course not! This just doesn't make any sense at all! Furthermore, and I know very well that there are MANY other women that are of similar thought, if there are not birth centers and homebirth midwives are not allowed to practice, there will be many more women inclined toward an unassisted birth at home. That is certainly not a safer option, but will become a reality. Just like women have the right to chose what kind of birth control they use (or do not use), women have the right to chose where they give birth and who attends. If this legislation goes through there will be a backlash unlike any other seen in South Carolina. Please,
kindly keep your laws off my body and my birth!
I am scheduled to have our first son at CBP in February. Having said that, all these regulations are doing are making pregnant women looking to have a better experience with their birth more stressed out that they should be. If they close, I will NOT be going to a hospital for my birth. I am low risk, and have no need for interventions that are pushed on you while at the hospital. This is going to make future mothers more "at risk" because some will just decide to have an unassisted birth. I can't believe they are trying to force hospital births on women instead of giving them a choice, but of course, it's not about the women, it's about the money.
Bureaucrats: let birth professionals do their jobs.
I find it mind-boggling that all birth centers in South Carolina are being condemned over one (incredibly sad and unfortunate) death when our hospitals lose many mothers and babies over the course of a year. Life has risk. Trained professionals can mitigate that. Certified nurse midwives *are* trained professionals. Please keep our options open.
CBP saved me from a Csection and tons of unnecessary stress that being in a hospital causes me. Yes it is sad that a woman at a different birth center in a different state suffered such sever complications that she lost her child. But how many times have issues like that happened in hospital????? FAR more frequently. I am currently expecting my second child through CBP and do not appreciate being dictated how I choose to birth. This is ridiculous.
I've birthed two wonderfully healthy babies at Charleston Birth Place. I was young when I became pregnant with my first (19) but CBP gave me confidence in a time when I had overwhelming doubt. Confidence in my body, in my birth and in myself as a mother. They encouraged me to do research and learn; to always question whether every action I took was in the best interest of me and my baby. Everything that I am as a mother has come together in major part because of the wonderful women at Charleston Birth Place. They can NOT close. It is NOT an option. We have to help keep them open and transforming women's lives. Charleston has too much to lose.
I had a wonderful, safe and happy birth at CBP and I plan on having another one there. Numerous studies have shown that birth center patients have similar or better outcomes compared to similarly healthy hospital patients. Birth centers need to stay open!
Paging Senator Kimpson...
Cid - Good point about article five, but as I stated, a Constitutional convention would play right into the hands of the progressives. Despite being less than 15% of the population, they control the narrative via the media & Hollywood. We wouldn't have these problems now if it were not for the progressives subverting the Constitution and activist judges.
Ned - Arricle Five is quite clear that a Constitutional Convention is one of the means to amend the Constitution.
If it happened, some "grand compromises" would have to be struck for it to be successful. I'm not sure we have the statesmen for that sort of thing anymore, though.
Cid - The Constitution gave the states sovereignty, but with limitations. The items you mentioned are abuses of the Constitution.
We don't need a Constitutional convention. The founders put in place a mechanism to change the Constitution. And that mechanism was intentionally made difficult so small constituencies couldn't make changes. Changes to the Constitution should only be made if the overwhelming majority of the country believes in that change.
Herein lies the fundamental problem in America today. Both parties have had presidents abuse executive power & privilege in an effort to circumvent the Constitution. But progressives have been infinitely more brazen & egregious at this. In particular via a long term push to radicalize the courts. Progressives want communism, not democracy & capitalism. Unfortunately for them, only around 20% of the population identifies themselves as liberal. Even fewer are as radical as progressives. Yet this small group of people refuse to accept America as it is. Which is ironic since these people would not be in the positions they are in, nor have what they have, under the totalitarian systems they espouse.
Because progressives are so hell bent on destroying the Constitution and radically transforming America, they have lied, cheated, manipulated, and subverted the Constitution at every opportunity. All it takes is a cursory understanding of Saul Alinsky and his methods to know exactly what progressives want and how they intend to achieve it.
All revolutions started out with a tiny progressive elite manipulating the lower class. Then they seize control of the media to manipulate the disgruntled masses. Unfortunately they don't need a revolution in America to gain control of the media because the mainstream media is already overwhelmingly liberal. They use Hollywood and an all too complicit media to shape the narrative and manipulate the lemmings that are the American public. Therefore, a Constitutional conference would tickle the progressives pink!! It would be the perfect opportunity for them to seize control peacefully through lies & manipulation.
Only when guns are outlawed, martial law enacted, and personal freedoms all but eliminated do the masses realize they have been duped. People in China & Cuba still haven't regained their rights & freedoms.
The founding fathers recognized two key dangers to liberty. (1) They knew only bad things could unfold once the public realized they could vote to give themselves money. (2) And they knew freedom of the printing press was paramount. They would be disappointed with the way #1 has shaped recent elections, but they'd understand it as it is part of human nature. What would truly astound them, however, would be today's media and how overwhelmingly biased the media has become.
Without an adversarial media holding the government accountable, this republic, this grand experiment that has transformed the world in amazing and positive ways, is in grave danger. As such, a Constitutional convention would be very dangerous to the future of American democracy and capitalism.
And the states. Send 'em all home and stop paying them.
why does religion and politics have to permeate every interesting archaeological find? I take issue with putting down others to prove a point.
I'd love a constitutional convention. Maybe we could get rid of the senate.
That the states are not sovereign under our Constitution is reasonably clear to me.
That the 10th Amendment is generally ignored and the Commerce and General Welfare clauses are massively abused is also reasonably clear.
Without any doubt, the People are the final arbiters of what system of government we choose for ourselves. I think a Constitutional Convention is overdue. We need to sort some shit out.
William Jack Hamilton, thanks for your outspoken criticism of this bill. The insights you have written elsewhere concerning sensible growth, transportation solutions, and ecological concerns of the area are remarkably poignant. Your support of the Occupy Wall Street movement was well measured, untiring and should be much commended.
Good job sir!
Clearly you have no clue about the Constitution.
If states were not seen to a certain degree as sovereign, then in court cases the SCOTUS would simply say the state has no standing or say states have no sovereign rights, but they don't. They find ways around that, like with Obamacare, where they use the commerce clause.
"They're not. They're completely under the heel of the federal government."
Wow! Spoken like a true communist or fascist.
Under our Constitution, the states hold the most power and are most active in the public's lives from a governance standpoint. And ALL levels of government work for the people. You know, a government "for the people by the people".
You folks are pure and simple communists, fascists, lovers of totalitarian government.
This should BE on the front page of the regular news paper!! Even on billboards! Make people be accountable of there actions.
You clearly have no idea what sovereign means Ned.
The Supremacy Clause alone completely debunks any idea that the states are sovereign when it says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
Only someone with a severe axe to grind (or dyslexia) could read that and say "yeah mean, the states are sovereign entities." They're not. They're completely under the heel of the federal government.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper