What was deleted?
A much-too-descriptive list of why this week is wearing me out. So now you get the slimmed down version:
Previously - Monday - School (We've completed 142 out of the 170 days that are required) and Bible Study. Tuesday - "Holiday" (He-Man turned 4 and Henry took us all to the Galleria.) Today - State House (details below) & church (started back teaching the class I was teaching before Captain was born.) Tomorrow - State House again and all 3 children have ball practice. Friday - pre-scheduled field trip with other homeschoolers to the Biscuit Stadium. Saturday - All 3 ball practice and a Health Fair. Sunday - Church and Toby Mac Concert (Pray rain comes before or after but not during because it's at an amphitheater!)
The following looks long at a glance but it's all copy/pasted/combined from emails floating around an email list I'm on. This is in reference to the public hearing at the State House today regarding HB199 which seeks to legalize and regulate Certified Professional Midwives in Alabama. It was an AWESOME event. I'm just too tired to re-cap myself so I thought I'd let you see what others wrote.
In a nut shell we PACKED the room by 9:30 with standing room only after that!!! It was a pleasure to witness such well-prepared, articulate speakers,
and I am not talking about the opposing side!!
The three "fors" gave compelling testimony -- a skillful blend of
(conscientiously limited) endearing, emotional testimony with bold,
factual evidence. I was impressed with the grace and professionalism that each
possessed and I think they are all a credit to the women of Alabama.
I would love to be able to give a description of their testimony, but
I am afraid I would not do them justice, so I will only say that they
were informative, effective and befitting of the role as our
Ida, from NARM was wonderful with being able to answer all of the Committee's questions on ceritifcation/accredidation, statistics, and how midwifery programs are working in the other 42 states that have midwives. I would have been impressed even if she had been on the other side. My favorite quote from her was, "If you want to lower your infant mortality rates, stop sending your healthy moms and infants to other states to get their birth certificates."
The three "againsts" seemed to not know much beyond their scripted
diatribes about how allowing midwives to operate would be akin to
dooming the entire society of Alabama to medieval-like conditions.
According to the opposition, women should be forcibly made to give
birth in hospitals (because the furtherance of the human race is at
The first doctor who spoke gave a brief summary of statistics, all of
which were eventually "debunked" so to speak, after it was revealed
that the statistics mainly reflected a high mortality rate throughout
the "black belt" and amongst women who take illicit drugs during
pregnancy. He even admitted that the other states with midwifery programs had lower infant and maternal mortality rates but said, (paraphrase)"There's no evidence that those states have lower death rates just because they use midwives."
The second doctor who spoke puts childbirth in the same category with pneumonia and heart disease. To paraphrase, he said something like, "Yes, childbirth is natural, but so is pneumonia, heart attack..." and something else I don't recall.
Er, call me crazy but someone who thinks pregnancy should be placed
on a list of "pathologies" should not be representing women's
The third to speak against it was a nurse-midwife and after some
confusion about which side she was on, she went on to explain her
opposition. To be honest, I quit listening about this point, but I
did catch on that two of her primary objections were these: NO births
should be in the home, citing that too much can go wrong; and that
CPM's lack the intensive nursing training that she equates with being
able to handle "any" (presumably inevitable) emergency.
Let me share the experience that best sums up the way the hearing went. I think this illustrates the mood of the hearing, the effectiveness
of our speakers, and the faulty logic used by the opposition.
At the hearing, a 50-ish, professional looking man asks to sit down
in the chair available next to me. We strike up a conversation. He
is a pediatrician prepared to speak in opposition to the bill and I
politely addressed some of his concerns (he had some
misconceptions). He spoke to me afterwards,(quote) "you know, this
really isn't as straightforward as I thought- and it (midwifery)
isn't as dangerous (or something like that) like the medical side
presents... (and still quoting) "I am really glad that I didn't have
a chance to speak out in opposition. Can you send me more
information?" He hands me his card- not only is he a pediatrician
bI tut he is xxxxxxx.
Hearing the well-versed testimony in support and the not-so-
articulate and lacking in data of those opposed really gave him
something to think about.
I think that many folks who went in there thinking they were opposed
to this left feeling like he did- wanting more information- and
entertaining the idea that this might not be such a bad thing for
mamas and babies afterall.