text:
Skip to comments.The Illegality/Un-Constitutionality of Dual Citzenship
Posted on 12/27/2009 2:36:30 PM PST by patlin
Until recent decades, American public policy consistantly prohibited dual citizenship. Since 1795, Congress has required that all candidates for naturalization formally renounce allegiance to their native land and any other foreign power. That requirement remains part of national law and is an integral element of the citizenship oath. The rationale for these policies is that citizenship requires undivided loyalty to one country.
(Excerpt) Read more at constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com ...
It should have been banned decades ago. For VERY OBVIOUS reasons.
Obonzo is a good example of why the Founders did it.
Interesting. Thanks for posting.
Because the United States has always recognized the definition of citizenship of common law, as outlined in Blackstone, as compared to that of European continental civil law, as defined in Vattel?
The most bizarre claim of the birthers is this one. It uses a law system utterly foreign to US legal history to define a term used in our Constitution.
The most bizarre claim of the birthers is this one. It uses a law system utterly foreign to US legal history to define a term used in our Constitution.
If US Legal History came AFTER the Constitution, how could you use it to define a term in the Constitution?
Please, our forefathers did not want our citizenry subject to British Common Law. Our country was bore of free men not subjects. British Common Law, made anyone born anywhere a subject, even in territories.
During the War of 1812 the British tried to use British Common Law to force our citizens into fighting.
They wanted citizenship for those who wanted to be American voluntary and they wanted ALLEGIENCE!!!!!!
The most bizarre claim of the birthers is this one. It uses a law system utterly foreign to US legal history to define a term used in our Constitution. ********************************************** If US Legal History came AFTER the Constitution, how could you use it to define a term in the Constitution? ---ROTB
ROTB's comment makes more sense to me. Thanks, ROTB...you are thinking straight!
Here's a question for you: what if Hugo Chavez declared all US citizens to be Venezuelan citizens, a right passed that cannot be renounced? Then who could you elect as the next President?
We should ignore what other nations may try to bestow on an individual; it matters what the individual claims for themselves.
If you are born on a US Naval vessel to two US citizen parents, you are considered a natural born citizen by the US. But if that naval vessel was in Canadian waters, then Canada also considers you a Canadian citizen. Does the fact that Canada conferred citizenship to you make you a non-natural born citizen?
Many of us are duals. It depends on the country where one was born under their laws like McCain who is dual but wont admit it.
At this point, with all the crooks in congress, president, and the U.S. Supreme Court, I would love to kiss my U.S. citizenship goodbye. The problem is, according to U.S. law, I would have to continue paying U.S. taxes for at least the next ten year.
I am totally fed up with my own robber country.
Further, if one puts folks with duals to choose, the U.S. will no longer be their first choice.
I am fed up. I realized a few months ago I have no desire to return to my country. It is a total mess.
Thank you. I blow it from time to time, so when I do, please don't think I am above correction.
I love this country, and am sad to see it falling.
I hope we get to see another Presidential election.
I hope Sarah won't backstab us like every one else.
Would that be the same law system used by Congress in the 1790 Immigration Act wherein two American citizen parents were required for one to be considered a "natural born citizen"??? or would that have been the one used by Senate Resolution 511 in 2008 with the same two-parent definition??? or both???
In Obama's case, your reply makes no sense to me. He was born to a foreign father and according to US law at the time of the adoption of the constitution, children followed the condition of the fathers and according to current US law, as long as the parents are married, the child still follows the condition of the father. That is why we find this in the guide to 'naturalization'.
I concur that children born to 2 US citizens serving in the military is a very touchy subject and the fact that Congress dropped the bill to amend the Constitution for military, goes to show how corrupt they are.
The fact of the matter is, is that Congress has not brought these attempts to ammend the Constitution to the public for scrutiny, because they know full well that the general public(those educated in true American history) would never go for changing it.
And then we have the problem that NO national media outlet will touch the subject, despite all the Congressional historical records of attempts to change it.
Have you ever taken time to read early Commentaries on American Law and what references the Founders used to draft the Constitution?
My guess is not, or you wouldn't have posted up such a ridiculous question. You can find all that you need at the following links and what they have to say is specifically that the definition of the English common law subject was NOT the definition adopted by the US for its citizens.
Don't personalize it to Obama or anyone else...
Fundamentally, would having citizenship of another nation bestowed on you cause you to not be a natural born citizen?
Can I, a person born of two American citizen parents, born in Seattle, be eligible for the Presidency if Canada grants me citizenship?
As an adult, if you take an oath to a foreign nation, yes, you renounce your birth status for POTUS, however, if you reside in a foreign country and return to the US 14 years prior to running for office, you are still eligible.
A natural born citizen can only loose his/her status by a legal act during adulthood.
These hypotheticals of foreign nations somehow changing their laws to claim people whom have never stepped foot on their soil to be citizens is ludicrous. There is something called the 'Law of Nation', it does exist and ALL nations & sovereignties are bound by it to some extent. That is why treaties are made between countries such as the Expatriation Act of 1868 and other treaties between the US and other foreign nations regarding citizenship.
I would recommend you go to my site, click on the scribd link to Wilson & Story's commentaries and read them as well as get your hands on Edwin Meese's Guide to the Constitution.
Well in that case, just never mind why 0bama has spent upwards of a million bucks to hide the details of his birth, his school records, his travel history, ad infinitum.
It must be just something 'personal', eh Sherman?
So, in your opinion, if I take no oath to a foreign nation, I do not lose my natural born status, even if another foreign nation considers me a citizen?
Then your problem is not with dual citizenship, is it?
Tell me, if you take no oath and according to international law, no country can force you into citizenship, what would that make you?
Get over the hypotheticals, it has nothing to do with citizenship at birth.
The example of the navy ship in Canadian waters; you are a Canadian citizen by birth, per Canadian law. Even if you were born on a US Navy vessel to two US citizens.
Canada grants you citizenship; it is up to you to claim it, but you are a citizen as far as Canada is concerned nevertheless.
That is not hypothetical, that is real. Is your concern over dual citizenship or not?
The US founders knew that international law recognized either citizenship by soil or by blood and chose to require both for the highest US office.
Neither Chavez, nor any other foreign sovereign has the ability to declare any natural born (soil and blood) US citizen to be a soil or blood citizen of Venezuela or of any other sovereignty with any expectation of recognition under international law.
That is the beauty of the founders NBC formulation. A soil and blood NBC is impervious to interference by a foreign sovereign and POTUS particularly as CIC would also be impervious and unaffected by dual loyalties of dual citizenship if NBC was properly enforced.
Yet you can be granted citizenship by other nations, and it will be accepted. So is the problem with dual citizenship or not?
Thank you for posting those links, the British Common Law was we we wanted to AVOID!!!
It seems odd that jurists such as John Marshall were apparently not as learned as you and said the opposite. But what did they know who were around when people still knew why the words were chosen?
NBC is a condition of birth which is impervious to foreign claims. If a person, after the age of majority undertakes to acquire and is granted citizenship of another country, that has nothing to do with and does not negate NBC status.
"The problem" with Obama is that his stated biography (assuming a non-bigamous marriage of his parents) with his UK subject father would make Barry "governed by the BNA of 1948" and thus a dual UK-US citizen at birth. Barry would be a native born citizen (born on US soil if, indeed, he was) but not a natural born citizen, according to some constitutional scholars.
If Barry's parents had a bigamous marriage due to his father's previous Kenya marriage to Kezia, Barry would be the illegitimate son of a legally single US citizen mom and would be NBC under US law because he would not be a dual citizen. The BNA of 1948 does not pass citizenship to illegitimate children.
If Barry were actually born in Kenya and his HI vital record came about as a result of a fraudulent report of a home birth or some sort of post-birth amendment (so far hidden by HI vital records due to Barry refusing a release) Barry would not be NBC or even a US citizen due to the age of his mother under US law at the time.
Great, no problem with that.
So the problem isn't with dual citizenship per se with what constitutes a natural born citizen, correct? Because this thread was all about how having a dual citizenship disqualified you for the Presidency. And I think we've reached agreement that you can be a natural born citizen AND hold dual citizenship.
YES!!! Dual citizenship was NEVER accepted and American Patriots fought and died in 2 bloody wars for our nation's sovereignty and its sovereign citizens.
It's time to take our country back & its Constitution & our sovereignty as it was defined by Chief Justice John Jays opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:
[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State
[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects ]
James Kent, Commentaries 1:39798; 2:3363 / 1826 1827
By the Constitution of the United States, Congress have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.
We are next to consider the rights and duties of citizens in their domestic relations, as distinguished from the absolute rights of individuals, of which we have already treated. Most of these relations are derived from the law of nature, and they are familiar to the institutions of every country, and consist of husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, and master and servant.
To these may be added, an examination of certain artificial persons created by law,
under the well known name of corporations.
There is a still more general division of the inhabitants of every country, under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives,
and to the consideration of them our attention will be directed in the present lecture.
(1.) Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States. If they were resident citizens at the time of the declaration of independence, though born elsewhere, and deliberately yielded to it an express or implied sanction, they became parties to it, and are to be considered as natives; their social tie being coeval with the existence of the nation.
(2.) An alien is a person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States. There are some exceptions, however, to this rule, by the ancient English law, as in the case of the children of public ministers abroad, (provided their wives be English women,) for they owe not even a local allegiance to any foreign power.
ThIs Commentary also refers to natural born and is quite clear that the definition of natural born, according to English Common law, to be
children of persons, both the father and mother, in imitation of the statute of 25 Edw. III.
and more here:
[Blackstone Commentaries (1765): When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king's ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador.
To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;...]
[F.E. Edwards, Natural Born British Subjects at Common Law, 14 Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 314 (1914): The pro- position that British Protectorates, and consequently any less interest of the Crown, should be excluded from our definition of the King's protection, is supported by Sir William Anson, who declares that birth within such a region is not sufficient to found a claim for British natural-born status. The real test of whether a given territory is part of the British Dominions is that it must have passed openly, completely, and unequivocally into the possession of the Crown.]
[Solum: If the American conception of natural born citizen were equivalent to the English notion of a natural born subject, then it could be argued that only persons born on American soil to American parents would have qualified. This might lead to the conclusion that McCain would not be a constitutional natural-born citizen, because the Panama Canal Zone was not the sovereign territory of the United States, but was instead merely subject to its administrative control.
So you see, as sovereigns as defined by Chief Justice Jay, US citizens owe allegiance to non other than our own nation, the United States of America and it is high time Congress start upholding the Supreme Law of the land!
NO!!! The point is that citizenship granted by another nation is not something the US can determine! In the real-world example I provided, Canada will GIVE you citizenship (as you were born in their territory), but from a US standpoint you're a natural born citizen.
The issue has nothing to do with dual citizenship; it is IMMATERIAL to the concern of President Obama or others. We cannot control what another nation decrees with regards to citizenship; in fact, some nations refuse to recognize renouncement of your citizenship (much like some religions refuse to recognize your leaving their religion).
So, stick with your central thesis - that he does not qualify as a natural born citizen because one parent was a foreign citizen; the dual citizenship he held is immaterial to the entire situation because the US has no control - nor does the Law of Nations dictate - over what other nations do in terms of granting citizenship.
Practically speaking....nothing is going to change.
This is my fional reply to you as you just don't get it.
Born to 2 US Citizen parents on US soil, any other type of birth falls under Congressional control and thus is not natural. An act of congress has determined citizenship and since you claim to be a soldier, I suggest you go read the foreign affairs manual which clearly states that Congress as never determined if one born with dual citizenship would be eligible for POTUS.
Thus, until Congress acts, the rule is the rule and dual birthers are not 'natural born' citizens for constitutional purposes.
It's right there in the law...go read it.
The POTUS eligibility issue is whether there is dual citizenship at birth from a foreign citizen parent or by being born on foreign soil, not dual citizenship aquired as an adult or from a previous citizenship of a parent or grandparent. SCOTUS has only ruled that there is "no doubt" that the child of two US citizens born on US soil is an NBC. SCOTUS has only said there "is doubt" over the child of only one US citizen parent and foreign parent born on US soil.
The founders were fully aware that other countries, like Britain, could claim as subjects the blood children of former citizens (War of 1812 fought over impression of US NBCs claimed as UK subjects) but appeared to disregard that type of dual citizen from being qualified as NBC (nearly the whole USA in 1800).
After reaching majority an NBC can obtain foreign citizenship in some cases without renouncing US citizenship and thus an NBC can become a dual citizen as an adult, but that has no bearing on NBC POTUS eligibility, which is a condition of birth that cannot be altered.
How can I, when you post an article about the unconstitutionality of having dual citizenships and then refuse to discuss the entire issue? Seriously, get your thoughts organized in a logical, cohesive manner first.
If the issue is having dual citizenship, then state it and STICK TO IT. But you don't want to do that. Fine. You're doing more damage to your position by your bait-and-switch tactics.
Canandian waters are equivalent to Canadian soil. Such a baby would be a dual US-Canadian citizen at birth, but SCOTUS has not yet clarified whether or not the child would be NBC eligible to be POTUS, per the scholars I trust. Scholars I trust say such a citizen, born outside the US, would be a "statutory citizen" not a constitutionally defined NBC and thus not POTUS eligible.
Kreep and Taitz argued the NBC issue before Judge Carter and he said he was offended that a child of a US serviceman (John McCain) on active duty on foreign soil, as in your example, would be a citizen but might not be NBC eligible to be POTUS. Current State Dept. regs pretty much say the matter has not been resolved by SCOTUS.
The John Jay letter to George Washington rationale for the NBC clause makes avoidance of "foreigners" as CIC (with dual citizenship and dual loyalty) the primary reason for the clause.
The Congress has decided that a person born on a military ship or military base to two US citizens is a natural born citizen. Meaning if you're on that Navy (or Coast Guard) ship in Canadian waters, and both your parents are US citizens, you are a Natural Born Citizen. And you also hold Canadian citizenship.
Look, the issue is you're trying to restrict a person's eligibility based upon what a 3rd party (another nation) decides to do. If the UK considered you a citizen, and granted the full rights thereof, are you suddenly prohibited from being President? NO! Because you haven't renounced what you originally had.
The issue of dual citizenship is irrelevant, and is a serious distraction and bad avenue of argument over President Obama's standing as a natural born citizen. None.
If you are born of two American citizens, you are natural born.It doesn't matter where the birth takes place; having tow US citizens for parents is what does matter.
In Obama's case, only one parent is a US citizen. Therefore he is not natural born.
Since there is a divorce decree for the Obamas, one has to assume a marriage took place, even if the documentation is not yet found.
If the Obamas were married,their son is still not natural born.
If they were not legally married, he is still not natural born.
If Barry is illegitmate, i.e. no marriage took place, or it was bigamous, Barry is still the product of only one US citizen, not two.
It seems like Barry is not a natural born citizen under any of the scenarios presented, as he does not meet the definition of two US citizens. Even if the British Act of 1948 does not convey British citizenship to him if was born as an illegimate, that still does not change the fact that his father was NOT an American citizen.
So he does not meet the definition of natural born in the law.
I believe your statement is false. Please provide a link.
To my knowledge, Congress has only found such persons to be citizens under Congresses statutory naturalization power, not natural born citizens. Congress on its own can't change the definition of NBC in the constitution and only SCOTUS can clarify what that means. Numerous efforts in Congress have been attempted to re-define NBC, but none have passed.
Senate resolution 511 attempted to declare McCain a natural born citizen in a non-binding resolution, but it was just that...non-binding!
See also the link in the story at the top of this string detailingn the history of failed Congressional attempts to re-define NBC:
The last word from SCOTUS in the Minor case is that "there is doubt" of NBC status if a parent is foreign, but the court declined to rule definitively at that time. So SCOTUS has not yet ruled in an "on point case" that Obama is not a natural born citizen.
I personally believe that if the court had ruled at the time, they would have resolved the doubt against children of foreign fathers being NBC, but that didn't happen, as far as I can tell. I think Obama, the golfer, is counting on a Mulligan in his favor if the current dispute makes to SCOTUS, given the lack of a prior clear ruling and with him being a sitting president already.
Of course if he could be proved to have been born in Kenya, he would be toast!
Founder George Mason and others condemned the Constitution and walked out. Mason in particular, stated that it completely overturned English Common Law.
Mason's resistance is the reason we have the Bill of Rights, drafted as promised immediately after the first Congress was seated. Drafted on Christmas Day, 1789, in fact, and modelled after the Virginia Declaration of Rights, penned by Mason.
To the extent that English Common Law is embodied in our Constitution, these Amendments drafted to placate George Mason represent it. The Constitution as ratified, however does not, as Mason pointed out. Emerich de Vattel was indeed a primary influence upon the framers, and there are copious historical references and cites to back up that claim.
Now, the States were a different matter. Many States were almost entirely creatures of the English Common Law, such as New York. Others, such as Connecticut, Virginia and Georgia, were not. There was a strong Dutch and German influence in many of the colonies, so much so that German at one point vied for English, as a contender for the "national language."
Our legal heritage is in no way entirely that of the English as a result. And, even if it were, to claim that our Founders, men who risked their lives and their fortunes to rebel against the English, would turn right around and use the very same construct, that of the natural-born subject of the English King, to determine their own citizenship, is irrational.
Vattel covered aspects of law including citizenship law internationally, hence the name of his two volume work, The Law Of Nations.
Blackstone dealt strictly with the English monarchy.
Has the United States ever been a monarchy, in your estimation? No, it has not. Therefore, Blackstone is of very limited utility, in seeking to understand original intent of the Founders.
I've been studying this matter for going on two years now, and repeated claims made, as if we've remained subjects of the English King all along, are the bizarre ones, not those that acknowledge multiple sources influencing the Founders of what was, after all, the very first modern Constitutional Republic. By the way, the constitutional republic was discussed and outlined at length by none other than ... Emerich de Vattel.
Not Blackstone.
Bump Dat X 2...
Would mean nothing. "Man's" laws can not be used to make one a "Natural" born citizen. Completely contradicts the whole meaning of the term.
Besides, such and action would never be recognized by international law. Would be like our Congress then turn around and make all Venezuelan citizens U.S. citizens. Or better yet, make everyone Natural Born citizens. Would be meaningless. Not to mention, would be cause for severe military action against them.
Blackstone dealt strictly with the English monarchy."
Exactly. Look no further than the Declaration of Independence for crystal clear Vattel influence on the founders (& eventually framers) on the making of our Constitutional Republic (i.e. NOT a monarchy).
If you have citizenship from two different country's, you have what the framers wanted to prevent (post grandfather clause) with the inclusion of the NBC requirement for the Commander in Chief...divided loyalties.
If one is born in country, to two citizen parents and never obtains (or is "granted") citizenship by another sovereign...that person will have no loyalties "owed" to another country.
It should be clear to most why the United States would/should NEVER want a Commander in Chief of the armed forces to have multiple allegiances...loyalties owed to another country.
Dual citizenship/dual alligiences wasn't a good idea for the CinC in 1787...nor is it a good idea in todays world.
A good many of the Founders were attorneys. Even those who weren't had studied law, to some extent, as it was considered part of the education of a gentleman.
The law they studied, and in many cases had made their living with, was the common law. It was still in effect in all the states, with exceptions as per specific statues.
Yet you contend that when they wished to use a specific legal term, natural-born citizen, they went outside the common law definition and meaning, substituting a definition from a completely alien system of law, which none of them had ever used before, based on European practice later codified by Napoleon in his Code.
It is also quite strange that the US Supreme Court, in those cases which have some bearing on the term in question, spend a lot of time discussing Blackstone, which they assumed was the default position on the issue, except as modified by statute.
Many States were almost entirely creatures of the English Common Law, such as New York.
Odd you should mention this, as NY used large amounts of civil law, from the Dutch, for issues involving real estate, well into the 19th century. I believe it was the State most influenced by civil law during this time, with the exception of LA. Other states, notably CA, have since been influenced, specifically with regard to the law of marriage and divorce.
I find those of you who are trying to inject civil law into our Constitution quite amusing. Civil law developed in exactly the opposite way from common law. It grew from edicts imposed from above by absolute rulers. Common law grew from below, developed out of the customs and practices of the people, as laid out over centuries by rulings of judges.
Civil law is in origin despotic, common law is in origin democratic, or at least aristocratic.
Why you want to elevate the stature of a legal system based on edicts imposed by an absolute monarch is quite beyond me.
This question has to be settled once and for all. But I guess I'll just be told that I have no *standing*...right?
Study of the citizenship laws are not all that hard to comprehend if you do not put your search into too small of a circle.
If Barry had been born illegite and his father had never come forward and made any claim to him, then according to US law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, when a woman's citizenship followed that of her father until she married, Barry would have been a considered a natural born because he would have held no allegiance to any other country than the US.
British common law followed the same practice regarding illegitimate children.
Under citizenship laws, there was never allowance for dual citizenship for national security & sovereignty reasons and it still remains the same today.
Dual citizenship is accepted, but it has never been made law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


text:
Mabon leads Lions over Myrtle
Myrtle is hoping to catch a break entering the final week of the regular season and with the division tournament coming up next week.
Having lost its last three division games by less than 10 points in each contest, the Hawks entered last Friday's game against H.W. Byers hoping to close out the district slate with a win.
Keon Hampton played a pivotal role in keeping Myrtle in front early on, scoring 12 of the Hawks' 14 first quarter points, including a three-pointer to end the frame. Hampton had 18 points at the half, but went down with an injury that kept him out for the remainder of the game.
Despite Hampton's absence, Myrtle held the lead until the third quarter but eventually to the Lions, 55-52.
"The way he was able to extend the zone out and he was able to hit the corner shots, he gave us more options offensively to stretch out the floor," Myrtle coach Cliff Ormon said. "If he wasn't able to hit it, then we could still run our offense. After he went down, we got into foul trouble with one of our other guards, and they made adjustments and started to box Robert in the second half. We struggled to get into a flow after that."
Anthony Mabon led all scorers with 41 points, 17 in the fourth quarter, where the Lions outscored the Hawks, 22-12. Ormon said his team knew what Mabon could do entering the game, but had difficulties guarding him in the second half.
"He did what a senior is supposed to do. He got the ball and put his team on his back," Ormon said. "We knew coming in that he's a really good player, and I thought we did a decent job in the beginning of containing him, but in the second half, he continued to take us to the basket. We gave him some opportunities when we turned the ball over, and that kept the momentum going for them."
Robert Montgomery led the Hawks (12-13, 1-4) with 20 points, and Taylor Hogue added 10 points. The Hawks also fell on the road at Amory on Friday, 56-42, and will close out the regular season this week at Hickory Flat and Potts Camp before next week's division tournament.
"We haven't had a break yet, and we're in fifth in the division right now," Ormon said. "We've put ourselves in that position, and our division is not easy. If we continue to do what we've done all year, we'll find a way to win that big game. We've got to make our own break now."
H.W. Byers 87 Myrtle 36 (girls)
Meshay Cox led Myrtle with 36 points in a division loss to the Lady Lions.
Byers opened the game on a 16-0 run before Cox scored Myrtle's first points with 3:44 left in the first quarter. The senior paced the Lady Hawks with 13 points at the break.
Justice Martin led all scorers with 28 points for Byers, followed by 20 points from Madison McCreeless.
About Chris Elkins
- Lady Urchins roll past Riverside February 21, 2017
- Blue Devils ground the Hawks in division championship February 21, 2017
- Lady Falcons overcome slow start and advance to Jackson February 25, 2017
- Fourth quarter flurry finishes Falcons season February 25, 2017
- Fourth quarter flurry finishes Falcons season February 25, 2017
- Lady Falcons overcome slow start and advance to Jackson February 25, 2017
- Blue Devils ground the Hawks in division championship February 21, 2017
- Lady Urchins roll past Riverside February 21, 2017
- tea party animal: A "closer look," with Your Home Missionary. ♫ ...
- Kaylyn Havrilla McClinton: I realize this comment was posted over two weeks a...
- Myke Britt: Someone asked "what has happened to our country"...
- Nonie: Margaret Gwendolyn Roberts McCraw - My Aunt Margar...
- Caleb Frederick: This is a great idea!...
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- tea party animal on Find time to focus on true meaning of Christmas
- Kaylyn Havrilla McClinton on No rigged election here
- Myke Britt on No rigged election here
- Nonie on Ellistown Breezes
- Caleb Frederick on City dealing with parking problems without running off visitors

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Beach volleyball gives Leah Allinger path to Olympics (Vancouver Sun)
VANCOUVER - Serendipity is one of those words that slides off the tongue. It somehow makes you smile.
Canadian pro beach volleyball player Leah Allinger, who is competing with playing partner Dana Cook in this weekend's Vancouver Open at Kits Beach, is using the word a lot these days — and she has good reason.
First, the 31-year-old athlete, who divides her time between Vancouver and the Los Angeles area, seems to have stumbled into her sport almost by accident in Mexico, only to find that she excels in it.


text:
Find an Urgent Care Near You.
UPMC Urgent Care offers many similar services as your family doctor, as well as an emergency department.
In most cases we can provide shorter wait times than an emergency department.
Open 7 days a week from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. at 11 locations throughout western Pennsylvania, UPMC Urgent Care is express care.
» Learn more about UPMC Urgent Care.
Of course, there are some times when it is not appropriate to visit an urgent care center, and treatment with your family doctor or at an emergency department may be more suitable.
See the table below for a breakdown of when you might visit UPMC Urgent Care, your family doctor, or the Emergency Department.
Illnesses and Injuries
Colds and flu
Coughs and sore throats
Bronchitis, pneumonia, sinus infections
Asthma and allergies
Minor broken bones and simple fractures
Sprains and strains
Cuts and scrapes
Infections, such as pink eye and urinary tract infections
Skin conditions, such as rashes and irritations
Abdominal pain
Chronic health conditions
Chest pain
Heart attack
Shortness of breath
Severe trauma or injury
Other Health Care Services
Flu shots and immunizations
Physicals for sports and work*Department of Transportation physicals may have to be scheduled
On-site prescriptions
*On-Site prescriptions not available at Franklin and Erie locations
Open 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.
No appointment needed
Most insurance accepted
Free parking
Video Library
Follow us on Twitter


text:
Chapter 29
When the wicked rule, the people mourn—The righteous consider the cause of the poor—A fool speaks all that is in his mind—Where there is no vision, the people perish.
1 He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without
2 When the
3 Whoso loveth wisdom rejoiceth his father: but he that keepeth company with harlots
4 The king by judgment establisheth the land: but he that receiveth gifts overthroweth it.
5 A man that
6 In the
7 The righteous considereth the cause of the poor: but the wicked regardeth not to know it.
8 Scornful men bring a city into a snare: but wise men turn away wrath.
9 If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest.
10 The
11 A fool
12 If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked.
13 The poor and the deceitful man meet together: the Lord lighteneth both their eyes.
14 The
15 The
16 When the wicked are multiplied, transgression increaseth: but the righteous shall see their fall.
17 Correct thy son, and he shall give thee rest; yea, he shall give delight unto thy soul.
18 Where there is no
19 A servant will not be corrected by words: for though he understand he will not answer.
20 Seest thou a man that is
21 He that delicately bringeth up his servant from a child shall have him become his son at the length.
22 An
23 A man's
24 Whoso is partner with a thief
25 The
26 Many seek the ruler's
27 An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination to the


text:
Dr. Scholls Jamie Sneaker - Womens
Sorry, this item is sold out!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Item # 265858
The Dr.Scholl's Jamie low-top sneaker is the perfect sporty-chic option for the lady who doesn't lack style and thrives for comfort.
- Canvas upper
- Lace-up closure
- Synthetic cap toe
- Neoprene stretch collar ensures a great fit
- Seamless Dri-Lex® lining wicks moisture away
- Aegis Microbe Shield® controls odor
- Removable Energy Wave™ insole provides superior underfoot cushioning
- Traction outsole
- More colors available
- Imported
- View more Women's Dr. Scholl's Shoes
By: Ellinger
Location: Indiana
January 11, 2014
"I love my new shoes! They are not only comfortable and they are very cure"
By: theblackwidow
Location: SanAntonioTX
November 07, 2013
Highly dissaponted
"The shoes have no natural heel to it. So when I put them on, they felt worse than flats. They felt as if my toes were higher than my heels. :( I get size 7 for tennis. So I order 7 for these ones as well. They were too long and too tight. Very difficult to put them on. They are pull on style and since they are so tight it was very difficult to put them on. I returned them :("
By: JustAnotherShoe
Location: Baltimore
August 02, 2013
Too childlike
"Loved the idea of a fun navy sneaker, but the white rubber on the front made me feel like a clown. I will be looking to exchange these for a Jenny style."
By: Camelia81
Location: New York
April 26, 2013
Great shoes to walk everywhere
"These are probably the most comfortable walking shoes."
Click anywhere to close this.


text:
Skip to comments.Ted Cruz says this is the last chance to get rid of Obamacare
Posted on 07/30/2013 2:45:05 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz said Tuesday that if Republicans do not seize the opportunity to defund the Affordable Care Act using a continuing resolution, that the health-care law would become a permanent feature of the American economy.
Cruz is one of several Senate Republicans who are calling on Republicans to vote no on any continuing resolution unless it defunds the much derided health-care law, along with Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida.
If there is ever a time to defeat Obamacare, it is now, Cruz said at a briefing at the Heritage Foundation. Moreover, we have, I believe, the best opportunity we will have, and possibly the last good opportunity we will have to defund Obamacare with the continuing resolution.
If we do not pursue this strategy, he said later, we are saying we surrender. Obamacare will be a permanent feature of the American economy.
Cruz argued that once the law were implemented, people who were receiving subsidies as a result of the law would fight to keep it, noting that historically, no entitlement program in modern times has ever been rolled back after it was implemented.
If the subsidies kick in, the prospect or full repeal of Obamacare diminish dramatically, Cruz said.
From Hotair:
Obamas secret weapon here is dependency and the sooner dependency begins, the more difficult it is to cancel the program. This is why Team O is dead set, come hell or high water, on getting the exchanges up and running. Theyll delay the employer mandate, theyll suspend the anti-fraud provisions theyll fiddle with the law however they need to in order to make it more salable in the near term so long as the exchanges start on time. Hence Cruzs desperation in dramatic action soon.
He knows he has his boot on the GOPs throat when it comes to repeal thanks to his two big wins last year. Even if the public blamed him for a shutdown rather than the GOP, how likely is it that hell break and risk destroying his legacy by signing a bill that defunds the program before the exchanges go into effect? Id say its absolute zero, especially knowing that the media will go face first into the tank for him in blaming any shutdown on the GOP. Even staunch ObamaCare critics like Peter Suderman cant see the endgame here.
In fact, according to the CRS, a government shutdown wouldnt even stop certain key parts of O-Care from taking effect. Subsidies under the law are mandatory spending, so they continue; the penalties for not buying insurance would continue too.
Silence is consent. Cruz is right. This has been through the mill and the libs want it passed.
Do you all hear how clear, strong, devoted, dedicated and Conservative that sounds?! THAT is what the truth sounds like. When it comes to elected officials, Cruz is one in a cluster of spotlights that are illuminating a sea of darkness.
I believe that Ted Cruz is right on this one. This is our last chance. I was depressed all day yesterday thinking about it after reading in the Drudge Report about the plan to shove all the Detroit public sector union retirees onto the Obamacare exchanges and that Chicago was planning the same move.
What upset me was the change from shoving all the public sector workers onto the exchanges, to just the retirees. This signals that they are not willing to make any cuts in spending that would cause any loss of support from the current unions. The retirees don't matter as much. Once all those public sector retirees are on the exchanges, the only step left will be single payer because the costs will be unsustainable.
Michele Bachmann told you guys that in 2011-2012 when she was running. You did not care or did not listen to her. You get what you deserve. Talking to the general population of Republican Primary voters. I could care less now. We will all suffer due to the conservatives voting for Romney and not Michele Bachmann.
(www.dontfundobamacare.com) The Lee/Cruz petition....sign & endorse it....now!!!
Think about it folks.
17,000 more IRS agents.
We all know they have little lists now. In their future, if you don't toe the Democrat line....you die.
They don't kill you, just let you croak.
Obamacare is part of how every medium to large city in America will get a bailout totaling trillions of dollars.
Last hope?
No...There will be another...
Nothing will accomplish the destruction of Obamacare. America is under communist control with King Obama running things. America is finished.
I think that constitutionally indefensible Obamacare needs to kick in to give all voters who were misled by Obama and Congress about Obamacare a kick in the teeth. This might be enough to "light a fire" under voters who are disgruntled with Obama and Congress to elect new conservative faces to Congress in 2014.
And if conservative voters can somehow elect a 2/3 majority in both Houses of Congress in 2014, then Obama is essentially out of the picture. This is because Congress will have the power, under the Constitution's Clause 2 of Section 7 of Article I, to override presidential vetoes. In other words, Congress will be able to repeal Obamacare and abolish the IRS, NSA, EPA and other "popular" independent fedreral regulatory agencies without Obama's signature.
However long (or short) that lasts.
Well, he's right, of course. The only other possibility is a large-scale boycott of the health care industry, but no one else seems to want to participate in anything that radical . . . yet.
Stop the Trainwreck - Don't Fund Obamacare - http://www.dontfundobamacare.com/
or here: http://www.ktrh.com/cc-common/podcast/single_page.html?more_page=1&podcast=michaelberry&selected_podcast=berry_73013_9am_1375199990_20489.mp3
Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
My biggest fear is the stupid 'pubs will still want to hang on to Obamacare as a campaign issue. Isn't that what they did when they could've voted against it?
It IS the last chance because if the RIN0s stand in the way of this, all conservatives should get out of the GOP. Let it die. Get our house in order, legally and politically, for winning in 20 years. Seriously. How much worse could it get?
Today Michael Steele was laughing at the Cruz motion.
...that if Republicans do not seize the opportunity to defund the Affordable Care Act using a continuing resolution, that the health-care law would become a "permanent feature of the American economy." Cruz is one of several Senate Republicans who are calling on Republicans to vote no on any continuing resolution unless it defunds the much derided health-care law, along with Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida.The name of Obamacare should first be changed to the Unaffordable Non-Care Act -- then repeal it.
No...There will be another...
And it won't be pretty. I just hope to see it before I die. Yes I'm serious.
I agree. Nothing will be done about 0bamacare until people feel the full brunt of it. Implement all of it immediately. The sooner the train crashes, the sooner we can clear the tracks.
Not that I'm expecting anybody to agree with this, but from what I've seen, current generation of concerned citizens are "fire fighters" as opposed to "fire preventers."
Cruz is one of several Senate Republicans who are calling on Republicans to vote no on any continuing resolution unless it defunds the much derided health-care law....
Go, Cruz! Just don't let Rubio sneak in a rider that grants amnesty to the illegals.
I like the way Cruz is performing.
RE: Think about it folks.
17,000 more IRS agents.
Agents Who do NOT want to participate in Obamacare.
While Sen. Cruz is of course correct, the gop wing of the uniparty is perfectly happy to allow it to become law.
We have a handful of conservatives in the Senate. Maybe 10 on a good day, and maybe 30-40 in the House. That is simply not enough. While the gop wing of the uniparty may fuss and posture, when the day is done they'll do nothing and owebamacare will go into effect.
I move and vote to repeal.
Okay, Congress. If I can do it...
Yes, a part of me is afraid to get my hopes up about him, since I have been disappointed so many times. Rubio comes to mind as the most recent.
RE: I move and vote to repeal.
Okay, Congress. If I can do it...
Congress ( the House ) has voted to REPEAL Obamacare 37 times. The last bill was introduced by Michele Bachmann.
The problem is the Senate under Harry Reid's leadership. It's DOA when it arrives there.
Me too. I want it to happen while I am young enough to acquire a sight picture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


text:
Converse Chuck Taylor All Star Multiple Tongue Girls Toddler & Youth Sneaker
Sorry, this item is sold out!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Item # 278237
Need to change it up? Her favorite Converse All Star sneaker with an added twist is just the trick!
- Canvas upper
- Full lace-up front with a five-layer tongue that folds over to reveal an additional flap
- Textile lining and cushioning insole
- Vulcanized striped rubber midsole
- Textile and rubber traction sole
- Imported
- View more Converse
- View more Converse
- Online Exclusive!
By: rah033
Location: NJ
April 28, 2014
For the little one
"Nice sneaker. My duaghter LOVES colors. The only thing is the tounges do not come out."
Click anywhere to close this.


text:
The White House has repeatedly spoken to China about allegations of cyber-theft, President Obama's spokesman said Tuesday.
"I can tell you that we have repeatedly raised our concerns at the highest levels about cyber-theft with senior Chinese officials, including in the military, and we will continue to do so," said White House press secretary Jay Carney.
As Reuters reported, the comments "followed a report by a U.S. computer security company that said a secretive Chinese military unit is believed to be behind a series of hacking attacks, which prompted a strong denial by Beijing."
Carney declined to comment on the report itself and its specific allegations.


text:
From our spa to your skin™
Professional-strength facial mask for all skin types This pore plunging, clog clearing mask will transform skin into a scene of extremely clean when used weekly for 15 minutes. Intensive exfoliation, oil elimination, and deep pore purging are a perfect for all (but especially pimple prone) skin types.
• Dissolves dead cells and debris
• Exfoliates and smoothes skin's surface
• Prevents plugged and prominent pores
• Includes botanical skin brighteners.
Made in France.
• Prozymex: Offers enzymatic exfoliating Action to improve skintone and texture.
• antioxidant Vitamins a C and E and Grapeseed Extract: Work as a team to fight free-radical damage to skin cells and to brighten and moisturize.
• Salicylic Acid (Beta Hydroxy Acid): Provides surface exfoliation and anti-inflammatory properties and helps reduce sebum blockage for clearer smoother skin.
• Zinc Gluconate: Helps regulate and control sebum oil and shine. Glycerin, Water, Coco-Glucoside, Coconut Alcohol, Sodium Acrylates Copolymer, Behenyl Alcohol, Butyrospermum Park Ii (Shea Butter), Hydrogenated Castor Oil, Zinc Gluconate, Protease, Helianthus Annuus (Sunflower) Seed Oil, Subtilisin, Zanthoxylum Alatum Extract, Vitis Vinifera (Grape) Fruit Extract, Scutellaria Baicalensis Root Extract, Citrus Medica Limonum (Lemon) Extract, Morus Bombycis Root Extract, Fragrance (Parfum), Tocopheryl Acetate, Salicylic Acid, Stearyl Alcohol, Caprylyl Glycine, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, Oleyl Alcohol, Retinyl Palmitate, Ascorbyl Tetraisopalmitate, Disodium EDTA, Sodium Metabisulfite, Sodium Sulfite, Phenoxyethanol, Methylparaben, BHT Butylparaben, Ethylparaben, Isobutylparaben, Propylparaben, Blue 1 (CI 42090), Red 33 (CI 17200), Yellow 5 (CI 19140).
Place your first and second fingers about an inch apart on top of the bottle's pump, and depress with even pressure until a grape-sized amount of steep clean appears in the palm of your hand. Then blend the blue and yellow until it turns green, to activate the exfoliating enzymes. Massage the mask over your face (be careful to avoid the eye area because your eyes are absolutely not aided by exfoliation) and neck, paying particular attention to clogged, congested, or coarsely-pored areas. Leave on for 15 minutes, and then gently wipe off with a warm washcloth. Use 1x a week for intensive cleaning.
Bliss tip: For an even steeper clean, take a break from your weekly D-I-Y 'homework' and book a microdermabrasion-based steep clean facial at bliss sap. We recommend this professional service at least twice yearly (or more often for 'problem' skin types.)
Additional Information
|Product Model


text:
A fundraiser benefit will be held for Kayden Gale, son of Josh and Tammy Gale, grandson of Garth and Lori Labrum, of Orangeville, who had a kidney transplant on Nov. 14. The benefit will be held Dec. 1 at Cottonwood Elementary beginning at 4 p.m. with the book and yard sale. Dinner at 5 p.m. and auction at 7 p.m. To donate, call Carol at 748-2481 or 748-2281.
The Christmas Extravaganza Fundraiser for the Children's Organ Transplant Association on behalf of Joshua Kayden Gale will be held on Dec. 2 at 10 a.m. at the Emery County Recreation Center. There will be booths, food, Santa from noon- 1 p.m., live entertainment and a silent gingerbread house auction. There will also be decorated trees and wreaths auctioned off at 5 p.m. For more information or if you would like to enter a tree for display or obtain a booth, contact Shanae Butler or Tiffany Larsen at 381-2689.
Ferron City welcomes everyone to come and join in an evening of celebration at the Ferron Elementary gym from 6-8 p.m. on Dec. 4. Santa will visit, a cookie contest will be held, sing-a-long, entertainment, craft booths for children, and refreshments. For more information of if you would like to help contact city hall at 384-2350.


text:
The Emery High and combined Canyon View Junior High Christmas chorus concert, under the direction of David Bird, was held recently. The junior high chorus sang All Around the World Tonight, Christmas Joy, Sweet Holy Child and Madrigal of the Bells. The Canyon View and Emery High combined men's chorus sang Sillancico. The EHS men's chorus sang Going to Bethlehem and Sleigh Bells.
The Carbon High choir made an appearance, directed by Tony Pinedo, and performed several numbers.
The EHS women's chorus sang Shoheen and was accompanied by Natalie Baantjer. They also sang Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening and Santa Baby.
The combined women's choirs sang Jolly Old St. Nicholas. Heard About a Newborn King was sung by the CVJH and EHS combined womens choirs.
As a finale, the EHS aCappella choir sang What Sweeter Music.
Members of the choirs are: Natalie Baantjer, Taryn Baker, Allison Barham, Troylynn Bentley, Patricia Boyer, Sierra Bridgewater, Kellie Brinkerhoff, Nikki Carter, Katrina Chiretta, Lindsey Diggs, Melanie Frisbie, Ariel Guymon, Wendee Hatch, Aarow Hefner, Lacie Henrie, Larelan Huntsman, Genneve Isaacson, Ashley Jensen, Sarah Jensen, Jessica Larsen, Tasha Larsen, Tamra Luke, Heather Madsen, Franchesca Marcus, Amanda Maxfield, Rachel Mueller, Amanda Parish, Dory Peacock, Beatrice Jean Porter, Lauren Potter, Andrea Price, Courtney Reynolds, Nikki Rogers, Alisha Royall, Natalie Seamons, Brandi Smith, Carol Ann Snow, Naomi Snow, Shellby Snyder, Rebecca Taboada, Tiffany Tuttle, Karla Urie, Travis Acosta, McKay Allred, Seth Baantjer, Kenny Baker, Camren Bell, Robert Bloomer, Forrest Boel, Morgan Clark, Antoine Farrer, Carson Fillmore, Austin Gillins, Lucas Giroux, Mark Guymon, Jesse Malan, Cody Morris, MJ Mower, Benjamin Partis, Nathan Pollaehne, Jordan Sanders, Alex Spears and Kaden Worwood.


text:
Rural Living Books
Your Puppy, Your Dog by Pat Storer
Regular Price: $14.95
Special Price: $8.00For kids who choose dogs as a 4-H project or those who just want readable information on raising puppies and dogs. Learn More
Your Sheep by Paula Simmons & Darrell Salsbury, DVM
Regular Price: $14.95
Special Price: $8.00An excellent source of information for those with sheep or who want to own sheep. Learn More


text:
For the latest Scott & White Healthcare news, visit our online news blog at news.sw.org.
Also visit baylorscottandwhite.com for latest Baylor Scott & White Health news.
Media Relations Contacts
Media Relations main number — 254-724-3047
After Hours Contact
For help after 5 p.m. Central Time on weekdays or during weekends and holidays, please call the Scott & White operator at 254-724-2111, identify yourself as a member of the news media and ask for the on-call media representative.
Scott Clark
Manager, Media Relations
Phone: 254-724-9724
Pager: 254-762-1406
Areas of coverage include:
- McLane Children's hospital and clinics
- Pediatrics
- Capital projects
Deke Jones
Manager, Media Relations
Phone: 254-724-8859
Areas of coverage include:
- Memorial Hospital
- Temple
- Waco
- Killeen/Ft. Hood
Katherine Voss
Manager, Media Relations
Phone: 512-509-5359
Areas of coverage include:
- Austin
- Round Rock
- Georgetown
- National media


text:
Nonbank lenders making loans above stated thresholds that are secured by margin stock must register with the Federal Reserve using the FR G-1 registration statement, which collects information about the lender's background and volume of lending. A registered lender may apply to deregister using FR G-2 if the lender has not, during the preceding six months, had more than $200,000 of margin credit outstanding.
Purpose: The Federal Reserve uses the data to identify lenders subject to Regulation U, to verify compliance with the regulation, and to monitor margin credit.
The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ('34 Act) authorizes the Board to regulate securities credit issued by banks, brokers and dealers, and other lenders. Until their 1998 revision, the securities credit regulations were distinguished by the type of lender to which they were applied, that is, banks, brokers and dealers, and others. Regulation T has governed the credit activities of brokers and dealers since 1934. Regulation U, governing banks, was adopted in 1936. The Federal Reserve adopted Regulation G in 1968 as a companion to Regulation U, to stop unregulated lenders from circumventing the margin requirements of Regulations T and U. The FR G-1 and FR G-2 have existed in some form since 1968. Effective April 1, 1998, the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 repealed section 8(a) of the '34 Act, which distinguished between bank and nonbank lenders with respect to broker-dealers. The amendment eliminated the need for separate regulations, and Regulation G was merged into Regulation U.
Respondent Panel:
Nonbank lenders. Participation is required.
The FR G-2 is filed when the lender is no longer subject to the registration requirements.
Public Release:


text:
Modern Duplex in New York - 7840
Size92 m²
Floor No.1
- Kitchen
- Air conditioning
- Washer/dryer
- Family/child friendly
- Balcony/terrace
- Towels
- Internet/WiFi
Accommodation summary
|E 10th St, 10003 New York, United States
|Property type
|Property ID
|Acceptance rate
|< 50%
|Response time
|A few hours
|Calendar updated
In accordance with municipal laws we do not provide rentals of our residences for fewer than 30 days. In fact we only offer membership packages which feature a variety of activities and experiences around New York City and of which access to a residence is an incidental and ancillary component. Benefits may include any or all of the following features: Access to our Members Lounge and Business Center, Express pass to dozens of New York City tourism attractions, Dining discounts and credits accepted at numerous locations around Manhattan, Discounts on shopping experiences, Discounts on Broadway shows, tours and leisure excursions, Access to our members lounge and business center, Access to a travel advisor, monthly newsletter, a NYC travel guidebook and app, Discounts on luggage storage and more. These membership benefits are included in the rates quoted. Our advertisements may reflect a rate that could change at any time based on our membership plans and packages so please inquire with us for exact pricing as well as a specific list of the membership benefits you will receive with your membership. The most up to date rates will always be available by contacting us. The facilities are not hotels and therefore do not necessarily comply with the same fire safety and building code requirements as a hotel nor is there a front desk or membership staff at all of the facilities. We do not supply daily housekeeping services and other amenities commonly expected during a hotel stay.
House rules-Security deposit due at check-in time. This is a credit card authorization, which is a hold , not an actual charge.
-The keys are picked up at the office near the apartment.
Cleaning service fee included in the total nightly price.
|Check-in after
|Check-in before
|On arrangement
|Check-out before
|Cancellation Policy
Reviews for this host's other properties
Nice, clean apartment with very convenient location.
Retrieving the key was smooth and the wifi worked right away.
The cases we could leave it there. On the day of departure
Cons: get very small bathroom (five people), hard warm the staircase is small, dirty and there is no elevator.
Mooi, schoon appartement met zeer gunstige ligging.
Het ophalen van de sleutel verliep soepel en de wifi werkte meteen.
De koffers konden we op de dag van vertrek daar laten staan.
Nadelen: erg kleine badkamer (met vijf personen), moeilijk warm te krijgen, het trappenhuis is klein, vies en er is geen lift.
I recommend this apartment very well located in Manhattan. It is spacious, we were 7 people. The description is consistent with reality. No worries to retrieve the keys, wifi works ... Small least one bathroom for 4 bedrooms this is too little and 2 rooms have a view of the tiny courtyard not very clean. Otherwise pleasant stay ....
Je conseille cet appartement très bien situé dans Manhattan. Il est spacieux, nous étions 7 personnes. La description est conforme à la réalité. Aucun soucis pour récupérer les clefs, le wifi fonctionne ... Les petits moins, 1 salle de bain pour 4 chambres c'est trop peu et 2 des chambres ont une vue sur la minuscule cour intérieur pas très propre. Sinon agréable séjour ....
Had a great stay in this apt. Everything went smooth, picking up the keys and finding the apt. It was clean and has everything you possibly need. Don't forget to take earplugs :) It's on the second floor, so you're right in the middle of all the sounds from the city. Been here with 4 adults and it's big enough. Location was great, subway just 3 blocks down, grocerystore around the corner... Would stay here again
Hey. We were 2 families who traveled to New York and had a fantastic holiday. New York was so exciting and wonderful as we had hoped for. We stayed very central and the apartment was very rude. We cooked some food even in the apartment and it could have been better equipped. The water in the shower went from freezing to very hot. Went smoothly and retrieve the key that was 12 streets away from where we lived. Otherwise we had no contact with the host except some messages before departure. We missed probably a little more information from the host regarding the apartment, but overall the stay was great.
Hei. Vi var 2 familier som reiste sammen til New York og hadde en fantastisk ferie. New York var så spennende og fantastisk som vi hadde håpet på. Vi bodde veldig sentralt og leiligheten var helt grei. Vi lagde en del mat selv i leiligheten og den kunne ha vært noe bedre utrustet. Vannet i dusjen gikk fra iskaldt til veldig varmt. Gikk greit og hente nøkkelen som lå 12 gater unna der vi bodde. Ellers hadde vi ingen kontakt med verten bortsett fra noen meldinger før avreise. Vi savnet nok litt mer informasjon fra verten ang. leiligheten , men totalt var oppholdet topp.
an extremely negative opinion ... 1 - when we retrieve the keys in another place (not very practical), gave us the wrong address! 2 - we found the apartment in a mess (dishes not made, room terrible bath). A maid has finally arrived in the late afternoon. We actually recovered the apartment to 20h. Iimpossible to sleep at night so there was noise in the street (no insulation) 4 - the best: two huge bins were stationed near our door, what a welcome! We used to travel but we have never experienced such a "disappointment."
un avis extrêmement négatif... 1- lorsque nous avons récupère les clefs dans un autre endroit ( pas très pratique), nous a communiqué une mauvaise adresse! 2- on a trouvé l'appartement dans un état lamentable ( vaisselle pas faite, salle de bain épouvantable). Une femme de ménage est enfin arrivée en fin d'après midi. Nous avons en fait récupéré l'appartement vers 20h. Iimpossible de dormir la nuit tellement il y avait de bruits dans la rue ( aucune isolation) 4- le must: 2 énormes poubelles étaient postées près de notre porte: quel accueil! Nous avons l'habitude de voyager mais jamais nous n'avons connu une telle "déconvenue".
The apartment was clean and neat, but more suitable for 4 people. There is no trust and bord.Det is fine with kitchen, but there is a place to sit. The location is central and there is much traffic noise.
Lejligheden var ren og pæn, men mere passende for 4 personer. Der mangler stole og bord.Det er fint med køkken, men der mangler et sted at sidde. Beliggenheden er central, og der er meget trafikstøj.
Apartment was clean and fine and location. We stayed there with 5 people. Bedrooms fine, just kitchen (with minimal counter space and without tables) and bathroom very small!
Appartement was schoon en prima qua ligging. Wij verbleven er met 5 personen.
Slaapkamers prima, alleen keuken(met minimale aanrechtruimte en zonder tafel ) en badkamer wel erg klein!
I would like to have 2 sets of towels for 1 week !
The amended accommodation was good and had a good stay, we did have problems with the noise what is our sleep has cost, we suspect that we ourselves are lured because of this problem, to another location or we played again this choice will make remains to be seen.
De gewijzigde accomodatie was goed en hebben een goed verblijf gehad, we hebben wel problemen gehad met de lawaai wat wel onze nachtrust heeft gekost, wij vermoeden zelf dat wij naar een andere locatie zijn gelokt vanwege dit probleem, of wij de volgende keer weer deze keuze zullen maken is nog te bezien.
For reservation and finding everything worked. Key collection was in the 42 Street (near the terminus of bus service to "our" Newark), apartment in the 49th Street. Fit on a key was the apartment number 6, he then at a door without saying that lay between homes 1A and 1C. Hall with dining area is very tight. Pleasant is that the apartment has two bathrooms. Situation in the 49th Road was ok for us. Apartment is located in an older home. Of the two sheep rooms have windows in two different neglected courtyards. So better let blinds. Apartment is well equipped (crockery, cutlery, microwave, hairdryer, satellite TV, etc.). Wi-Fi worked well. So overall ok in terms of the Manhattan-for-cheap price.
Bei Reservierung und Auffinden hat alles geklappt. Schlüsselabholung war in der 42 Strasse (bei der Endstation der Busverbindung zu "unserem" Flughafen Newark), Wohnung in der 49. Strasse. Am Schlüssel stand die Wohnungsnummer 6, gepasst hat er dann bei einer Tür ohne Aufschrift, die zwischen den Wohnungen 1A und 1C lag. Vorzimmer mit Essplatz ist sehr eng. Angenehm ist, dass die Wohnung zwei Badezimmer hat. Lage in der 49. Strasse war für uns ok. Wohnung befindet sich in einem älteren Haus. Von den beiden Schafzimmern gibt es Fenster in zwei verschiedene verwahrloste Innenhöfe. Also besser Jalousien zulassen. Wohnung ist gut ausgestattet (Geschirr, Besteck, Mikrowelle, Fön, SAT-TV etc.). WLAN hat gut funktioniert. Insgesamt also ok in Hinblick auf den -für Manhattan- günstigen Preis.
- Quality assured accommodation
- Every host is verified by telephone
- Secure payment via SSL encryption


text:
Sergio Rossi Patent Leather Platform Pump
Sorry, this item is sold out!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Item # dsw12prod4180374
For iconic Italian fashion straight from the runway, think Sergio Rossi. The classic style of this patent leather platform pump makes it the perfect addition to your shoe collection.
- Patent leather upper
- Almond toe
- Fully lined in leather
- ½" hidden platform, 4½" heel
- Leather sole
- Made in Italy
- View more Women's Sergio Rossi Shoes
- Online Exclusive!
By: Kjccookies
Location: Minneapolis, MN
November 14, 2013
Sergio Rossi Pumps
"Love the classic black patent leather pumps. And, Mr. Man loves them too. My only issue was trying to find my size."
By: TTCC
May 31, 2013
By: dbbd5
Location: chicago, IL
April 10, 2013
Is this really a Rossi?
"First of all, where is the logo plate on the bottom of the sole? I have two other Rossi shoes and also checked out their website. All Rossi shoes that I have seen, come with a logo plate on the bottom.The shoe just feels off overall. First of all, it's about 1/2 size too big. Another problem I'm having with it is that it's super-slippery inside the shoe and my feet were sliding all over the place. Feels cheaply made, which is why I am doubting if this is a real thing. Or is it made-for-DSW shoe by Rossi?"
By: CrownofLaurel
Location: Washington, DC
March 16, 2013
"This style runs small and I had to return my original order for half a size larger. Well made, and extremely comfortable given the heel height and pencil thin stiletto."
Click anywhere to close this.


text:
Paris Hilton Adanna Pump
Sorry, this item is sold out!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Item # 251169
Showcase your feminine style in the Paris Hilton Adanna. This suede pump can be paired with your party dress for the perfect look.
- Suede upper
- Fur detail at almond toe
- ½" hidden platform, 4½" covered heel
- Synthetic sole
- Imported
- Online Exclusive!
By: coffecup
Location: NY
April 24, 2013
"These shoes are lovely. The black have a pink sole (it looks red in the photo) and the fur trim is black. The shoes are very high...higher than they look."
By: chimge
Location: Mongolia
March 31, 2013
"I took black one .Very comfy and quality."
By: kateen
Location: ky
March 17, 2013
"These shoes are rich looking and beautiful. I was sorry that I had to return them, but they were too long and kept slipping off of my heels. If the fit works for you great!"
By: mefish27
Location: Detroit, MI
March 16, 2013
"Cute, comfy and an awesome height. The pink bottoms are great too. This shoe definitely adds a little fun to a traditional dress for work."
Click anywhere to close this.


text:
Quality CareFind out why Mayo Clinic is the right place for your health care. Make an appointment.
Meet the StaffFind a directory of doctors and departments at all Mayo Clinic campuses. Visit now.
Research and Clinical TrialsSee how Mayo Clinic research and clinical trials advance the science of medicine and improve patient care. Explore now.
Visit Our SchoolsEducators at Mayo Clinic train tomorrow's leaders to deliver compassionate, high-value, safe patient care. Choose a degree.
Professional ServicesExplore Mayo Clinic's many resources and see jobs available for medical professionals. Get updates.
Give to Mayo ClinicHelp set a new world standard in care for people everywhere. Give now.
Mayo Clinic offers appointments in Arizona, Florida and Minnesota and at Mayo Clinic Health System locations.
Subscribe to Housecall
Our general interest e-newsletter keeps you up to date on a wide variety of health topics.
Some of you might have heard or read in the news lately about elective delivery before 39 weeks gestation.
There was a study published Jan. 9th in the New England Journal of Medicine concerning the timing of elective repeat C-section delivery at term and the outcomes for the newborns.
The conclusion was that elective repeat C-section before 39 weeks is associated with respiratory complications and other adverse neonatal outcomes.
The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists has clear criteria for performing elective repeat C-sections. They include, for example, amniocentesis to ensure fetal lung maturity, and date confirmation from early ultrasound.
Some deliveries must occur before 39 weeks due to mom or baby's health. These situations were not included in the study. I think what we can take away from this study is that no matter how miserable you are, wait for that 39 weeks for your delivery.
Also, if your care provider is scheduling your surgery and you will be less than 39 weeks, speak up and ask why. We do so much to protect our babies during pregnancy, we don't want to cause any unnecessary risk due to physical complaints and misery or to match someone's schedule, even your own.
Mary M. Murry, R.N., C.N.M.
Selecting "Submit" signifies that you have read and agree to our posting guidelines.
I am just testing the functionality
Im 41 yrs old had 4 c section but wld love to have another baby can I ?
i jst want to if it can b reverse or can they add some kind of tubing to connect so i can get pregnut.
I wanted to finish my post,, I took a major part of my sons life and took him to theray every other day for 22 years, i spent thousands of dollars for private home therapy anything i could do, he joined a gym and worked out all the time, he wanted miricles and i prayed. All the medical help said he would no twalk past 12, he had open heart surgery again thanks to doctor T,, and a pacemaker due to another doctors mistake in judgement, people beware of elected C sections and make sure baby is ready,,
Responses welcome,,
Wow, I was young and the doctor who now 22 years later in prison now,, delivered me son c-section elective,, cause my son to be born at 31 weeks,, he said if i don't deliver him he will die because he is ready,, i had no labor, my water did not break and he had no proof, I was only 18 what did i know, i was afraid. He told me go to the hospital in the morbibg and say your in labor they will call me and i will deliver him,, He did, c section,, guess what, my son went into colasped lung and they took him away, then fulid built up around his heart and caused cardiac arrest, then seziure activity caused brain damage and effected his muscle actitivty restricted. My son did not come home for 12 weeks almost died and was on a respirator a long time,, he did not walk until 3 years old, very smart thank god, but struggled his entired life due to this idiot called a doctor OBGYN,, really,, sad part he is now passed,, took his life because he was tired of the struggle everyday wanting to be normal, he was so smart he knew what he was missing, graudated on the honor roll and was loved be so many people, I found my son dead in his bed and i know it was suiside, I though i would share this story as I am telling you be sure before your baby is delivered c section you have proof that baby is ready,, my life will never be the same due to this jerk,, I pray for him, he admitted to me he did the wrong thing,, I did not su I did not know better, Beware!
My sisters doctor sent her in at 38 weeks to start her and her cervix still was hard they induced her and she wasnt going anywhere. She had a c section and they let her go the next day. A few hrs later she was back bleeding from her incision and next thing you know she turned white and stopped breathing. They dont even know whats wrong. Now shes in icu on life support . Is there any specialist we can call in
Nathan, good question. It is 39 completed weeks. The weeks of pregnancy can be confusing.
My wife will have a repeat C-Section, Due Date = Sept 15.
When is earliest safe according to the 39 weeks...
is it Sept 8 (39 weeks complete)
Sept 2 (in the 39th week)?
What about a first c-section due to complete placenta previa? I'm 33 weeks and have been in the hospital once already with bleeding. Thankfully it stopped on its own and I haven't had any issues since, but my doctor has scheduled my c-section for 37wks due to the risk to both baby and I if we wait too long and go into labor. I have already received the steroid shot for baby's lungs during my hospital stay at 31.5wks, but I'm still concerned about an early baby and his development. I understand that this early c-section is likely what is best for both baby and I, but I still wonder.
"REPEAT" c-sections are typically different than the initial. For those mothers who are claiming we are being selfsih you REALLLLLLLY have no understanding of what you are speaking of. I had an emergency c-section with my first child. I did not wish to but you do what is best for the baby. Because of that surgery I was left with internal scar tissue that never healed properly. Unfortunately, for the medical boards who write this NONSENSE that is not a good enough reason to be deemed more than "elective". But let us talk about what these so called experts AREN'T telling you. If your internal scars tear you risk the life of not only yourself but your baby as well. Complications such as internal bleeding are not an issue that should be taken lightly. I have to have a second c-section. Because the Dr. has seen no physical evidence of tearing he has to call it "elective". That is because a group of board memebers who are NOT your Dr. and who do not know your body personally made it that way! Was my Dr. upset? Of course and he has been an OB for over 25 years. However, as he explained to me.. should I go early it becomes an Emergency due to the risk on my body! Remember that sometimes the risk to the mother and baby are greater than you know.. and there are not always physical signs!
Jeanne, our pelvic bone in the front, the symphis pubis, is really 2 bones. As pregnancy advances, the bones can begin to separate because of the hormones of pregnancy. It is part of what helps the pelvis make room for the baby. Your grandaughter should make sure she understands why she needs a C. Section before it is done.
My grand daughter was just told that she will require a c sect because her pelvic bone is separating. She is not due till early sept. Where can I find info on this situation?
Heather, I think you are right to question the timing of your surgery. It should be what is best for you and the baby only. Ask your OB to review the American College of OB/GYN criteria for performing elective repeat C.Sections. Keep asking until you are comfortable with the answers.
Hi Mary, I have Crohn's disease and have had multiple bowel surgeries. My OB has decided I need a c-section and said we can schedule one for 38 1/2 weeks, because that falls on a Tuesday when she likes to do them. She assured me that the baby will be fine. I'm only 28 weeks now. I told her I'd prefer to go into labor and then have the c-section, but she wants my gastro surgeon involved in the procedure, so it has to be scheduled. I want to insist on waiting until I'm more than 39 weeks. Am I too worried? How often are babies due before the due date, because I'd love to even wait until 39 1/2 weeks. Is there a way to tell if the baby is ready once the scheduled c-section is close at hand? Thank you!
I think I'm very fortunate to have a great doctor. From beginning i wanted a c-section and my doc had no problem with that, however he only scheduled my delivery for 39weeks and 3days and I still went for a amniocentesis to make sure of lung maturity. He said he will not take out baby if its not ready. We thank the doctors who still cares. Janet - South Africa
Hi i do believe reading medical comments .that having a c section at nearly 38 weeks did cause medical problems for my daughter . reading heart defects that this is quite common having an early c section . I should have had a normal delivery but was sent to hospital 14 days early because i was told my baby was a large baby and to be induced which didn't work .. and by messing with nature that the birth of my daughter was a traumatic experience .. not what you would want .. at 6 weeks old my daughter was diagnosed with T.A.P.V.C. she is well and nearly 4 and i'm so proud of her such a strong and determined little girl and brave thank you my beautiful xxxx.
I think you are very wise to wary about this plan. The American College of OB/GYN has very specific recommendations regarding the timing of repeat C. Section. The March of Dimes web site would have information for you also. If your physician feels he has a medical reason for delivering you that early, you would still need an amniocentesis to make sure the baby's lungs are mature. That involves inserting a needle into the amniotic sack and withdrawling fluid for testing. I recommend that you get a second opinion if possible. If this isn't possible then keep questioning your physician until you feel comfortable with his answers.
On my 3rd baby, 28 weeks today. 1st baby 11.5lbs,wasn't given the option to push after the ultrasound came out-dr said her shoulders were just too wide & he'd probably break her collar bone or paralyze the left side of her face. We'd been trying for 3 years,I didn't question it.6 yrs later,2nd baby-waited so long for her I didn't like the VBAC risks. she came out 9lb12oz, truly believe I couldve pushed her out though. neither pregnancy did I have diabetes or any other problems, nor do I have gestational diabetes or other health issues with now. Dr had to do a t cut on the 2nd baby so her head could fit out of the incision and says because of that I should take this one out at 36 weeks. I REALLY DON'T WANT TO! I understand VBAC is not really an option at this point for me, i'm fine with the necessary csexn, but at 36 weeks??? It just kept sounding like it was more 'convenient' the way it was explained to me. Help??? i've been combing the internet trying desperately to seek answers on why an early planned c section. i belong to a HMO and feel a 2nd opinion with another dr would be stacked against me anyhow. any thoughts, direction as to where else I can look would be much appreciated.
Shell, I really can't answer your question without knowing more. I think you might find resources about the medical complications with her pelvic bones. That might lead to more understanding about the need for a C Section. I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help.
My daughter has been informed by her doctor due to medical complications with her pelvic bones that she will have to C-Section if she ever gets pregnant. They told her it will break her pelvic bone. Where do I find more information on what causes this kind of condition.
This post is primarily to address those wondering, "Why?". The reality is, there ARE valid reasons for scheduling repeat c-sections. I've had 6, altogether, though this certainly wouldn't have been my first choice. I'll spare you all the complicated history and multiple difficulties I've encountered with each of my pregnancies. Suffice it to say that two surgeries were emergency and the following 4 were scheduled because the "benefit outweighed the risk". And yes, three of those were even scheduled prior to 39 weeks. The specialist pushed for 37 weeks but I would not relent and all were performed between 37 1/2 weeks-39 weeks. Two of those resulted in babies having to go to the NICU. Was it fun? No. Ideal? No. Necessary? Absolutely. I don't enjoy the NICU experience. I've had LOTS of experience there, unfortunately. My preemie died in the NICU 9 years ago. So, while 10 days in the NICU and then 48 hours in the NICU with births number 5 & 6 were not my idea of a picnic, my babies are happy, healthy & growing well...AND they have a momma to raise them.
My first was an emergency c-section (baby in distress) at 37 1/2 wks. My doctor said second would have to be c-section because the small town we live in does not have the trained staff to be on call if a VBAC is attempted and an emergency c-section is necessary. Second and later c-sections require more care in cutting through scar tissue. Now pregnant with #3, and the only thing that concerns me is having discomfort from scar tissue "fusing" organs. Both of my previous c-sections were performed by different doctors, and 3rd will be another doctor. Mississippi has a high litigation rate and ob/gyn's can't afford malpractice insurance here.
I am really confused..my first daughter was a natural vaginal birth and very straight forward other than having to be induced at 38 wks due to gestational diabetes. My second baby due on 28th April 2010 would have had to be delivered naturally at 38 weeks again to avoid the complications associated with the diabetes. However, baby is breech and I have been advised to opt for c-section. Do the same risks associated with the babies lungs development present themselves at 38 weeks whether the birth is natural or c-section? Because my first daughter had no complications at all.
I recently wrote a blog about elective primary c. sections. That referred to electing to have the c. section without an indication. This blog is about scheduled repeat c. sections. Some times repeat c.sections are referred to as elective but that is generally a way of saying there are no other indications. I don't think any woman should be judged for how her baby comes out of her body. The decision should be made between the health care provider and the woman and the decision should be based on having all the information, pros and cons.
I think it is unfortunate that c-sections after vaginal birth(VBAC) is considered "elective c- sections. I'm having and "elective c-section" for my third child after having two previous c-sections. The last one being an emerency and having a child with severe cerebral palsy, epilepsy, feeding tubes, and neurogenic bladder. All of this due to attempting a VBAC and having a uterine rupture and placenta abruption. So after all of that and knowing the risks to me and my baby, am I "electing" to have a c-section or is my doctor and I doing the responsible thing and delivering my baby at 38 weeks to prevent a repeat uterine ruptrue?
"elective" should be applied to those that have no medical necessity but do it for convienece of doctor or mother, and physical comfort level. Judgment is not necessary but restrictions to both mother and doctor should be applied
this is my second pregnancy. my first daughter was delivered by c-section after i had 2 inductions that left me dialated to barely a one. i have 2 sisters that also had to have c-sections. we had no choice c-section was our only option. this pregnancy has been full of new surprises for me. i was diagnosed with a threatened miscariage at 8 weeks, than at 25 weeks i developed superficial thombophlebitis which spread from below my knee to the top of my hip in a 2 week period, now at 28 weeks i have been diagnoses with gestational diabetes (just found out today YEAH!). my doctor had said we will schedual a repeat c-section 1-2 weeks early she doesn't want to do it any earlier for the babys health. this pregnancy has had our family on pins and needles. i fear for the baby and myself. i had a miscarriage in april and it nearly killed me. i cant loose another one. i will do anything i can to ensure this baby is healthy, but i will not let them put both our lives at risk to wait a few extra weeks. this will be my last pregnancy i dont ever want to go through this again.
anyone to judg a mothers wishes is the one who is
selfiish. A mother knows her limits and a docter would not submit if it was wrong
i had a emergency c section almost 4 years ago due to not progressing after being induced twice in two days due to gestational diabetes at 39 weeks now i am 29 weeks and me and my doctor agree a repeat c section is in order my diabetes is not as bad as it was with my son but we are anticipating a larger baby my son was 8 lbs 8 ounces a week early so the decision was made to avoid a repeat hard labor that may stall since diabetes can stall labor many people make their own decision to have a c section and i think it should done if the doctor agrees with the patients wishes and medically needed ones shouldnt be considered in peoples choices. this time we will be going a week early once again to avoid a baby over 9 lbs but at the rate my daughter is growing i think she will already be 9 lbs by 39 weeks.
Is no one going to point out that the doctor should first do no harm? If there is no justification for the C section then it absolutely should not be performed and therefore elective c sections should not even exist. It should not be an elective choice, it is truly major surgery with risks. If a woman finds herself having to undergo surgery to protect herself or the baby then it is warranted but anything other seems selfish and that is no way to start out a job that requires you to be selfless.
I think some people are missing the whole point of the article which addresses REPEAT c-sections. I had to have an emergency c-section after 48 hours of labor and my daughter going into distress. I have chosen to have a repeat c-section because of the risks associated with a vbac. No one on here has any right to judge me.
I agree that it is up to the mother; however, it is hard to believe that any mother would take the risk of an elective c-section before 39 weeks, especially if she's been informed of the complications. Maybe some mothers do not understand the importance of letting the baby mature in the womb, the safest place possible in most cases. I think that the care provider really needs to communicate with the mother considering early delivery and make sure she knows the risks and complications involved. I wonder why they even allow elective c-sections before 39 weeks? Why would anyone want to take the chance of having to leave the hospital without their baby because it needs to stay longer to develop to survive on it's own? I don't know why, but it seems awful selfish.
I am a first child from a c-section and since my birth my siblings were also delivered by c-section. In total there are 5 of us. Our mother did not chose to have us by c-section but that is the way it happened. We have grown into healthy adults and adolescents and were born that way as well. My children have also had to be delivered by c-section. I see nothing wrong with it. I would never have elected to have one because I am deathly afraid of going under the knife. I do believe though that it is/should be up to the mother. If she elects to have one so be it. No one should be judged for their choices regarding their own body and child.
The key word is REPEAT-it has already been
done previously. VBAC is vaginal birth after cesarean. The risks vs. c-section and vaginal is controversial after previous c-section. You have to consider mom and baby!
I think its wrong to judge someone for choosing to have a c-section. If that is what the mother feels comfortable with then so be. It doesn't mean that she won't have a bond with that child or that she loves her child less than if delivery was vaginal. I think if a mothers chooses a c-section then she must have a good reason. I am sick of people treating c-section mothers like they are less than par.
I think that the bigger issue over major abdominal surgery is that the baby is at risk for respiratory distress before 39 weeks. Scheduling CSections to avoid having a baby on a holiday or whatever is already on the schedule wont be worth it to a mother if she has to go home without her baby because they are in the NICU.
My daughter is 4.5 months pregnant. Four about two weeks, she has been experiencing excruciating back pain which is localized right under her left shoulder blade. It is completely unbearable when she sits. Standing or lying down seems to help aleviate the pain. Her doctor recommended Pepsid but this has not helped at all. She is unable to sit at her desk at work. I don't think the doctor understands how severe and localized the pain is. What should she do?
I can't imagine any benefit from choosing surgery if it is not needed, the way nature intended allows your body to do what is necessary to fall in love with your baby. I think if a mom thinks she wants an elective surgery maybe she should have to watch a full video of what it would really be like first and talk to women who have had infections and staples and nerves cut through and went on antidepressants afterwards. Besides all that, there is a hormone released to start labor once the baby's lungs are healthy enough for he/she to arrive. Surgery should be the last resort. Why would any mother choose surgery?
Why would anyone have an elective c-section--it's major abdominal surgery with all associated potential complications. Babies should be born vaginally unless there are significant medical complications posed by such a birth. Just because a doctor will perform an elective c-section does not mean a mother should follow that path, regardless of whether the touted 39 weeks have passed.
Mayo Clinic does not endorse companies or products. Advertising revenue supports our not-for-profit mission.
Check out these best-sellers and special offers on books and newsletters from Mayo Clinic.
Any use of this site constitutes your agreement to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy linked below.
A single copy of these materials may be reprinted for noncommercial personal use only. "Mayo," "Mayo Clinic," "MayoClinic.org," "Mayo Clinic Healthy Living," and the triple-shield Mayo Clinic logo are trademarks of Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research.
We comply with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information: verify here.


text:
Directions to Milkwood LodgeAddress: 152 Seventh Street, Hermanus, Hermanus, South Africa
Average rating: 0%
Rooms from: US$ 98.96
Directions to Milkwood Lodge
From Cape Town: Take the N2 and continue past the Airport to Somerset West. Either follow the N2 over Sir Lowry's Pass, turning onto the R43 after the Houwhoek Pass, or take the R44 along the coast and turn onto the R43 to Hermanus. Drive through the business centre until you get to a stop street, you will see the Marine Hotel on the right side. Carry on and pass the Golf Course until you get to a traffic circle � Main Road becomes Seventh Street at the traffic circle. Milkwood Lodge is 1.1 kms further along on the left side of the road. Drive past Milkwood Lodge and turn left into 10th Avenue, left into 6th Street and then left into 9th Avenue.You will see the entrance of Milkwood Lodge on your right hand side. Getting here from the Garden Route: The N2 brings you west past Swellendam and Riviersonderend. 10km past Riviersonderend turn onto the R326 to Stanford. At Stanford turn right onto the R43. Milkwood Lodge is situated 22km from Stanford on the R43. When you enter Hermanus there is a �Welcome to Hermanus� sign. Approximately 1.3 kms further you will see Milkwood Lodge on the right hand side.