| Credit: Photo by Glenn Carstens-Peters on Unsplash

Editor’s note: Charleston City Paper periodically publishes letters received. To submit your own reaction to City Paper coverage or local issues, we welcome letters to the editor.

Avoiding an Atwoodian reality

Imagine, if you will, a world in which you are potentially facing the death penalty for the mere crimes of trying to build a family or tend to the best interests of your existing family. It sounds [Margaret] Atwoodian and dystopian, right? Now imagine if this were a very real possibility resting on the S.C. Senate’s decision on whether to pass a single bill. 

Now you understand the reality I as a queer person, and any other person reliant on in-vitro fertilization for conception, would be facing if the Senate passes bill 988

988 would grant complete personhood rights post-fertilization and would charge anyone involved in the early termination of a potential or even hypothetical pregnancy with homicide, which is punishable by death in S.C. This applies to people who receive abortions and those who provide them; people who involuntarily miscarry if they can be found at all at fault; and to anyone who receives in-vitro fertilization treatment, due to the large number of eggs statistically necessary to fertilize in the pursuit of one viable pregnancy.

Help us avoid descending further into an Atwoodian reality. Vocalize your concerns directly to the senators here.

– Corazon Stegelin, Charleston, S.C.

Preposition Charleston County’s supplies

One of the takeaways from the conflict in Ukraine is the need to preposition supplies. Anticipation of the definable future challenges. The Charleston County Council faces a similar challenge.

The Mark Clark Expressway is paid (40% to 60%) from the county’s accumulating extra half-cent sales tax fund. Charleston County needs to preposition flood protection. Protect those who are here and joining us.

What Charleston County taxpayers need to remember is that we are on the hook for all the unknown costs of this project. The state under Gov. [[Henry] McMaster’s direction has capped its financial liability at $420 million.  The county taxpayers take on the unnecessary financial risks of the bottomless or uncapped costs. Inflation, overruns, delay costs, unidentified field conditions, legal fees, change orders and corruption are some of the identifiable elements to be paid for 100% by Charleston County taxpayers.

The available state surplus funds now being allocated to the S.C. Interstate highways must be allocated to the Mark Clark Expressway. What is most unusual in this political arrangement is that rich counties do not fund massive projects because of these financial risks. Usually, it is the federal and state governments that fund these large-scale public works projects.

Keeping the county’s half-cent sales tax dedicated to the financially risky Mark Clark Expressway means caution must be the priority until completion. The county must have contingency plans for “in case of” and “what if” highway costs. The financial risk will tamp down the investment in the needed flood protection. The timing of those resilience investments needs to be prepositioned to address the known future of more water in our midst.

– Fred Palm, Edisto Island, S.C.

Two letters on recent abortion column

Re: GOP must be smoking weed on abortion bills

Exactly.  GOP MEN making decisions for women. Disgusting.  Thanks for speaking up.

— Cary Fichtner-Vu, Folly Beach, S.C.

Re: GOP must be smoking weed on abortion bills

No hate mail here.  I totally agree with you about preserving abortion rights and the potential awful consequences of removing those rights. 

I wonder, however, if you feel the same way about our right to choose to vaccinate or not? The right wing has long wanted to take away a woman’s right to choose about her own pregnancy. Now the left wing (a direction I normally lean) wants to mandate vaccines with no individual right to choose, and/or significant penalties for choosing no. Do they not see the irony here? 

I believe it is wildly inconsistent to support freedom of health choice on one issue but not another. If you want to raise the “greater good” argument, every day that goes by demonstrates the inefficiency of this particular vaccine, but that’s another discussion. I’m curious to hear your take on this issue.

Dr. Peter W. Kfoury, Charleston, S.C.