# Demonstrate Against Rising Cesarean Rates!!!



## Journey (Jun 12, 2002)

I was very excited to see this:

Project: ONE VOICE

There's no area contact here, so I'm thinking about pulling together a rally! I'm going to contact the Nursing Club at my local community college, LCs, and other women who are as disgusted as I am by the cesarean rates. Our local hospital has a 32.9% cesarean rate! I really think I may be able to bring this together, and show the people that we're not going to take this anymore!

I encourage all you women to get ahold of your local contact, or start a demonstration on your own! Please, I really want this to be a success, and I'm very excited about it!


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Thanks!!!

There are two people to set it up in my area already.

I do have to say, though... why Valentines Day!?!?! We have a babysitter (DH's parents are coming up so we can go out for a few hours)--- I really doubt DH will want to go to an "anti c-section" rally, lol!


----------



## Sustainer (Sep 26, 2002)

Thanks for the info! I didn't see anything for my state. Have you posted this in the Birth forum, too?


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Someone just posted that link to the birth activism group. You're welcome to join!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/birthadvocacy/


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

I hate to rain on your parade, but I did this twenty years ago; we even had the support of Dr. Robert Mendelsohn and other local doctors who have since retired. My homebirth doctor was facing major legal problems, but he died before he could exonerate himself.

Most women who have had Caesarean Sections come to grips with it often by deciding it was to save their life and their baby's and how dare you say anything different to them!!









Anyway, I recall being the only new mother in a mommy'n'me parenting group who did NOT have a surgical birth, and I am only five feet tall with a very small frame. I had an eight pound plus baby! Everyone in the class thought I was a real nut; they were all very pleased with their births and their families supported them in their experiences. Many of them did volunteer work at these hospitals later and their children also.









I am just glad I was not one of them. I do not have any of the long term health problems associated with unnecessary surgery.

When you do this you are going up against a very organized and very wealthy group of people, the AMA; alot of old money$$$. See the movie with Paul Newman called "Malpractice", which came out when I was pregnant with #2 and see what you are up against.

I commend you, but I feel we would simply be gald to choose our own midwife and have our babies at home if that is what we want. Just leave me be!


----------



## Journey (Jun 12, 2002)

Unfortunately, in my county, there isn't a single legally practicing midwife. Women here either give birth in a hospital with a doctor, or give birth at home unassisted like me.

I know there are women who think that their cesareans were neccessary, and the doctors saved their lives. The OB/GYNs around here actually tell these women that they (the doctors) saved their lives or that of their babies.

It really disgusts me. That's why something needs to be said. I may be making a few enemies in the process, but I'll also make some allies in the fight to lower cesarean section rates, and increase the amount of VBACs.


----------



## jannan (Oct 30, 2002)

journey, why does it discust you that a doctor would tell a woman that the c-section saved their life? i don't understand your stance. i'm not trying to be rude, but why is it your business if a woman has a medically necessary c-section? i just don't get why anyone would protest that .


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

I think she means that a vast majority of c/s are unnecessary, and that it is totally unethical for MDs to tell their patients they had a medical need for one when they didn't. An not only that, but that it is unethical to create circumstances where a woman DOES need a c/s but didn't need the interventions leading up to the c/s. Make sense?
Lauren


----------



## Journey (Jun 12, 2002)

32.9%. 32.9%. 32.9%.

Highest cesarean section rate in our area in the entire span of human civilization. It's not because women suddenly have a medical neccessity to have their babies cut from their wombs.

It's because of routine procedures (IV, monitoring, ultrasounds, laying in bed, etc.).

Women are being set up, and they don't even realize it. Somebody needs to stand up and say "THIS HAS TO STOP!"

Babies cut out for being "too big" (7lbs 15oz?!), or "premature" (does a 9lb baby sound premature to you?!)... doctors claiming they saved the lives of the mothers and babies... these women accept it because nobody's telling them something isn't right. God forbid you actually question some of these doctors!

And, many women elect to have cesareans, because their doctors push them into it! When they try to argue about it, a reason to operate suddenly appears.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

32.9?? That's shocking!

There are some c-section that are medically necessary, but certainly not at that rate that is terrible!!

I had a friend from high school contact me after I registered on one of those classmates websites. We were talking about our children and she told me she had elective c-csections with her four children because "it was easier" major surgery is easier?? Oh my...


----------



## jannan (Oct 30, 2002)

how can monitoring , laying in bed and and I.V. cause a c-section? I really need to be enlightened and how do we know that 32.9% are not medically needed? I really do not know any woman in her right mind who would opt for major surgery. You'd have to be an idiot. What , does an OB wake up in the morning and say "today is not a vaginal day . It is a c-section day." I thank God i was monitored and had an I.V. It showed i had severe Pre clampsia. my liver and kidneys were failing. My baby was in danger. she came out weighing 3lbs at 37 weeks. the c-section was medically necessary.


----------



## Journey (Jun 12, 2002)

Monitoring cause the woman to be on her back, which as a result the oxygen to the baby is cut off by the baby laying on the main source of blood supply. Also, it's difficult to push a baby out while completely horizontal. It works against gravity. It's difficult to dialate as well when the baby isn't putting as much pressure on the cervix as they should. IVs dilute the hormones in the woman's blood supply, causing labor to slow down. This causes "failure to progress" one of the leading causes of cesarean sections.

OBs may not wake up in the morning and say "today is not a vaginal day. It is a c-section day"... but by the end of the day, when it's getting late, dr is getting tired and hungry, and wants to see his/her family... the doctor may jump at the chance to do a cesarean! There has to be a "medical necessity" on the charts, so sometimes drs make something up, or exaggerate a problem.

I'm not saying medically necessary cesareans don't happen. But, the vast majority of cesareans performed today are not medically necessary. True cephalopelvic disproportion (when the baby is too big to fit through the pelvis) occurs in less than 1 out of 3000 births, yet it is the #1 reason doctors give for cesareans. There's something wrong there.


----------



## Sustainer (Sep 26, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by jannan_
*how can monitoring , laying in bed and and I.V. cause a c-section?*
Those interventions can inhibit labor. A c-section is then performed for "failure to progress."

Quote:

_Originally posted by jannan_
*I really need to be enlightened and how do we know that 32.9% are not medically needed?*
Because, at other times and in other places, the c-section rate has been less than 10%, with same or better rates of adverse outcomes. Women's bodies don't suddenly change depending on what century/decade it is, nor are women's bodies dramatically different from country to country.

Quote:

_Originally posted by jannan_
*I really do not know any woman in her right mind who would opt for major surgery.*
They do if they've been convinced that it's a better way.

Quote:

_Originally posted by jannan_
*What , does an OB wake up in the morning and say "today is not a vaginal day . It is a c-section day."*
C-sections are much more convenient and much less time consuming for the doctor, especially if he can convince the woman to schedule it in advance. Plus, he gets to use his skill as a surgeon. That's what obstetricians are -- surgeons.

Quote:

_Originally posted by jannan_
*I thank God i was monitored and had an I.V. It showed i had severe Pre clampsia. my liver and kidneys were failing. My baby was in danger. she came out weighing 3lbs at 37 weeks. the c-section was medically necessary.*
I'm sure no one wants to make you feel guilty for your c-section or argue with you about whether yours specifically was medically necessary. Some c-sections certainly are medically necessary. But the sad truth is that the vast majority of them are not.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

Unfortunately I know a woman who actually schedule a c-section, completely optional, she told me, for her first baby. It does happen. She said she thought it would be easier and she would fell better faster....She told me afterwards that she was very wrong. Well duh.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

I think there would be less women thinking that a c-section was the easy route if there was more information regarding what the difference was between recovering from a c-section and recovering from a vaginal birth.

A c-section takes what? 30 minutes? It is easy to see how many may see that as easier. What they explain very well is that you are recovering from major surgery, the adhesions often caused by c-sections, loss of sensitivity..the list could go on and on..


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

In addition, there are major risks to c-sections that are never really revealed.

Time had a short article within the last month that a previous c-section doubles your chance of still birth in a future pregnancy!

And, of course, as I always do, I need to make the $$$ plug...
C-sections are expensive!

Kay


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

I really need to be enlightened and how do we know that 32.9% are not medically needed? I really do not know any woman in her right mind who would opt for major surgery.
In the 60s, the national c/s rate was between 5 and 10%. How did women's bodies evolve in only 40 years to the point where 25-30% of us can't give birth the way we are intended to? In countries with the lowest infant and maternal mortality rates, the c/s rate is between 5 and 10%.

Women choose surgery because doctors tell them it's the best way to go, and we are brought up to believe everything a doctor says. Most of the pregnant women I see today IRL are either planning surgical delivery or they have it anyway. Vaginal deliveries seem to take place by accident only. Hospitals have shorter and shorter time limits to comply with to make sure they gain money and not lose money for each patient. I am proud to say I caused my hospital to lose money with my 38-hour vaginal delivery.

And remember, the rate hospitals say they have is lower than their true rate. They are not legally required to disclose it.


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

TiredX2--What issue was that article in?


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

oops, double post sorry.

Am wondering know if anyone plans to join the ONE VOICE event?
I'd like to do one in our city.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

According to Open Season, one of my favorite books, c-sections increase the chance of infertility and miscarriages too.

I'm sure we've all seen the ACOG release that says it's ethical to perform a c/s for a non-medical reason.

32.9% is about 1 in 3 women. I'm surprised they would even admit to that.

Also, in Silent Knife the author says that having a c/s increases the chance that your daughter will have one! This makes sense to me; most of the women I know IRL who have had one were born that way. That's why I want my dd to be at my homebirth so she will know that is what birth is.

Also, re: medically necessary - in Brazil, the rate is 65% in public clinics and 95% in private ones. Does anyone really believe that is because of a medical need?

I've read that the kind of woman most likely to have one is a middle-class married white woman in her 30s, who has private insurance, but I see the exact opposite happening. Those women opt for home births or birth centers while the uneducated single low-income teenagers are getting epidurals and c-sections.


----------



## Sustainer (Sep 26, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*in Brazil, the rate is 65% in public clinics and 95% in private ones.*
That's REALLY sickening.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

TiredX2--What issue was that article in?
I want to say around Dec 13th but am unsure. Whenever I am at the Inlaws house I read all the recent magazines. So, realistically, it could have been Time, US News or "the other one".

Quote:

Also, re: medically necessary - in Brazil, the rate is 65% in public clinics and 95% in private ones. Does anyone really believe that is because of a medical need?
Nope, but the Brazillian medical community also doesn't claim it is for medical need. The most recently cited explanation I have heard it to keep "down there" tight!







:

Here, though, the real reason behind the majority of C-sections seems to be doctor convenience. The stats are stagering: the number of "emergency" c-sections *should* be evenly distributed around the day, 7 days a week. Instead you see peaks during day time hours (esp in the afternoon) and way fewer in the "off" hours (very early morning like 1-4am).


----------



## rachdoll (Aug 18, 2003)

many women in labor on a thursday or friday also, suddenly, need c-sections just in time for the doc to go home friday evening.

I know of women in 'professional', high-up jobs that plan c-sections for their convenience, too, because it's just so much easier to know ahead of time exactly what day and time the baby will be here, who cares how long you have to recover!

I have a friend who *thinks* that her c-sec was necessary (I firmly disagree), and now she swears by c-secs, wouldn't have another kid any other way! It gives me the willies to think of choosing to be cut open. yuck!

about women who were born c-sec having their children the same way, very similar to my experiences with formula feeding moms, all the friends I have who ff exclusively all say that's what their mom did, and they are fine (except for the asthma, horrible allergies, non-stop colds, etc.), so why breastfeed? Ugh.


----------



## pamamidwife (May 7, 2003)

The number one reason for cesareans is unnecessary interventions, which causes "emergencies", thereby allowing the saintly doctor to "save lives".

Let's not forget that many docs are so cavalier about cesareans because alot of malpractice insurance companies are offering REDUCED PREMIUMS for practices with higher cesarean rates.

Because, after all, "nobody has ever been sued for an unnecessary cesarean".

Yep.


----------



## daylily (Dec 1, 2001)

What has happened?







When I was having my babies (between 1992-1999) the big push was to reduce c/section rates. I recall they were at about 25% and there was an outcry that this was too high, and it seemed I often saw mainstream media proclaiming that VBAC was safe, that we had to lower the c/sect rate, etc. For a while, the rate of c/sections dropped. What happened? Did doctors discover their income dropped as well?

My cousin, when she was in labor back in 1995, felt she needed a c/sec because she had to push for a really long time, but was told that the hospital was trying to keep their c/sec rate down. It was a military hospital and she birthed a healthy baby vaginally.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Doctors should be given bonuses for doing the least interventions. In countries where the rates are much lower, they are paid the same whether they do a vaginal birth or a c/s so there is no economic incentive for the c/s.

There should also be a law that elective c/s cannot take place unless it would come as a severe inconvenience to the doctor, such as 3:00 AM on his wife's birthday.


----------



## Sustainer (Sep 26, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by pamamidwife_
*Because, after all, "nobody has ever been sued for an unnecessary cesarean".*
Well, for Pete's sake, let's start suing them for unnecessary surgery!


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

I had a caesarean section because my daughter was a frank breech and it was my first. Unfortunately, I had been quite concerned that she WAS breech, but my OB reassured me that she was not. Unfortunately, they found out he was wrong when I was fully effaced and dilated and she was well-descended. I was afraid, simply put.

I figured if he couldn't DIAGNOSE a breech, how could he DELIVER one? In terrible pain (I was trying for an unmedicated birth and did A LOT of walking, refused IV, monitoring, et cetera), I decided that the best solution would be to play to their strengths: the surgical birth.

However, it still angers me that this was done to me. I wonder if it was revenge on the doctor's part, because he was casually indifferent to my birth plan. I wonder to this day if he knew that she was breech, or knew that I would want to do a nonsurgical intervention and decided to keep the knowledge to himself. I wouldn't put it past him or any other doctor that I have encountered.

What's worse is that for reasons I would prefer not to discuss on a public board, I may have to go to a doctor (not a midwife, as I would prefer) for my second planned pregnancy, should it come to pass. I dread this, because I want to do a VBAC and not end up being sliced n' diced AGAIN. I know that the safest way to avoid a c-sec is not to go to the hospital, but I will not have that option. I feel imprisoned by the insurance companies who will not put midwives on their lists of preferred providers.


----------



## pamamidwife (May 7, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*Doctors should be given bonuses for doing the least interventions. In countries where the rates are much lower, they are paid the same whether they do a vaginal birth or a c/s so there is no economic incentive for the c/s.
*

In many of the safest countries to birth (in which the US is nowhere near the top of the list!), there is a standard no-fault medical malpractice clause.

This would be the biggest turn towards evidence-based medicine if our country would follow such a lead.


----------



## kimberlylibby (Dec 28, 2003)

I guess I think there are bigger fish to fry in our world.....

But then, I *had* a c-section.

I'm sure you could argue out your butt that it was "unnecessary" but since I had pre-eclampsia, HELLP, a partially abrupted placenta, 48 hours of induction, baby coming out forehead first, well......

I didn't feel injured by my c-section. Sad? Sure. But I also felt that I had tried my best to have her vaginally, and I wasn't willing to die to continue that route. And since my platelets dropped lower and lower each hour.... I'm not so sure it is exaggerating to say I might have died.

Kimberly


----------



## Sustainer (Sep 26, 2002)

Again, no one's denying that there are medically necessary c-sections. Our assertion is that the majority of c-sections performed are medically unnecessary. I believe we are right about this, and if we are, I think it's a pretty big fish to fry.


----------



## jeca (Sep 21, 2002)

I think it's shocking. No matter how you put it 33% of women can not have a "medical need" for a c-section. If that's the case wouldn't 33% of women would have died before c-section became a norm?
I think it's more of a fad. Don't get me wrong I know they are cases of being needed but not that high. I know plenty of woman who schedule it out of conviance. " I know when the baby's coming". " I've already had one may as well have another", " it's a simple no pain procedure". I just can't beieve that they voluntarily want to be cut open. I am usure though how a demonstration will help though, so enlighten me on that one. We do need to get more info out of lots of things regarding birth. For example I never knew the military would pay for a homebirth until I ran upon this site and mommas who had done it. so is this all about educating the masses?


----------



## Journey (Jun 12, 2002)

First off, nobody in this area knows the real numbers. The demonstration would provide that. Second off, nobody asks questions here. Nobody protests the doctor-God's wishes. That's going to change. Hopefully, it'll make the news, gain some attention, and pressure will be put on the doctors to lower their cesarean rates.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I think part of the problem is that not enough women seem to know the risks to the baby. They read articles that go over a few of the risks for the mother, like blood clots, need of transfusion, and a 1 in 2500 risk of death, and they go, OK, I can handle that! But there is no mention of risks to the baby. A lot of books such as What to Expect even say that a c/s is almost always safer for the baby than a vaginal birth (and point out other "perks" for the mother, like "You get to relax and enjoy the birth" and "It won't hurt to sit afterward, unlike women who deliver vaginally.")

There are articles on the ICAN website that quote doctors who say a surgical delivery is the safest way for the baby, even if no medical indication exists.

Maybe if more people knew that the baby could be harmed, they would be less likely to request elective surgery.


----------



## daylily (Dec 1, 2001)

Quote:

"You get to relax and enjoy the birth" and "It won't hurt to sit afterward, unlike women who deliver vaginally.")
What an absurd reason to prefer a c/section. I've had one c-section and 4 vaginal births. The blinding, excruciating pain you experience just trying to stand up during the first days after the surgery is 100 times more painful than any discomfort I felt in sitting after delivering vaginally.


----------



## Sustainer (Sep 26, 2002)

Yeah, and can you imagine telling someone to relax and enjoy some other major surgery? As in, "just relax and enjoy your quadruple bypass." Enjoy being cut open and taken apart and put back together and sewn up.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Doctors are sued for doing Caesarean Births. There was one locally here in SoCal in Ventura County who was sued by the woman who discovered he did the surgery because he wanted to go to a golf tournament.

Her cause of action was that the surgery unnecessarily complicated her future births.

The case was dismissed since the judge did not agree with her. We need more cases like this.

Our culture needs to change in this regard. When a doctor does a Caesarean Section, it is assumed that everything that can be done has been done to ensure a healthy baby despite all evidence to the contrary.

The US and Brazil have skyrocketing Caesarean Section Rates but they do not have the infant mortality or maternal mortality rates to prove they are necessary for the welfare of mother and child.


----------



## Sustainer (Sep 26, 2002)

Stupid prick male judges!!!


----------



## Iluvmy2 (Jan 23, 2004)

I understand and commend you on wanting to educate women on c-sections, but who are you to tell women how or how not they are birthing thier children? I had a c-section, then a repeat scheduled, do I need to explain to you why? No, and it doesn't make me any less of a Mommy.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

No one said it made you less of a mommy.

The concerns are for the side effects of c-sections and the inherent dangers in choosing major surgery over vaginal birth.

I also had a c-section, for reason which were valid but I don't think I need to explain them when that isn't what this thread is about. But I also had VERY painful adhesions afterwards requiring a repeat surgery.

They don't educate women about the dangers of c-sections and many Drs insist on women having c-section when they are not necessary.


----------



## daylily (Dec 1, 2001)

I really believe that at some level, the obstetrical system fears birthing women. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the single most profound act of feminism is for a woman to give birth naturally on her own terms. Birth is *empowering*. When we're strapped to a table and wheeled to an operating room, that power is taken from us. Women are told that we might as well choose an elective c/section because otherwise we'll be depending on "Depends." This is a direct assault on our *right* to birth our babies as we see fit. How can women make informed decisions if the information provided by their doctors is innaccurate? Within the medical system, women are seen as incompetents who aren't fit to make decisions about their own health and the health of their children.

Furthermore, women who've had a primary c-section and *want* a VBAC are now told that VBACs are unsafe which is nonsense.


----------



## Iluvmy2 (Jan 23, 2004)

I shouldn't have put that last bit in, ment to end it with just no, because I really am looking for an answer on why there has to be a "rally" and such? I think there should be more education on c/b's so when it is presented there is not the sinking feeling of failure. I agree docs shouldn't be on a time-line, but I guess that is what made mine fine, with DS I was over due and by the time I was induced I was over 42 weeks, they really let me try to go on my own (and this was a military hosipital!) with DD I educated myself of the pros and cons, my doctor was pushing neither (and actually came in off of vacation to give me my c/b on the day I wanted)

So how do you attend a rally without turning off women who had c/b and are okay with how they went?


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

So how do you attend a rally without turning off women who had c/b and are okay with how they went?
I would assume those women would not come to the rally.


----------



## Sustainer (Sep 26, 2002)

Women who have had c-sections need to realize that we are not their enemy. Our goal is for women to have the right of informed consent, and be empowered to make the choice for their own bodies. Women should appreciate that. Our argument is with the medical community whose attitudes have caused the c-section rate to approach 30%, when fewer than 10% of births medically require a c-section. We are protesting against doctors who perform unnecessary surgery, while lying to women about the reasons for it, and failing to inform them of the risks and effects. I believe that ours is a worthy cause.


----------



## galadriel (Jan 21, 2003)

The rally is to protest *THE RIGHT TO VBAC*, NOT just to protest "rising cesarean rates". Who can argue against the right to VBAC????

Whether you've had a c/s or not, whether it was "medically necessary" or not, you should not be sentenced to always have a c/s.

Let's get clear on this point!

Demonstration Info


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

oops, double post, sorry!


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

Well, Lord willing, I will be at our rally here with my twins who were born breech, frank and footling, at 40 plus weeks, each weighed OVER 8 pounds and all in the living room of my very small apartment....

I am thankful for my freedom to be at home and I want to stand in support of women's rights NOT against, persay, a woman who chose or needed a c-birth.

My insurance company gave us a hard time about paying the bill, THEN only paid 60 percent of it. They also thanked me for saving them 80,000 dollars and said that had I chosen to go the conventional route, they would have gladly paid 100% of the $80,000 but just couldn't pay more than $1100 for my HOME TWIN BIRTH. I just don't get it. Something isn't right.

Anyway, I am getting off the subject, I fear.

My support is for women, not against them.

Peace,


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

Hotmamacita, if you're not too busy will you please be my hero?


----------



## pamamidwife (May 7, 2003)

Stand in line kama, she's mine!


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

Thank you both. You made my day today.

Peace,


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

I am bummed. The rally here was cancelled due to planning problems. There are a lot of people intersted but word got out two late and organizers decided to cancel it ten days before event.

I still want to go and protest but there will be no one with me....


----------



## Journey (Jun 12, 2002)

There won't be one here, either. No interest. It's on Valentines Day for crying out loud! Any other day and I'm sure I could have (barely) gotten enough people to go... but on a holiday? No way. I'm bummed.


----------



## marymom (Nov 24, 2001)

BRING BACK VBAC
is going to be our 'mantra' at our "rally" and we would love to have anyone of you who is looking for a rally, warm south Florida coast line!!!!!
check your bus station <grin> fill up the vehicle, I live in Fort Pierce and my door is open! we are meeting in front of Martin Memorial Hospital who has recently announced policy that they no longer 'ALLOW' VBACs it is a sad time...the other hospitals in our area have between 29 and 50% c section rates so...just think what the rates will be next year!
We are planning a quiet voicing of our concerns and hope that the hospital administration will be open to listening to us, if they are not we will carefully form outside hospital property not hindering or blocking any paths or entrances.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/onevoiceTC/
feel free to join us!
~mary


----------



## marymom (Nov 24, 2001)

and thankyou Ubertulip for bringing up the fact that there has been little mention of VBAC, if mothers have the right to choose elective cesarean(which I hesitantly support, but INFORMED choice) then they certainly deserve the right to VAGINAL birth with informed choice,
even the medical models should see that?
ouch Im getting too old for this BS
~mary


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

Wait, I am confused a bit...Ubertulip. Are you saying this rally was to PROTEST the right to VBAC? Or supporting the right to VBAC. I was under the impression it was the latter.

I jst want to make sure I didn't get all turned around.


----------



## marymom (Nov 24, 2001)

you did not get this turned around,
it would be
Bring Back VBAC
many hospitals have recently put into place a NO VBAC policy, so even if a mom could find a care provider willing to deliver her vaginally after cesarean(VBAC) she wouldnt be able to because ACOG in all their <gag> wisdom has announced that VBACs are not safe unless you are at a level III hospital with the attending care provider(has to be a doctor) on the premises during the whole labor, so the doc has to be there the whole time, cant be a stand in, and the hospital has to be a level III which we dont even have one where I live for about 65 miles...
can we say
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK ?
If you are interested in holding a rally in your area please look at the links supplied above and contact Tracy at CAPPA, they are facilitating the rallies, they are asking that there be 12 people to have a rally, if you are minimal in numbers you can stand in solidarity and bring a well written letter to your hospital on that day,
~mary


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

thanks. i tried to see if things could still be organized but was told the rally was off. let me look into things again....

thanks again,


----------



## marymom (Nov 24, 2001)

that would be great mamacita!!!
please email or call on me if theres anything I can do to support you


----------

