BS: US Women get new CHOICE

Subject: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 08:35 PM

Some of you may know the of cases in which US mothers face murder charges regarding their birth options.

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/choice.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: Amergin
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 08:52 PM

Well...considering that case...I totally agree with the State...and the doctors...to not have had that C-section was tantamount to murder as it did have endangered the child's life...It could have killed the other one.

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 08:58 PM

And her statement at the time, which she now denies making, was that she didn't want the C-section scar.

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 09:07 PM

She had 2 prior Ceasarean scars. Unless you heard her say that scar remark I would doubt it.

rant mode:
This bullshit murder-by-natural-childbirth charge is a backdoor attempt to deny women their right to accept or refuse medical treatment. Where do those misogynist, fascist DEMONS get the gall to brand a woman a criminal because she refuses a medical procedure which, without it, may result in the death of the kid? The woman has a right to refuse treatment, yet that didn't register with the theocrats and other extremists who give pro-lifers a bad name. She probably knew that her son would die very young, C-section or no C-section.

The macho conservative assholes who infest Utah think God died and left them in charge of all the women of the world. Who the hell do they think they are, putting a gun to a woman's head and telling her, "Get this operation--or else!"?
What next? Murder charges for women who can't get their kids to take their freakin' antibiotics?


even tempered mode:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28371-2004Mar26.html

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: Amergin
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 09:11 PM

She does not have that right where her children were concerned...and the woman was far enough along where the children were seperate entities...

With your attitude I would suggest that you would value her life over that of her innocent children.

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 09:17 PM

Too much missing information for me to make a comment. Why did she have the first two C-sections? Why didn't she abort the child earlier if she did not want another child?

d

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: Amergin
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 09:19 PM

She had twins...one died because she refused to get a c-section...but apparently Donuel here says that is ok...it was HER chose as ruler of the children's lives to let them die.

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 09:26 PM

This argument is proceding here with too little information to make any view viable. As ill-considered as her choice seems to have been, there is precedent regarding forced surgery--you can't do it (this harks back to involuntary sterilization). If the hospital was so sure the children were endangered, they needed merely to go to court to get an order regarding the emergency surgery. If they couldn't prove it was an emergency, then they couldn't get the court order. It looks like there are a lot of possibilities not yet highlighted in this case.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 10:00 PM

Amergin - Do you think you are better able to make a choice about a child's life than the mother of the child?

d

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: Sorcha
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 10:06 PM

I've seen all the info available on this case, and I'm with Don on this one too. (I usually am) THIS is MY body....not that parasite's (which is what a child really is until it is born....)I am Pro Choice big time, but it is the Woman's Choice....and, NO, I do NOT belive in abortion as a method of birth control esp. after the first trimester when the baby could be viable....but, it is STILL MY body. Or yours, as the case may be. Sorry, 'gin, but that is how my mind is.

PS--I tell you this from Experience.....it is NEVER an easy choice.

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: GUEST,Mack/Misophist
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 10:28 AM

Amergin,

Would you like to return to the days when some hospitals routinely let mothers die to save a fetus? And often lost both? That's the direction your argument is pointed in.

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: Amergin
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 01:09 PM

Excuse me, I was talking about a c-section that would have saved one of the twins' life...You Mack know nothing about my beliefs. I am very pro-choice...but I do know where to draw the line...this had nothing to do with only her body at this LATE stage. This woman went to several hospitals who ALL told her the same thing....she refused to do it...one of the babies died..Send her to prison.

I kind of wonder at alot of this attitude I see here...is it ok then for a mother to drink and do drugs while she is knowingly pregnant? It is her body after all.

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 01:19 PM

Sometimes the law isn't the best way to deal with this kind of mess. More especially retrospectively, when it's too late to save the baby anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: Bagpuss
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 04:08 PM

Its actually a really difficult one this. On the one hand, you think she should have done what the doctors said when they told her that the baby might die otherwise. But then all through pregnancy, you are told about the really high caesarian rates in the UK and US, and that about 50% of them are unnecessary. And you know all about how some consultants are too ready to use interventions and ignore the mothers (and midwifes) opinions. So when the doctor tells you it is necessary in this case, how are you to know whether it is really necessary, or whether your doctor is one of the ones who is too scalpel happy? You are not in the best states of mind when you are in labour and it is hard enough to assert yourself and have the type of birth you want without this sort of confusion running through your head. Its a sad tragedy, but I would be wary of criminalising someone who has probably suffered enough through the death of her child. Of course this is speaking fairly generally without knowing the full facts of this case.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: Noreen
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 06:02 PM

'Caesarean refusal' mother in jail report from the Guardian.

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 06:24 PM

There are several issues here that haven't been mentioned.

1) Two other articles I read stated that the woman was mentally ill.

2) This happened in Utah, one of the far-right-wing-fundamentalist states.

3) They took the twin that was born alive away from her and had it adopted, which is permanent, not temporary.

RESPECT FOR LIFE?

When the far-right fundies stop sending young people off to war to be killed, then they can have a say in abortions and issues like this one.

When the far-right fundies abandon their position on capital punishment, then they can discuss abortion.

When the far-right fundies will adopt babies who are born unwanted or damaged because of lack of abortions, then they can have a say.

When the far-right fundie government provides pre- and neo-natal care and education to poor black women in the inner cities of America, then they can talk about birth choices.

When the far-right fundies demonstrate a respect for ALL life, not just fetal life, then perhaps their position will be less hypocritical. I'm sure that if they could send fetuses off to war they would think about it hard.

As it is, abortion for these people is nothing more than a control issue for these pious hypocrites, period.

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 11:51 PM

C-sections come with a risk of death as well. I don't understand how they can say it's murder if there is a choice of two risky ways of getting the baby out, and the mother choses one of the two.

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: LadyJean
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 12:41 AM

A good friend of mine's first child was a breach. They were planning to perform a Ceasarian, but the kid was faster than the surgeon. He was born feet first, and is perfectly normal, as far as I know.
Another friend of mine almost died after a c section. Her child hand't turned either. The baby was sideways. It would have been impossible to deliver her. Cases differ.
A good doctor knows that.

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 01:57 AM

Well, maybe things have changed but it was my understanding that the only thing preventing a vaginal delivery was the shape of the pelvic bones. If they are rounded, everything is a go; if they are pointy, a c-section is necessary. This can be determined by an examination. There are far more c-sections done today than are needed. C-sections are far more convenient for doctors and hospitals because they can be scheduled.

d

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 02:03 PM

Amergin said:

With your attitude I would suggest that you would value her life over that of her innocent children.

I, for one, would support her valuing her life over that of the fetuses. Not "children", fetuses.

But even if one were to consider the fetus a person (which I do not), any person is entitled to protect his/her own life at the expense of danger to another's life. Elemental self-protection. Even if her fear for her life is misinformed.

This of course assumes that her motivation was fear for her own life, which I don't know.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 02:14 PM

There are a number of reasons for a C-section, aside from the points of the pelvic bones. A stalled delivery with high pressure can threaten a rupture, a distress in the foetus (which can have anumber of causes), or some physical emergency in the mother's condition can require "going in" rather than waiting in order to avoid a catastrophe.

A

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 08:09 PM

Amos - What is a stalled delivery? What is the most common cause of foetal distress?

d

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 11:16 PM

Speaking from the position of one who researched birthing suites prior to her own deliveries, I'd say the main cause for stalled delivery is stupid birthing situations, set up for the convenience of the doctor. If you make a woman lie on her back and push the child up and over the pelvic arch (which slows or blocks progress) instead of having her upright or propped up, with her legs STRETCHED OUT AND FEET IN STIRRUPS instead of pulled up around her ears, then you slow the child's movement out. The upright or curled position is much more natural and lets the child slide out with the aid of gravity and without extra bones in the way. Lying down leads to more pain, higher blood pressure with the pushing, more need for episiotomies, slower deliveries, more tearing, and much more work for the mother.

That's why both of my babies were delivered by women obstetricians. They'd been there, and done that, and knew what I was looking for in the delivery. Took three hours of hard labor on the first, 90 minutes on the second. No epidural, just natural childbirth and a pudendal block for episiotomy and stitching.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 11:36 PM

D:

I am not a doctor, I am merely reporting from personal observation. What I meant by a stalled delivery is one in which the process of dilation and movemement down the birth canal stops. The normal solution is just to push longer. If this fails, however, it is a good argument for a C section because the high pressure can rupture the uterus. Or so it was explained to me. Foetal distress can come from reduction in oxygen through the umbilical, or extreme pressure n the foetus, or wrapping the umbilicus around the head, or I don't know what all.   Not my field.

A

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: dianavan
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 03:28 AM

Stilly River Sage - both my kids were homebirths attended by midwives and I agree that delivery is much easier and quicker without anesthesia and/or intervention. It is also more comfortable when standing, squatting or on your hands and knees. If I had been hospitalized, my daughter would have probably been delivered by c-section.

Although she was not head down and the cord was wrapped several times around her neck, I delivered a baby holding the placenta in her lap. There was no time to clamp and cut and no episiotome. She was never deprived of oxygen and has just been accepted into a school of architecture. Condidering what drastic measures would have been taken by doctors in a hospital, I am forever grateful that my daughter was not subjected to anesthesia, forcepts, or forced delivery of any kind.

I am glad Amos so humbly admitted that it wasn't his field. There's alot of misinformation about why c-sections are necessary. I stand by my previous statement and re-iterate that c-sections are usually performed for the convenience of scheduling doctors and hospital rooms.

As to the original post. Was the twin that died, an otherwise healthy baby?

d

d

d

d

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 03:42 AM

Well said, pdc, Bagpuss, and Uncle DaveO. This is nothing more than trying to control women to the nth degree.

That said, last November, my pregnant daughter's blood pressure suddenly when sky high and required an immediate c-section, one month before her due date. From all of the research I did, that is the ONLY cure they've found for this condition. As it turns out, it was probably the only way to keep our grandson alive, too. When they delivered him, he had a "true knot" in his umbilical cord which, during vaginal delivery, would have pulled taut, suffocating him. There was also very little amniotic fluid causing him even more distress. So, the c-section saved both lives, in this instance, for an expectant mother who was adamantly opposed to such. Her doctor made ti clear to her that this was the only option for her and her baby and he did it without a menacing threat of any kind.

I can well imagine what it will be like for women now who are unsure of the need for a c-section...doctor; "We'll send you to prison if you don't let us operate!" Can anyone who has not given birth or is unable to because of gender, understand the chilling implications of this? Remember The Handmaid's Tale?

Keep Your Laws Off My Body!

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: dianavan
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 04:06 AM

katlaughing - Thank goodness you have your little grandson and your daughter, too. Of course their are medical emergencies that require hospitalization and c-sections, too. Your daughter did the right thing.

I agree with you - Keep your laws off my body. Its my choice!

d

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: dianavan
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 04:15 AM

Sorry about all my d d d d d's on the previous post.

Apparently they wanted to cut this woman from breastbone to pubic bone. Thats pretty drastic. I thought it was an American right to refuse medical treatment.

I guess they'll try to make this another "right to life" issue.

d

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: Bagpuss
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 05:22 AM

from personal experience, sometimes there is just no reason for stalled delivery/foetal distress. I had failure to progress - stuck at 3cm dilated until they broke my waters, then contractions becoming less regular and effective until I became so tired that I was in ketosis, so they had to move me to the consultant unit. Because I had so little energy, this led to foetal distress and they had to give me drugs to hurry things up and strengthen my contractions and do a ventouse delivery. This was dispite being in a midwife unit for most of my labour where I was encouraged to move around and be in any position I felt like. I was in the birthing pool for a while.

If I had had a consultant who was more ready to perform caesarians, they probably would have suggested this and told me I "had to" have it for the baby's sake - and I probably would have believed them and done it even though it wasnt what I wanted and I wouldnt have known there was an alternative.

Personally I cant understand the view that a foetus is not a child and has no human rights during labour, but a few short hours later is a person with full rights. There is no real difference in the baby other than where it is and how it gets its energy. Its just a convenient place for some people to draw an arbitrary line in the continuous process from being a few cells to being a precious baby. I personally draw the line much earlier, but recognise it is still somewhat arbitrary.

Bagpuss

Subject: no sarcasm intended
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 07:03 AM

Well bagpuss you have the legal right to put your dog to sleep but you may not do so for the purpose of feeding him to the public (in the US etc.).

You may not understand that a mature dog is more conscious and aware of the world than an unborn human but I suspect they are.

What is at work here are cultural factors that people choose out of a necessity for the pursuit of a better life. Selfish? Perhaps but few organisms (perhaps none) have no defenses or predation that does not affect other organisms in some less than holpful way.

One standard may not fit all but there are people who will always fight for the chance to impose their standards on others.

Should these people succeed they are not unlike a super virus.

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: Bagpuss
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 10:03 AM

Donuel - Is a mature dog more conscious and aware than a day old child, in your opinion (this will always be opinion, as there is no scientifically valid measure of consciousness - even its very definition eludes us)? If yes, do I have the right to "put down" my day old child? If not, do you believe there is some sudden increase in conscious awareness that occurs at the moment of birth - and what would you base this idea on?

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 10:48 AM

Whoa!--Don--major non-sequitur--I think there's a kink in that argument--it's no longer lucid, seems to be oxygen deprived--MEDIC!

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 06:10 PM

For those who are interested and may be able to participate, there will be a March For Women's Lives in Washington, DC. Lots of my fav. orgs. are involved in getting it together. I hope the messages are loud and clear.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 06:36 PM

This really does seem to be treating women as lower than brood mares.

I suppose the next step will be age limits and fitness requirements in men for a licence to procreate.

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 10:49 PM

Naw--because men probably run the system that would do the "licensing." They won't do it to themselves, just to others.

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: GUEST,guest jlangan
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 05:58 PM

Hey, been a lurker here forever and had to chime in on this one...please bear with me, as I am not at all a good writer (thus the lack of posts on my part).

The c/section rate in the US is now over 1 in 4 births. Despite this, the rate of cerebral palsy and infant deaths has NOT gone down.
A C/section DOES NOT guarantee a good outcome. What it does do is "prove" that the medpros have done "everything possible" to save the baby, thus decreasing their chances of being successfully sued.

The majority of the time a c/section the result of cascading medical interventions, many unnecessary and some of which downright dangerous. Pregnant women are almost never informed of the risks involved in these "routine" practices and they are very often coerced into unnecessary c/sections in the confusion that ensues. They are NOT told that this major abdominal surgery is not just an alternative to vaginal birth but will greatly increase the baby's chances of ending up in the NICU, increase the risks to future pregnancies (infertility, miscarriage, placental problems, etc), affect any of their future births, and possibly compromise their future reproductive and general health (secondary complications come with ALL major surgery and c/section is no exception).

NOW......

Pregnant women all over the country are being denied the right to birth their babies vaginally AFTER a c/section. Vaginal birth after c/section is SAFER in MOST cases. This ban on VBAC (vag birth after c/s) is NOT based on scientific evidence, birth outcomes, etc but on liability issues and ONE very flawed study in hundreds to the contrary. The interests of pregnant women and their babies are most definitely NOT foremost here. More and more hospitals everyday are closing their doors to VBAC simply to avoid lawsuits. More and more pregnant women who simply want the safest birth are left with little choice but birth at home or submit to surgery.

This is not a small number of women being subjected to forced major abdominal surgery. The C/section rates are very high and increase every year, so naturally many many women are going to birth after a c/section. This is affecting so many women and babies and yet....
Have you heard about it? Or did you assume that the medical professionals look out for a mother and child's well being first and foremost?

The medpros are not god; medical advice is just that, ADVICE. More often than not an ob will recommend a Csection not in the interest of the mother or baby's well being but for liability purposes. Many OBs, when pressed, will admit this. Check out an OB discussion forum if you feel inclined.

Many OBs seek out even the most dubious reasons for imposing the decision for c/sec upon a mother especially one attempting vbac. As far as the safety of the fetus - of the many ways in which fetal viability is assessed, all are far from foolproof. The two most widely utilized instruments for diagnosing fetal distress are electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) and Ultrasound. Neither of which, with routine use, have provided a better overall outcome for babies. Both devices have wide margins of error and results are seemingly arbitrarily interpreted by each different doctor. Study after study has proven that each doctor or tech may have a different interpretation of the same exact information gained from these machines.

There are very good reasons for performing a c/s and I do not dispute that at all. I just want to point out that valid reasons are FAR MORE RARE than OBs would have us believe. And a c/section is not a cure; it is not a guarantee for a healthy baby.

None of us will ever know what the exact situation was with this woman in Utah, but regardless, it is incredibly frightening to think what could come of it...if I want to birth my next child the safest way possible but am denied that right at hospital after hospital, can I be charged with attempted murder for not following the doctors' advice (i.e.: establishment's best interest)?
How the heck can this be happening?

If you feel what I've said is false please research, read the studies, look at the forums, talk with a midwife...I'll be happy to talk about this further if anyone wants.

With much warm to all you mudcatters,

Jennifer Langan


ps. does anyone remember the monty python skit with the machine that goes ping?! Today's birth culture.

pps. that pelvis being too "small" or "angular" or whatever is pure HOOEY. Unless a woman was severely malnourished or had rickets, her pelvis will be fine for birth if she is given the opportunity to birth as her body dictates - not uphill backwards in the snow.

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: GUEST,jenny
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 09:25 PM

Just some info I thought I'd link regarding rambling post:

good article about the case

the melissa anne rowland support coaliton

And for cesarean myth debunking 101 International Cesarean Awareness Network

thanks!
jl

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Apr 04 - 02:34 PM

Jenny - Thanks for the first blue clicky. Everyone who has posted, should read it. The last clicky, however, didn't work.

Sometimes the pelvic bones are sharp rather that round but that can be determined by examination early in the the first pregnancy - it has nothing to do with "small". This is rare but a very good reason to have a c-section as the babies head may have alot of difficulty sliding past. Other than that, c-sections are usually a result doctors trying to control the birthing experience and indeed women's bodies. There are, of course, problems that may occur unexpectantly and thats why its good to have a midwife and a doctor and hosp. ready just in case. My kids were both born at home but everything was in place if there was an emergency - including a helicopter on standby.

Does anyone have the statistics (percentages) of complications in home births, versus complications in hospital births?

The best argument for a home birth is that the sick and injured need hospital care, a pregnant woman is neither sick or injured.

...and why would you expose a newborn to a place where bacteria and virus' are rampant? A pregnant woman gives the fetus all the antibodies it needs to survive in its home environment.

Given accurate information, it should be a woman's choice. Its her body.

d

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 12:14 AM

Hey there everyone. Sorry, this post has been quiet for a while but I was away and I just wanted to respond to Diana.

I fixed the link for Rowland's Support Group

The ICAN one is good too. If you have a bit of time, there is a ton of information there about "the pelvic thing". Here's a great article from Midwifery Today by Gloria LeMay, a well-known midwife, about it. Pelvises I have known and Loved

I apologize if I seemed snippy when saying the pelvis comment was "hooey." It is a very hot topic in the natural birth arena right now! The sharp vs. round is such a common belief and so often used by doctors to manipulate women into scheduling c/sections even though docs KNOW it has been largely disproven. Just like the idea that the pregnant women is neither sick nor injured so does not belong in a hospital is difficult to get through to anyone in the fear-driven culture that is medicinized birth, the pelvis thing constantly runs into brick walls. In a nutshell (ahem... : )

      The pelvic girdle is not a fixed, solid structure. During pregnancy and labour the hormone relaxin softens the ligaments that join the pelvic bones, allowing the pelvis to give and 'stretch'. The degree of pelvic expansion achieved will vary from woman to woman and from pregnancy to pregnancy. It is IMPOSSIBLE to predict the size or shape a pelvis will be for birth in early pregnancy or from one birth to the next. Pelvemetry, for this reason, is useless in measuring a pelvis for birth adequacy unless, as I mentioned before, a women has a serious deformity arising from poor nutrition or a broken pelvis.
Also, babies' heads are made up of separate bones which move relative to each other, allowing the baby's head to 'mould' and thus reduce its diameter during passage down the birth canal. No-one can predict the capacity of an individual baby's head to mould and, as this is a feature of the normal birth process, it should not adversely affect the health and well-being of the baby.

    The position that a woman adopts during labour and delivery makes a difference to pelvic dimensions. Squatting, for example, can increase pelvic measurements by up to 30%. One of the most common positions in which women give birth, that of being semi-reclined where the mother's weight is on her coccyx, restricts movement of the coccyx, which can severely compromise a below-average pelvis.

4. The position of the baby can be crucial, and whether its head is well flexed or tilted can mean the difference between an easy delivery and delivery being impossible.


I guess in many ways it just boils down to fear but, well, birth is as safe as life gets!!

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: GUEST,jlangan
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 12:25 AM

AAAAAAAhhhh I wasn't finished and the derned thing got sent to the list. There's a 4 plopped in the middle and I didn't do a spell check and it sounds terrible and no one knows me and I'll sound like an annoying weirdo guest person when really I'm a respectful, admiring, lurking-type indivdual. ugh. I really meant to make it warmer and even slightly humerous after I typed out the HARD FACTS to, you know, get my thoughts about birth canals in order. I was even going to include a nice little ditty (or is that diddy) I wrote to go with Pelvises I Have Known and Loved. Or should that be PELVI. feck.
Love to All!
JennyL
ps. homebirth vs. hospital birth statistics forthcoming
pps if I AM beating a dead horse as I suspect let me know 'cuz I can't find them and it'll be a while I think and I won't bother.

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 12:30 AM

Thanks, Guest.

My info regarding the pelvis is old info indeed. I'm glad to see that midwifery is progressing and that information like this is getting out. In any event, both of my home deliveries were a joy. The first was quick. I was expecting a spiritual event but it was more like going to a party and coming home with a door prize. The second was very long with some uneasy moments but we managed to get through it with alot of improvising. I did have the spiritual experience I was waiting for. Both were painless.

d

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 12:53 AM

I'm glad you posted all of that, Jennifer. I think it's important for people to know that stuff before they judge the birthing decisions women make.

It's a very complicated issue. I know from my own experience with childbirth (very narrow hips, kid with a big head, a three day labor, and a forceps delivery in the hospital... even though I had planned a home birth). I think it's important for people to know that none of this can be boiled down to simple black and white issues. I think your posts may be of some help in that respect.

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: GUEST,jennyl
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 12:56 AM

d,
It is so nice to hear about your homebirth especially here since I have such a fondness for this list. When I was last preg I was having a lot of trouble with the VBAC thing and I can't tell you why exactly but I always wanted to rant/discuss it here on mudcat. I felt like I'd be heard even though it was so way way off topic. But I never did, felt like it was just too out of place especially since I never post. I did find a lot of comfort here anyway though, it was something nice to do when I couldn't sleep; I kept up on current events without having to watch the boobtube, found loads of lyrics for singing to the new babe, made good use of several baby name threads, would you believe it was an endless source of pregnant gal entertainment and often quite on-topic in one way or another.

Anyway, I rarely find other homebirthers as I live in quite a conservative area birth-wise...so YAY!! nice to meet you. I can't say my homebirth attempt was painless, but quite managable and very enjoyable. I definitely look on the home part very fondly even though I ended up in the hosp (non-emergency, btw)and the doorprise, well, as a fellow recipient I'm sure you know, I'm completely enamored with the thing!

JennyL


ps feel bad as thread's origins have nothing to do with this. Have loads more info on Rowland if anyone wants it...

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 11:12 PM

In related news, Congresswoman Susan Davis reports:

------------------------------------------------------------------------


VII. WOMAN ACT

Earlier this month, I reintroduced the Women's Obstetrician and Gynecologist Medical Access Now (WOMAN) Act, H.R. 2937. This bill will ensure that every woman has direct access to her ob-gyn.

I believe women should not need a permission slip to receive ob-gyn care. Unfortunately, that is the reality faced by many women when they need to see their doctor. Numerous managed care plans require women to visit their primary care physicians before seeking the health care services they need from the providers they want.

While serving in the California State Assembly, I heard from many women who experienced these problems. After meeting with women, health providers, and health plan representatives, I wrote the state law allowing women direct access to their ob-gyn. That law was a good first step; however, it still does not cover women enrolled in self-insured, federally regulated health plans. This means that even if a woman lives in a state with direct access protections, like California, she may not be able to see her ob-gyn without a referral if she is covered by a federally regulated ERISA health plan. I believe the time has come to make direct access to an ob-gyn a national standard. "

Subject: RE: BS: US Women get new CHOICE
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 11:19 PM

I agree with her, wholeheartedly, esp. as I remember when I could CHOOSE to go to an ob-gyn withOUT anyone's permission! It was just a given!