When being "pro-life" becomes dangerous to babies...and to their mothers.

KCtheMommy · #1 Nov 11, '07, 7:53 pm

Now this has nothing to do with illegal abortions and coat hangers. In fact it really has little to do with abortion at all. I just wanted to point out and discuss something I came across in researching the right for women to give birth naturally, or even SAFELY. It's an unfortunate disparity in the pro-life movement that can actually hurt us women who ARE pro-life, yet also pro-phsyiological birth. It's frustrating to me because the pro-choice movement is so concerned with keeping abortion legal that they are literally IGNORANT when it comes to us women who do want to carry our babies, yet want the same laws and respect to cover us in our right to "choose" our births.

I am posting this here because so many of us momma's are not only fans of natural, unmedicated and gentle birth, we are also pro-homebirth and pro-VBAC. If the laws change to protect unborn babies to stop them from being aborted -- we could be inadvertantly LUMPED in and actually prosecuted for giving birth naturally. This is a real threat, and I want to point out that if you do feel strongly on birthing your way, you might want to join in on movements to help bring natural birth back in the mainstream, midwives back into the hospitals or even into legality, and to help stop the over-medication and over-surgical-response to birth.

Unfortunately birth is a big business, and more and more of the choices OB's make in hospitals are run not by what's best for the baby or the mother -- but what's best for the lawyers and the malpractice insurance companies. THEY are making decisions on our births that are not good for us or our children. This really should be brought to light.

So anyway, where to go with this info? I have NO IDEA. If anyone belongs to a pro-birth movement that wants to protect mothers and babies well into the actual giving birth part, while not stripping our human and legal rights -- in an effort to stop abortions, please let me know.

I am sure some of you have heard of women being handcuffed to geurneys and being legally forced into c-sections. It happens often these days, and it's really scary. This kind of practice will only increase if we no longer have any legal rights over our unborn children. This worrries me. REALLY worries me. Many many women can and will die. The death of our own rights scare me too, not because I am a feminist or such, but because I am a human being, and an American.

For further reference you can read Pushed by Jennifer Block or Born in the U.S.A. by Marsden Wagner.

Thoughts?

queen_anne78 · #2 Nov 11, '07, 8:29 pm

I'm not sure how to "fix" things, but I have noticed among a lot of birth activists that they see abortion as part of a woman's right to choose when and how she will birth...or if she won't birth at all.

Frustrates the **** out of me. The same women who complain about the medicalization of childbirth and taking advantage of women and telling them their bodies don't work right (all things I agree with) cannot even see that abortion is PART of the problem. That abortion is the greatest exploitation of women. That abortion says to a woman "You should have sex and not get pregnant. Getting pregnant is a problem, fix your problem." in the same way a doctor might say to a woman, "You cannot birth your baby by yourself. You need the help of my vacuum extractor/forceps/episiotpmy." (note: no one freak out here. I recognize that these interventions are sometimes neccessary, in which case, I applaud the advances of medicine. But a lot of times, these things are NOT needed and done "just because").

I feel like some of the birth activists I know need to open their eyes ALL THE WAY...that all life is precious, not just when you want it, and that pregnancy and birth are beautiful, wonderful blessings, and that the choices a woman makes about her pregnancy, labor, and birth should be those that are best for both her AND her baby....therefore, abortion does not count. Abortion is clearly not best for babe. Or for mom.

I don't know.

I just try to go to LLL meetings, talk to my midwife, hang around in the birth community, and try to be an example and pray.

I would love, one day, when I have time, to be a doula and to help support women spiritually and emotionally during labor and birth.

Island Oak · #3 Nov 11, '07, 9:09 pm

You raise a very interesting point. I'd be interested to see opinions on where "right to choose" ends and right to life takes over--when the issue is not abortion, but birth options. When does birthing choice transform to radical feminism/individualism that threatens the health and safety of an unborn child sufficiently such that the state has not only a right, but a duty to intervene and trump the decision making of the mother? Where does the father's consent fit into this formula? What about physician/midwife malpractice? What about maternal liability--could a woman be denied custody, parental rights? Could she be prosecuted for neglect, abuse, reckless endangerment, manslaughtler or even murder?

seekerz · #4 Nov 11, '07, 9:17 pm

While I agree with you that there can be a tendency to over-medicate and perform csections at the drop of a hat, I think there needs to be a balanced perspective.

Normal, uncomplicated births at home are probably no big deal, but the attendant should possess the knowledge, skill and willingness to detect and seek help if problems arise.

Some advocates of natural birthing techniques can come on pretty strong (the opposite extreme to excessive medical interference in labor). However much one may want it, a natural birth might not always be the responsible choice in every case. To my mind, where there is conflict between the mother's wishes and the doctor's opinion of risk to her or baby, we should always err on the side of safety. It seems highly improbable to me that someone would be handcuffed to a gurney simply to prove a point rather than to save two lives.

Birth is a natural process, but historically carried a much higher risk of death/complications for mother and baby than it does today. Scientific advances have helped in making childbearing safer, and this should be taken into account when planning a homebirth.

I believe it is possible in our day to develop a practical, sensible and responsible blend of nature and science without risking lives.

How exactly this ties into pro-life issues, I'm still unsure though...

Quinault · #5 Nov 11, '07, 9:24 pm

There has to be a line somewhere. Many doctors merely ere on the side of caution out of paranoia more than anything else. You can make an excuse to have any medical intervention because of what "might" happen. An IV can be very useful "if" a woman needs a transfusion after giving birth. Is the average woman likely to need one? No. But there are "enough" women that need one that many hosp. make it mandatory. And episiotomy can be useful in some situations. In fact a few homebirthing midwives have been known to perform them as needed. But does the average or even the majority of women need one? Absolutely not. And yet at one point it was standard practice.

(KC; you go girl

)

KCtheMommy · #6 Nov 11, '07, 9:27 pm

Quote:

Could she be prosecuted for neglect, abuse, reckless endangerment, manslaughtler or even murder?

They already are!!! There are women in prison for all the above. Sometimes it's because their babies were born still and they tested positive for drugs. Sadly this is exactly why these babies are dying -- women are terrified, as drug addicts, to receive help and prenatal care because they know they could end up in prison. Vicious cycle that one.

Other times midwives are being charged in deaths maternal and or fetal that would have died in the hospital REGARDLESS...such as amniotic embalism. Where the amniotic fluid enters the blood stream...it is 100% unpreventable and always ends in death.

Other incidents include a women who had ALL thier children taken away for having a home birth when a pediatrician turned them in for "child endangerment" when they brought their HEALTHY newborn for his mandatory (within 72 hours) newborn screening. Bad choice on pediatrician huh? AND THE BABY WAS HEALTHY!!! This was NY state, it was a few years ago but I think it'll still be in the annals of Google.

Another story of a lady who was trying so hard for a VBAC and she left the hospital, was brought back by a sheriff! They gave her a c-section at 9 sonameters and she was literally shackled to the hospital bed.

I am finding/researching all these stories and it terrifies me. What's even scarier is that so much of this could be prevented. What is even scarier is it could get worse if the pro-life movement opens the flood gates to legal action against ANY pregnant mother. When a big-time pro-choice movement hot-shot was interviewed by Jennifer Block even she said (not verbatim, I don't have the book in front of me, but essentially) "it's not the same, we don't feel the need to protect the choices of mother's giving birth to full-term babies." So the pro-choicers are JUST AS BAD.

I am just really concerned about this whole situation.

Quinault · #7 Nov 11, '07, 9:32 pm

I think there needs to be a middle ground found somewhere. As followers of Christ we know that all life is sacred. And we also believe that life begins at conception. But where do we draw the line? If given the choice between the mother dying or having an abortion what choice do we make? In the case of a tubal pregnancy this is the issue very much at hand. Yes, it is POSSIBLE to have a live baby result from a tubal pregnancy. In rare cases it CAN happen. But more than 9 times out of 10 women die along with their babies. Are we as women merely incubators that should allow ourselves to possibly die simply because the baby may attach themselves to another vital organ and develop normally? Even IF that occurs many women and babies will die of blood loss in the process of giving birth. That is IF they make it to term at all.

seekerz · #8 Nov 11, '07, 9:43 pm

There has to be balance, KC.

Some of the cases you cite, especially the child endangerment one, sound like they were unreasonably handled, but others I'm not so sure.

If a woman continues to use drugs when pregnant, in my opinion, she is unable/unwilling to place her baby's life & wellbeing before her own desires. That is the definition of child endangerment to me. What prevents her from seeking help for her addiction so that she isn't 'forced' to avoid prenatal care?!

And at what point does a woman trying for a VBAC know that it's not going to happen? Does she or does she not have to make that decision in conjunction with her caregiver? Some women are advised not to even try giving birth naturally after they've had a csection. It all depends on the individual woman's circumstances. There are no blanket policies that can be sensibly and responsibly applied to all such situations.

Quinault · #9 Nov 11, '07, 9:50 pm

Generally a provider either does VBAC's or they don't. Those that don't typically don't because they think they are all dangerous or because they simply can not get the insurance/hospital to do it.

seekerz · #10 Nov 11, '07, 9:59 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quinault

Generally a provider either does VBAC's or they don't. Those that don't typically don't because they think they are all dangerous or because they simply can not get the insurance/hospital to do it.

Well I take a dim view of blanket policies - of any kind. If a woman is advised against VBAC she should question the basis for that advice and accept or reject it based on whether it is medically sound and tailored to her specific situation. She could seek a second opinion if unsure. What she should not do is doggedly pursue a natural birth under the assumption that all doctors oppose VBAC's because all are opposed to natural birth.

The important consideration here is what is the safe choice for baby and mother.

Quinault · #11 Nov 11, '07, 10:02 pm

You can research providers and find out what both their c-section AND VBAC rates are. In general the better providers have a high VBAC and low c-sec rate. Unless a provider is a high risk doc they really shouldn't have a high c-sec rate. And any midwife worth their salt has OBGYN's that they consult with in case of emergency. So if a MW doesn't have a back up OB then you should avoid them as much as you avoid the OB's with low VBAC and high c-sec rates.

phplists · #12 Nov 12, '07, 7:35 am

One thing we need to keep in mind about preserving the ability of midwives to practice, and of women to use them, is the possibility that medical technology may not be available in a disaster.

Here is a good example of this kind of thing:

http://www.exceptionalmarriages.com/...l.asp?ID=38619

I realize this discussion is now more about VBAC, but birthing freedom was the beginning of the thread, and the benefits of natural birthing to babies and mothers - the pro-life nature of encouraging women to see their bodies as good and how normal birthing helps babies too.

Em_in_FL · #13 Nov 12, '07, 8:15 am

I'm confused?
How is the pro-life movement involved here?

phplists · #14 Nov 12, '07, 8:43 am

There is actually a connetion.

"Abortion, Natural Childbirth and Reproductive 'Choice'":

http://www.exceptionalmarriages.com/...l.asp?ID=37327

It's a tough issue, but there is definitely a connection.

Brenda V. · #15 Nov 12, '07, 8:52 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Em_in_FL

I'm confused?
How is the pro-life movement involved here?

I am not sure but I think it is because we are fighting for laws to limit (totally stop) abortions and this could impact pregnant women. The thing to remember is that most pro-lifers are fighting for laws that will prosecute the abortionist and his/her support staff and not the woman.

Nothing I have read in this thread yet has even correlated with anything I have done or voted for as a pro-life advocate so... KC can you point something out that is more specific as to how being pro-life will impact the use of a mid-wife or home birth? I am talking specific legislation, not individual cases where poor judgment was used with the women?

Brenda V.