The Case of Money + the C-Section

I have heard countless women speak about their low-risk pregnancies leading to C-sections. From this I have concluded doctors must be getting some kind of monetary incentive for butchering women without medically sound reasons. In an article written for NPR, Shankar Vedantam, writes abou?t this very idea. His article titled, Money May Be Motivating Doctors To Do More C-Sections, recounts the research of health care economists Erin Johnsonand M. Marit Rehavi.

 "About 1 in 3 babies born today is delivered via C-section, compared to 1 in 5 babies delivered via the surgical procedure in 1996. During the same time period, the annual medical costs of childbirth in the U.S. have grown by $3 billion annually." 

ONE in THREE?! This is scary and has changed the very essence of how humans give birth. It's like how navigation has changed the way humans get around. You almost never hear someone ask for directions, soon its going to be the same with birth. A woman will just schedule her due date and keep it moving. 

"Pregnant doctors are less likely than other women to deliver their babies via C-section, recent research suggests. Economists say that may be because the physician patients feel more empowered to question the obstetrician."

Of course, this is just like executives of Monsanto peddling GMOs and only serving organic foods in their corporate cafeterias or Dr. Oz telling every parent to give their children vaccines when his children are vaccine free. Oh the hypocrisy. 

"They hypothesized that obstetricians would be less likely to be swayed by financial incentives when patients themselves had significant medical expertise and knowledge. By contrast, the researchers figured, such incentives might play a larger role in medical decision-making when patients knew very little."

Indeed knowledge is power.

To read the entire article click here.


During my weekly birthing resources search I arrived upon two web sites that offer in-depth information for women interested in vaginal births after cesareans. I have never had a C-section, but many of my friends have and I always cringe when they tell me their OBs tell them having a vaginal birth the next time around is out of the question. LIES... LIES... LIES. You know how I feel about women having the opportunity and right to make informed decisions not based on fear, lies, and cohesion.  


The two resources for vagina birth after cesarean (VBAC- Vee Back) are here: provides childbearing women and maternity care professionals access to evidence-based resources, educational materials, and support for VBAC and cesarean prevention.

Childbirth Connection offers great resources for women interested in having a VBAC and repeat C-Sections. 

Interesting Read

Furthering my knowledge on birth and pregnancy I visited The Unnecesarean, one of my favorite sources for birth policy and hospital rates, to catch up on the latest news. On the blog I arrived upon an article published by titled, What to Reject WhenYou're Expecting: 10 Procedures to Think Twice About During Your Pregnancy (May 2012). In the article the authors mention the 10 overused procedures, 10 things you should do during your pregnancy, 5 things to do before you become pregnant, and two successful birth stories.


10 Overused Procedures 


  1. A C-section with low risk first birth
  2. An automatic second C-section
  3. An elective early delivery
  4. Inducing labor without a medical reason
  5. Ultrasounds after 24 weeks (the margin of error increases significantly as the pregnancy progresses)
  6. Continuous electronic fetal monitoring 
  7. Early epidurals
  8. Routinely rupturing the amniotic membranes 
  9. Sending your newborn to the nursery
  10. Routine episiotomies


After reading the section on not needing a ultrasound after 24 weeks for a low-risk pregnancy, all I could do was reflect on my experience and think about the tactics that were used on me to get me to comply with the bullshit I was feed. For instance, I was told that a full term pregnancy was 38 weeks, well according to the March of Dimes and medical research is was a big fat lie. A FULL TERM PREGNANCY IS AT LEAST 39 WEEKS. The "coercion, lies, manipulation, bullying, intimidation, threats, and anger" directed at women in their most fragile state is criminal.

I think the summer of 2014 I will begin training as a doula. I strongly feeling women in this country are being sold a bunch of shit when it come to giving birth. Got to be the change you want to see in the world.

About one third of the babies born in the united states are born via csection! One in three!!! Shameful.



Refusal of Cesarean Leads to Loss of Custody in NJ

Saw this and almost shit myself. This is one of the hospitals that my OB has privileges. . .

The Superior Court of New Jersey upheld the decision that a woman who refused an unnecessary cesarean at St. Barnabas Hospital, which boasts a 49.3 percent cesarean rate, will not receive custody of her daughter. The judge claims the Superior Court of New Jersey’s decision is not based on the defendant’s refusal of a cesarean, but on “other substantial additional evidence of abuse and neglect that supported the ultimate findings.”

A Quick Summary

On April 16, 2006, V and B, a married couple, went to Saint Barnabas Hospital after V began experiencing contractions. V is described in court documents as a 42 year old, college educated woman who was thirty-five weeks pregnant and in labor upon arrival at St. Barnabas Hospital in New Jersey, which boasts a 49.3 percent cesarean rate. V signed the consent form for the administration of intravenous fluids, antibiotics, oxygen, fetal heart rate monitoring, an episiotomy and an epidural anesthetic. However, she refused to the blanket consent forms for c-section or fetal scalp stimulation. According to the court documents, hospital personnel explained the “potentially dire consequences of not allowing a c-section in the event of fetal distress.”

In the hospital records, V is described as “combative,” “uncooperative,” “erratic,” “noncompliant,” “irrational” and “inappropriate” while in labor. V requested that the obstetrician leave the room and called the Livingston Police to report that she was being abused and denied treatment. She exercised the right to refuse to wear an oxygen mask, would not consent to fetal heart rate monitoring and “thrashed about to the extent that it was unsafe for the anesthesiologist to administer an epidural,” but records do not indicate whether or not she had requested an epidural. While yelling loudly, she exercised the right to refuse a bedside ultrasound.

Dr. Mansuria, the obstetrician, explained the possible complications that could occur if the fetus went into distress and a c-section was not performed, such as brain damage, mental retardation and fetal death. Mansuria claimed that “an examination” revealed a nonreassuring fetal status. B said that he understood the risks and V would not consent to the procedure.


The legal findings show that the “hospital responded appropriately to confront V’s mental state and her refusal to consent to the c-section.” The staff requested an emergency psychiatric evaluation to determine V.’s competency. Dr. Devendra Kurani spoke to V for approximately one hour and while Kurani was there, the anesthesiologist was able to administer an epidural. V informed Kurani that she had a “psychiatric history” and had been on medication prior to getting pregnant. B confirmed that V had been treated by a psychiatrist for post-traumatic stress disorder and had been prescribed Zoloft, Prozac and Seroquel.


Dr. Kurani concluded that although V was anxious, she was not psychotic and had the capacity for informed consent with regard to the c-section. The staff called in a second psychiatric evaluation from a Dr. Jacoby.Before the second psychiatrist was able to complete the examination, V gave birth vaginally to J without incident in spite of Dr. Mansuria’s repeated claims that V’s baby was in distress and could suffer brain damage, mental retardation or fetal death without the recommended cesarean.


A social worker at Saint Barnabas Hospital contacted the Division of Youth and Family Services on April 18, 2006, two days after J’s birth to report concerns over releasing the baby to her parents’ care. Caseworker Heather Frommer went to the hospital, interviewed staff and spoke to V and B, who denied that V “had ever received psychiatric treatment, had ever refused to consent to a c-section or had ever been evaluated by a hospital psychiatrist.”

It gets deeper the court findings can be found here in full, and a summary found here.

 Source: the