Woman loses custody of child for five years for refusing C-section

Article can be found here.

by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

March 17, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A New Jersey woman has lost custody of her child for the past five years for refusing to sign a consent form permitting a C-section during her child’s birth, according to an exclusive report published by Britain’s Daily Mail newspaper.
 
The Daily Mail reports that the woman, whose initials are given as VM, was accused of child abuse by staff of St. Barnabas Hospital of New Jersey for refusing to sign the document, despite the fact that VM agreed to submit to the operation if it later became necessary.

Although VM’s judgment turned out to be correct, and she gave birth naturally through her birth canal to a healthy baby child, her child was taken away by authorities.

After years of judicial proceedings, in which the trial judge and an appellate court upheld the decision to deprive VM of her child, she finally received a favorable ruling on a second appeal. The case was remanded to the lower court judge, who still must issue a revised ruling.  VM’s husband, whose initials are BG, has also been deprived of custody.

In overturning the lower court ruling, the New Jersey Superior Court reportedly stated, “Termination [of parental rights] is among the most extraordinary remedies that can be exercised by a court. We must insist that the remedy be reserved for those instances where the state meets the extraordinary burden imposed by the law.”

It adds: “That burden has not been met here.”

Wow. So much to say on this one. In a country that allows the unborn child to be murdered up until the moment of birth, under the guise of "a woman's right to choose" and "my body, my choice", this is a disgusting display of hypocrisy. So it's not okay to have a natural birth, if a doctor considers it dangerous, even though his true and only concern is a malpractice suit, and his insurance company dropping him. But killing the child is fine if the parents don't want it.

Having a repeat cesarean has a greater risk of mortality and morbidity than the minute chances of uterine rupture. If there is a dead or injured mom or baby, traditionally, courts have ruled in favor of physicians if they performed a c-section, and against them if they instead cautiously observed and waited. So in spite of the fact that performing the surgery leads to more harm done than not performing the surgery, the first is considered "doing everything in their power to save the baby/mother", and therefore usually is ruled in the physician's favor. The health of mother and baby is not the main concern - the doctor's medical license is. Erring on the side of caution to them means performing an almost always unnecessary cesarean, whereas erring on the side of caution regarding the mother/child would be to observe and wait.

This is not an isolated, rare case. I have blogged on court-ordered cesareans before. There was a case like that in Arizona a little over one year ago, and another one of a mother whose baby was taken at birth after she refused to sign the consent form for the surgery (her baby was eventually returned to her - I was unable to retrieve the news article on that). It goes back to government officials thinking that they know better what is in the best interest of our own children, even though they would never have a fraction of the love that normal parents feel for their children toward those same children. Are there parents who hate and abuse their children? Certainly. However, they are not the kind who fight tooth and nail to protect their unborn child from the risks of unnecessary surgery. They are more likely the kind who will get an abortion, which of course, is not only legal, but funded by the government. 

Sadly, this further proves my point that the hospital is the worst place to have a baby. Is it sometimes necessary to transfer to the hospital, or even to have a cesarean? Certainly, but those life-or-death cases are very, very rare. Do you think all elderly people should live at a hospital in case they suffer a heart attack? That would be silly. Yet, labor offers many more warning signs of things turning in an undesired direction, so there is time to transfer if necessary. It's not like at the hospital, the surgical team is just standing by every laboring woman's bedside, scrubbed clean and suited up for surgery, with the OR clean and available, and the team of nurses ready and waiting, just in case something should go wrong. If there is a need to transfer, the midwife usually calls when the parents are getting in the car and leaving home, and likely they will arrive at the hospital before the surgeon and OR are even ready for them. Cases like this, however, will make parents LESS likely to transfer, worsening the situation if there is a true medical emergency. Going to the hospital is so dangerous, it becomes a last ditch, desperate effort when pretty much all other options have been exhausted. It ought not be like that. Women should make the choice to birth at home because of preference, not because going to the hospital is such a dangerous option.

Click here to read about another case of a newborn baby being stolen from the parents by government officials at the hospital.

This post is not about the question of home vs. hospital birth. It is about government overstepping their bounds and abusing their power to prove a point, intimidate, coerce, harass, and injure (both physically, and emotionally). 

What are your thoughts on this?

The dangers of repeat Cesarean deliveries

One of my biggest passions/obsessions is to advocate for natural birth, and the avoidance of unnecessary C-sections. Sadly, the rates of successfully achieving a natural delivery after a Cesarean (VBAC) have dropped into the single digits in recent years, while rates of surgical deliveries have now reached an all-time high of 1 in 3 births nationwide (with some cities/states/hospitals having rates as high as 70%).

These two factors combined mean that there are many ladies who will end up with a repeat Cesarean for no other reason than that she had one before. What many women may not realize fully is how the risks and dangers associated with that rise dramatically with each additional C-section.

For anyone interested in having a large family, or allowing God to determine the size of their family, this can be a serious health threat. So much so, that many OBs will strongly urge/pressure a lady having her third (or more) C-section to consent to having tubal ligation during the delivery, and medically speaking, I can certainly see their point. The mistake was to perform what was most likely an unnecessary surgery to begin with. I can right now think of probably a dozen or more ladies who all have three children after three C-sections, and who no longer can have kids although they would have loved to have more. It is such a sad state to be in.

I found the following article very shocking, but also informative.


Dangerous delivery shows peril of multiple C-sections

By Alex Friedman

For The Inquirer

The worst surgical case of my residency came when we delivered my patient's baby by cesarean - her ninth cesarean birth.

The baby came out fine, but for the mother we suspected one of most feared complications in obstetrics - that her placenta had burrowed deep into the muscle of the uterus.

To get oxygen and nutrients to the fetus, the placenta needs to attach just a few millimeters deep into the uterus. We worried that hers had gone much farther and might eat through the entire thickness of the uterus, keeping it from shrinking back to its normal size after delivery and causing a massive hemorrhage.

We gave a gentle tug on the umbilical cord. Usually the placenta peels off with such gentle pulling, but hers remained stuck - an ominous sign.

The case points out a fundamental truth about surgical delivery: a first cesarean for most women leads to a cesarean with every pregnancy. And while a first section is quick, easy to perform, and rarely complicated, each repeat surgery carries greater risk.

More and more women are finding themselves on the C-section path. Almost one in three babies was delivered by cesarean in 2007, the most recent year for which data are available, an increase of more than 50 percent from a decade earlier.

At the same time, it's becoming harder for mothers to avoid repeat surgery. The number of vaginal births after a C-section fell by two-thirds, to fewer than 10 percent, over the same time period. This year, the National Institutes of Health estimated that since 1996, one-third of hospitals and one-half of doctors who offered vaginal births after a C-section no longer do so.

"There can be tremendous morbidity after three or four or five prior cesarean deliveries," said Gary Cunningham, an OB-GYN professor and former department chair at Southwestern Medical School in Dallas, who chaired the NIH panel.

"Women need to be counseled appropriately and accurately so that they can make an informed decision," Cunningham said. "But this doesn't do much good if she cannot find an obstetrician or hospital that will allow a trial of labor."

Repeat C-sections pose more risk than a first section for many reasons. One factor concerns anatomy. When a doctor performs a first cesarean, the layers of tissue look and feel very different from each other. These visual cues and textures guide the surgeon, indicating exactly where to cut.

The surgery is simple: the surgeon cuts, spreads, and pokes, layer by layer, until reaching the baby. The surgeon first opens the skin a few centimeters above the pubic bone. The fat underneath easily gives way until the connecting fascia is reached. The tough, fibrous fascia, which holds the intestines in the abdomen, is cut at the midline and opened in either direction. The beefy abdominal muscles beneath are spread.

Finally, the glossy peritoneum, the last layer of the abdomen, is entered, and only the uterus lies between the doctor and the baby. In a term patient, the maroon, swollen uterus, flanked by finger-size veins, fills almost the whole abdomen, pushing the intestines up. The surgeon moves the bladder out of the way, cuts the lower uterus open, and is met by a baby's foot, face, elbow, or behind, depending on how the baby is positioned.

The surgeon loses the advantage of good anatomy after the first section. The tissue undergoes scarring, toughens, and blends together as it heals. The variations in color and texture disappear. The intestines and bowel sometimes stick to the healing wound, putting them in harm's way the next time surgery is performed.

These changes increase the chances of an unexpected injury. "Her belly was cement," we'd say to one another during residency after a tough section.

A study from 2006 published in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology compared C-section complications in more than 30,000 patients. Risks of requiring a large blood transfusion, incurring a bladder injury, needing to be on a ventilator, and ending up in intensive care all increased significantly with the number of sections after the first.

The study also showed greater risk for my patient's complication. Scarring on the inside of the uterus after a cesarean causes the placenta to attach abnormally in future pregnancies. During a first section, the risk of this complication was less than 1 in 400. After a sixth section, the risk ballooned to more than 1 in 15.

So we knew the risks my patient faced from her ninth cesarean and prepared the best we could. We matched extra blood, placed additional IV lines, and arranged for expert surgeons to back us up.

But with my patient's placenta stuck and bleeding, only one option remained: removing the entire uterus with the placenta still attached. Because the pregnant uterus is large, swollen, and filled with blood, a hysterectomy after a delivery is very dangerous and performed only as a last resort.

By the time we finished the surgery, blood covered the floor. Blood filled suction buckets, and saturated our sterile gowns and drapes. Blood-soaked sponges piled up in the corner.

My patient lost three times the entire blood volume of a normal person, sixteen liters in all. Only a massive transfusion kept her alive. Anesthesiologists pumped in 51 units of red blood cells and seven six-packs of platelets.

Vessels deep in her pelvis refused to stop bleeding, and instead of closing her, we packed her abdomen with surgical towels, hoping the pressure would stanch the slow, steady flow. She left the operating room and headed to the intensive-care unit with her abdomen still open.

After a reoperation the following morning and days in the ICU, she stabilized and slowly recovered.

With a first cesarean, the up-front costs - a few more days in the hospital, a longer recovery - may seem reasonable. Only in retrospect can the true costs become apparent.

Great article on VBAC

This is a great article I stumbled across about VBACs. If you have had one or even more C-sections in the past, and would like to have a natural birth, please take the time to research this subject and your options for future pregnancies.

Sadly, some states (including Arizona) would like to stamp out and even criminalize VBACs altogether.

I am not saying that everyone who wants to have a VBAC can or should have one. I am just saying that you should inform yourself rather than trusting your OB to give you the right advice (he/she won't), and then pray about it.

Psalm 22:9,10 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.

Infant Mortality in the United States

The CDC just released data from the United States’ Linked Birth/Infant Death Data Set and the European Perinatal Health Report.

Their findings? In 2005, the latest year that the international ranking is available for, the United States ranked 30th in the world in infant mortality, behind most European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, and Israel. This in spite of the fact that we spend more than any other of these countries on medical care and equipment, and have the most sophisticated facilities.

• Infant mortality rates for preterm (less than 37 weeks of gestation) infants are lower in the United States than in most European countries; however, infant mortality rates for infants born at 37 weeks of gestation or more are higher in the United States than in most European countries. I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that 1 in 3 children are born via Cesarean in this country, and that almost all "natural" labors are "managed" with induction, epidurals, pitocin, etc. These procedures are not just unnatural, but also place great stress on both the mother's and the baby's body, and endanger their wellbeing and obviously also their lives.
  

• One in 8 births in the United States were born preterm, compared with 1 in 18 births in Ireland and Finland. There are many underlying causes of prematurity, some of which are preventable and some of which aren't. One major cause is preeclampsia (also called toxemia), which is almost 100% preventable and in most cases reversible through following a healthy diet that included plenty of protein. I am a very strong believer in following the Brewer Pregnancy Diet.
  

• If the United States had Sweden’s distribution of births by gestational age, nearly 8,000 infant deaths would be averted each year and the U.S. infant mortality rate would be one-third lower.

I mean, I have been to the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary, and their hospitals are somewhat like you would expect to find in Mexico. Even Cuba ranks better than the US. The more Western countries on the list that I have been to (ten of them) have newer hospitals and better equipment (although Britain, who has had socialized health care for the longest, is the worst of these by far), but the fanciest and most modern hospitals I have ever seen are those in the United States. Most maternity wards are made to look like a hotel, but looks can be deceiving.

The best gift any expectant mom can give her child is that of a natural, unmedicated birth that is allowed to progress in its own timing. Midwife-attended home birth is the safest and most satisfying option for low-risk pregnancies.

Court-ordered Cesareans

In keeping with my last post - have you ever thought about what happens when an expectant mother and her physician disagree about what course of medical interventions are necessary? What if the doctor wants to do a Cesarean, and mom thinks it is unnecessary? I mean, we do KNOW that 1 in 3 women do NOT need to have major abdominal surgery in order to deliver their baby. What if the mother does not want to be sliced open and risk her life and health and that of the baby just to fit the doctor's schedule better?

Wonder no more. Just search Google for the term "court ordered cesarean sections" and you will read one bizarre case after another. While such cases are certainly the exception and not the norm, it is not because courts are not all too happy to order them, but because most Moms in labor cave in long before the issue becomes a legal matter. 90% of requests for court-ordered Cesareans are granted, and the majority of those within a matter of hours.

There have been cases of doctors being deputized by the local sheriff over the phone so the doctor would then legally be able to apprehend the mother before she could leave the hospital against medical advice. Court proceedings are usually held right in the labor room, with court-appointed attorneys representing the unborn child and no such representation for the mother.

Some good books that deal in part with this subject are "Pushed" and "Born in the USA".

This is such a complex issue because no legislation in the world can ever ensure both the mother's autonomy to make decisions concerning her health care, and the baby's well-being. If it the government's job to make sure women take proper care for their unborn children, where would the line be drawn? What about mothers with unhealthy habits such as smoking/drinking? What about those who do not eat enough during pregnancy because they worry about their figure? What about women in the workforce who may not be getting enough rest or proper nutrition?

This leads to the logical inconsistency of rulings such as that of the Utah Supreme Court, that the state's criminal homicide statute applies to unborn children at all stages of development, yet exempts the killing of a fetus during an abortion. And while the decisions in Roe v. Wade clearly state that the unborn are not human persons, and imply no ethical duty on anyone to rescue them, contradictory legislation has been passed. A new federal law signed by President Bush on April 1, 2004, makes it a separate and distinct federal crime to end the life of a fetus—defined as “a member of the species [H]omo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”— during a violent attack on the mother. Here again, though, prosecution is specifically excluded when a legal abortion is performed. Pregnant women in South Dakota who abuse alcohol or other drugs now face involuntary detention in treatment facilities, and a law in Wisconsin allows juvenile court judges to intervene on behalf of the unborn to detain and restrict the liberty of such mothers. In 2003, Regina McKnight, a homeless drug addict with an IQ of 72, who abused cocaine during pregnancy and whose child was stillborn, lost a bid in the United States Supreme Court to reverse her conviction. She is now serving a 12-year prison sentence for homicide.

Certainly, as a Bible-believing Christian, I have no doubts whatsoever that aborting an unborn child at any time is murder, and should be punished as such. But I find it ridiculous that the abortion crowd do not seem to see the difference between somebody who intentionally wants to kill their child and somebody who does not want to "treat" a real or perceived medical issue the way the doctor sees fit. God causes the child to grow in the womb, and He knows a lot more about it than the doctor. No doctor in the world would ever have as much loving concern for an unborn child than its mother who has been looking forward to meeting her child. There is a big difference between intentionally killing somebody and situations taking their own, natural course, between somebody who wants to harm their child and somebody who wants to protect it the way they see most fit. No mother has ever refused a Cesarean because they wanted their child to die, but because they wanted what they thought was best for him/her.

Personally, I would most certainly seek the best available medical options to ensure the health and wellbeing of my children, but that decision should ultimately be mine and mine only to make.

Following are some cases to get you thinking. There is not doubt whatsoever in my mind that if you are enjoying a low-risk pregnancy, midwife-attended home birth is the best choice because you as the mother are respected, and the decisions and responsibilities are left in your hands.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Angela Carder struggled with cancer since the age of 13. After years of remission, in 1987 she decided to get married and have a baby. From conception, Ms. Carder made it perfectly clear to her treating obstetrician at George Washington University Hospital: she wanted to be sure her own health was not compromised because of her pregnancy. Sadly, during the 25th week of her pregnancy, she was diagnosed with a lung tumor. Her doctors said that the baby was too premature to have a good chance of survival, and that she would have to wait until her 28th week. Fully knowing the increased risks to her pregnancy, they agreed on a treatment schedule of chemotherapy and radiation to prolong her life. When her condition deteriorated the next day, it never even occurred to her doctors to intervene in an attempt to save the fetus.

Ms. Carder lapsed into unconsciousness. Her parents, husband and medical team all agreed that she would not have wanted any intervention, but the hospital administrators disagreed. The hospital was concerned because the fetus was potentially viable, so it petitioned the court for an order to determine what was best for the fetus. The hasty hearing at the hospital focused only on the fetus’ chance of survival. The court ordered that she be given a Caesarean section and a staff obstetrician grudgingly agreed to perform the surgery, because her treating doctors refused. In the meantime, Ms. Carder came to and was informed of the court ordered cesarean by the staff obstetrician. When she was told that she might die from surgery, Angela Carder said over and over, “I don't want it done.” Despite this, a quickly assembled panel of the appeals court upheld the lower court’s decision, and the hospital charged forward with surgery, against the patient’s clearly expressed wishes.

The baby died within two hours of delivery, and Angela Carder lasted another two days. There is no doubt that the surgery hastened her death.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Washington, D.C. - 1986

A 19-year-old college student was admitted to labor and delivery at 1:45 a.m. experiencing normal contractions; her membranes had ruptured two days earlier at noon. By 11:00 a.m. she was 7 cm dilated but had made no further progress by 10:30 that evening. Because an external electronic fetal monitor was attached, she had to lie in bed, on her left side, for extended periods of time. When she asked to be allowed to walk around to help with her natural delivery, she was advised that hospital regulations and city statutes required her to remain in bed on the monitoring device. The chief of obstetrics examined the patient at noon the following day and reported that there was no evidence of infection or other abnormality. Later that evening the resident in charge wanted to administer pitocin to help speed up the delivery, but he would not do so without her consent to a cesarean delivery should he deem it advisable She refused and requested that she be allowed to continue her natural childbirth in accordance with her Muslim religious principles. Shortly thereafter the physician telephoned a local judge, who convened a hearing at the hospital to determine whether to order the section. The judge appointed attorneys for the parents and the fetus; the hospital’s attorney was also present. The parents were not given an opportunity to confer with their attorney before the hearing, nor were they able to secure the services of a medical expert to counter the testimony of the hospital’s physician. A fourth-year obstetrics and gynecology resident testified that he thought the fetus was in danger of infection because of the length of time since the patient’s membranes had ruptured. On cross-examination, he admitted that there was no objective evidence of any fetal distress. Nevertheless, at 1:05 a.m. the judge ordered surgical intervention. The parents attempted to appeal the ruling but at 2:08 a. m. two appellate justices affirmed the judge’s order. The cesarean delivery was immediately performed; no infection or injury to the fetus was discovered.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

January 1996

After having a Cesarean Section with her third birth, Laura Pemberton, a born-again Christian who believes in the blessing of children, wanted to attempts a VBAC with her fourth child. There was no physician in the city where she lived that was willing to take her on, so she decided to have a midwife-attended home birth instead.

Please click here to read what happened after that. The news report fails to mention that when Mrs. Pemberton was transported back to the hospital against her will, the sheriff who "arrested" her tied her legs together on the gurney because she was dilated to 7 cm at this point and he was worried that she might give birth naturally before they had a chance to cut her open.

It should also be mentioned that after this experience, Mrs. Pemberton moved to a different state, where she has had four unattended home births since then, one including twins.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

March 2009

Samantha Burton (mother of two young children) had developed signs of miscarriage early in her pregnancy, and was ordered to permanent bed rest by the hospital. She objected, stating that with two children to support, permanent bed rest wasn't possible. When she asked to be discharged or transfered to another hospital, the hospital REFUSED the request because "it was not in the best interest of the fetus," essentially committing Ms. Burton involuntarily to their care.

The move was upheld by the Circuit Court of Leon County who, in addition to committing her against her will, ordered her to undergo any and all medical treatments deemed necessary by the "treating physician of her unborn fetus" to save her fetus, holding that "the ultimate welfare of the fetus overrode Ms. Burton's constitutional right to make medical decisions for herself."

After three days of forced medical confinement, doctors performed an emergency Cesarean section on Ms. Burton and discovered her fetus had already died in utero. She was released shortly after the surgery.

Read more here.

Question and answer, part II

As promised, I wanted to answer some of the canning-related questions that came from this post.

Do you use a pressure canner or just a big stock pot for processing? I saw a pressure canner at Wal-Mart yesterday for about $70, but don't know if that's a good price or not.

There are two ways to can: pressure canning, and hot water canning. Pressure canning is used for low-acid foods such as vegetables (corn, beans), meats, etc. Some people do use pressure cookers as a pressure canner, but canning experts advise against that. I think what Wal-Mart sells is a pressure cooker that is also supposed to work as a pressure canner, but again, I guess there is a difference and it's technically not as safe to use. Because pressure canners are expensive, and I prefer frozen vegetables and meats to canned ones, I only ever do hot water canning (which is only suitable for high-acid foods such as fruits and tomatoes). Fruit jams, jellies, applesauce, canned tomatoes, fruit syrups, canned fruits etc. can all be made in a hot water bath. A pressure cooker could be used for hot water canning, but it is impractical (smaller batches) and unnecessary, so there really is no need to spend $70.

Oh and do you use white sugar, or can you use raw sugar? (Trying to think of health here haha).

This year, I only used white sugar for canning. In the past, I have used honey, as well as fruit juice concentrate for sweetening. There is a different kind of pectin available at the store that is made to be used with fruit juice concentrate (usually white grape or apple juice) or sugar substitute (like Splenda - don't even get me started on that). The package contains all the necessary explanations. It's really pretty much the same, except that you dump in the frozen concentrate instead of sugar. The jelly will not be nearly as sweet, but it does taste very nice. I like apricot jelly and berry jams very sweet, though, so I used regular sugar. I have never used raw sugar in place of the white, but I'm sure that would be perfectly fine.

P.S. How do I get my future wife to make delicious stuff like this??? :)

As with everything in life, you catch more flies with honey. But what on earth are you doing on my blog? And how did you like the apricot jelly?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Below are some questions on other topics that I have been asked recently. If I missed yours, I am sorry, it was not intentional. If you have any other questions for me, please feel free to leave it in the comments section, and I will answer it soon.

Let's start with this important question:

Is there ANYTHING you don't know?

For starters, I don't know the name of the person who asked this, since they chose to leave an anonymous comment. Secondly, yes, there are obviously many things that I know nothing about, and probably many other things that I THINK I know but actually am wrong on. But no, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that a C-section rate of over 30% is extremely out of whack.

hi Zsuzsanna. I was wondering what your thoughts on infertility in general are. I know you are vocal about your opposition to IVF. What are your thoughts about IUI, Clomid, etc.? What about adoption? I am not being facetious, I am genuinely curious. (Rachel)

I think infertility is a terrible problem for women to have to suffer, and I honestly feel very bad for those affected by it. However, I also believe that God is the one who opens and closes the womb and gives women conception, as the Bible says so over and over again. If a couple is childless, it is because that is God's will at that time. I am quite certain that God does not need our artificial means of trying to speed along conception. Interestingly enough, the Bible mentions many women that were barren, but after they prayed and asked God (in the case of Isaac, for two decades), every single one of them went on to have children.

Since I have already explained my position on IVF, I will give you my thoughts on IUI and fertility drugs (such as the one you mentioned, Clomid). I don't think it would be sinful per se to use fertility drugs at a normal dosage, but I also would strongly advise against it. Just because something isn't wrong doesn't mean it is good for us. If women have ovulatory problems, the underlying cause should be rectified rather than supplying the body with artificial hormones that are nothing more than a crutch, and will only lead to the woman's body becoming more out of balance hormonally. There are many herbs and other natural approaches to regulate a woman's cycle and restore her health to where she can then conceive naturally. People have commented on here that they tried drugs and IUI unsuccessfully, then tried herbal remedies, and became pregnant shortly thereafter.

As for IUI, I really do not know much about the process, and don't want to speculate. To me it seems that God intended the creation of a new eternal soul to be between a husband and wife, not a doctor in a clinic. God doesn't need the doctor's help.

Many times, people who use artificial means of conception take the fact that they were successfully able to have a child as proof that God condoned of their actions, and even used modern medicine to carry out His will. But there are many instances where people sin (fornication, adultery), and a child is conceived. It doesn't make the actions of the adults involved any less sinful, but the child of course had no part in it and is just as loved by God as any other. God has created the laws of the universe, and among them is that when two people come together, they are likely to conceive. God doesn't just suspend that law every time somebody decides to mess around outside of marriage, but it doesn't mean that He condones their actions.


Do you use two diaper bags and just split the stuff up, or do you use a diaper bag for each kid? Or, did you never have this problem? Lol. Trying to figure out what would work the best.

I don't really use a diaper bag. There are always a couple of diapers and a pack of wipes in my purse, as well as in the stroller, and also in the van. Chances are, wherever I am at, there is always a diaper and wipes within my reach. If the kids need a snack while we are out, I either toss that in the purse, too, or just pack a bag with water bottles, fruit, and a dry snack (like pretzels or goldfish) for everyone. But that's rare because I try to run errands between mealtimes, and avoid feeding the kids in the car.

Have you ever read any of the children's books by Kate Seredy? She was a Hungarian author and several of her books are set in Hungary.

No, but thank you for the tip, I want to check into that. We are currently reading the Little House series for read aloud time with the kids.


Years ago, when my babies were nursing, I, like you, enjoyed feeding them during the night while they lay next to me in bed. It was very comfortable for both of us, and less sleep-disturbing than getting up to sit in a rocking chair. However, the SIDS campaign has made this a big issue, so my daughter, who has recently had a baby (my first grandbaby!) is terrified of keeping the baby in bed with her to nurse at night. The medical community has created such a scare about this, and I am undecided about how much to be worried about it. What are your thoughts on this?

SIDS is such a hot topic, and I certainly am no authority on it. I know that SIDS occurrences are much, much lower in countries where moms naturally take their babies to bed with them. And, as another reader already pointed out, if a baby dies from becoming entrapped or smothered it was not due to SIDS, but another (preventable) cause. I for one certainly think that having baby beside mom is safest for baby and easiest for mom, but there are many who would disagree. I never lose any sleep when I have a newborn, no matter how many times they wake up at night. Our babies never "sleep through the night" uninterrupted until they are fully weaned, but it never bothers me one bit because I can feed them while I sleep. The older kids have all grown up to be great sleepers.

There is also a lot of very interesting information on a relationship between SIDS and the flame-retardant chemicals used in producing mattresses. You can read more about that here. It seems that this could very well be the true cause behind the baby suddenly not breathing, and subsequently dying. It would also explain why having mom close by could be lifesaving, as she acts as the baby's "breathing pacemaker". Mom may also wake up if she subconsciously notices that something is not right with her baby. Please click here to read what I have written about SIDS in the past.

My wife and I have decided to switch traditional roles. Nobody forced us to and we didn't force each other. She works all day and I stay home with the kids and do the housework and cooking and such. I also do have a job which I do from home. Do you gave any thoughts on that?

Yes, I do. But I am only telling you my thoughts because you asked. Regardless of whether or not I think that something is a right choice, it's really none of my business to personally make sure that everybody does the right things in life. While I do blog about a lot of issues in general, I do so to inform people and maybe get them to look at their decisions in a different light. I almost never "rip" on a person specifically or point out the flaws I perceive in them. Not unless they are freaks like this woman.

Back to your question, my thoughts (in no particular order) are: your kids are better off at home than in anyone else's care; God intended for the mother to stay at home an raise the children and did not really leave it up to her personal preferences; I don't think there is anything wrong with men doing housework and cooking if that's what they want to do; glad you have a job you can do from home with your kids there; it's nice that you have such a close relationship with the kids; I would never do what you do but again, it infinitely better than putting the kids in daycare and both of you working outside the home.

If you are pregnant...

... and don't want a C-section, it is imperative that you inform yourself NOW, while you are still expecting. The sooner the better. Don't wait until the late stages of your pregnancy, when your doctor starts telling you that the baby is too big, your pelvis is too little, you are overdue, the baby is breech, there is too little amniotic fluid, you are developing pre-eclampsia, you are too fat, too old, or a number of other issues that are either fabricated or could have been avoided/dealt with naturally.

Please don't think it couldn't happen to you. C-sections rates across the nation's hospitals are at an all-time high of 34%, but are as high as 70% in some hospitals. Florida and New York must be about the worst places to have a baby from what I've heard. Rates are only expected to continue their sharp upward trend as VBACs become almost unattainable with many doctors and at most hospitals (thanks to the stipulations of their malpractice insurance underwriters).

Many women have been led to believe that having a Cesarean is not that big of a deal any more, and that it is perfectly safe. Please stop and take the time to read this article about a lady who had a cesarean due to her baby presenting breech. She almost died. I wonder how common it is for this to happen and we never hear about it. The nurse who is writing about it is new, so I'm guessing complications such as this occur frequently.

Did you read the article? No? Go read it right now, seriously.

But even if Cesareans were perfectly safe (which they are not), they could also limit how many children a woman would be able to have. The risks associated with this major surgery increase in number and severity with each additional C-section, and three is generally considered the max for any woman.

So back to what I was saying, if you are pregnant and planning on having a hospital birth, please do all you can to educate yourself now. Even if you are not wanting to have a home birth, you can read many pregnancy books written by midwives, glean from their childbearing wisdom, and take that knowledge to the hospital with you. Some suggestions of mine would be:

- Ina May's Guide to Childbirth
- The Thinking Woman's Guide to a Better Birth
- Silent Knife
- The Natural Pregnancy Book
- Heart and Hands
- The Complete Book of Pregnancy and Childbirth

and many others that you can find crossreferenced on Amazon. It is unlikely that you will find any of these books at your local bookstore. About the worst book to read during pregnancy is "What to Expect When You're Expecting", which must be why so many OBs give it out for free to their patients.

A lot of great information is also available online on websites such as Unnecesarean, ICAN, and My Best Birth.

I also liked a recent documentary, "The Business of Being Born". Because of a few brief but somewhat graphic scenes (given the nature of the subject), I would only recommend this to be viewed by other women.

Of course, the situation is much different with home births, which continue to maintain very low rates of hospital transfers leading to Cesareans. While hospital births and midwife-attended home births have about the same numbers for infant and maternal death (or in favor of home birth, depending on the study), home births have much, much lower rates of intervention. What that means is that home births achieve the same results without all the trauma, pain, blood, and gore.

Please do not wait until you are in labor and your doctor plays the "dead baby card" to educate yourself. It is YOUR responsibility and nobody else's to ensure the health and well-being of your child. If you suffer at the hands of an ignorant and conceded doctor, it is your own fault if you did not take the time to educate yourself first, but rather blindly followed "doctor's orders".

One great change that you can make today that helps prevent many pregnancy-related complications is to start following the Brewer Pregnancy Diet.

If you do plan on having your baby at a hospital, tour all the ones in your area that your insurance will cover, and pick the best one, then find out which of their (female) OBs is the best, i.e. has the lowest intervention rates. I would never recommend male OBs because aside from the fact that I think it is a perverted job for a man to have, they also know nothing about the female body. It's like having a mechanic doing your dental work. Getting all this info can be time consuming, but it is well worth your effort. You can call the maternity departments and ask them about their rates for C-sections and other interventions.

You should also definitely look into having a doula at your birth. A doula is not a midwife, but is a skilled birth attendant whose role it is to help and support the mother, and advocating for her safe and natural birth. She can help you decide if the doctor is just trying to pressure you into a C-section because he wants to get home in time for the ballgame, or if your baby really is in immediate danger. Going to the hospital without a doula is like going to court without an attorney.

The most common objection I hear against doulas is that it would hurt the feelings of the pregnant woman's husband, and as ridiculous as that may seem, I can see that being a real issue. While certainly most moms would prefer their husband to be at the birth for emotional support, that does not always translate into the ideal physical support. Because men are men, they may end up pushing on the wrong spot at the wrong time, or too hard. I remember during one of my labors I was in the late stages and very thirsty. Between contractions, I managed to ask my husband to bring me some ice water. By the time he got back, I was in the middle of a long and hard contraction that took all my strength and concentration. He didn't even notice, and proceded to try to force the drinking straw through my grit teeth. I snapped at him to get him to stop, and he was puzzled why I didn't drink the water I had just asked for. Practically speaking, you will get a lot more comfort from somebody who knows what you are going through.

Also, be very, very picky about whom you allow to attend your birth. Hospitals have gone from not even allowing the woman's husband to now having fullblown parties in the birthing suites while the laboring woman is hopped up on an epidural. If at all possible, I would recommend having only people who have had positive birth experiences themselves, and who do not work in the healthcare industry. People who had traumatic births themselves, and the ones who work to produce them, are filled with and lead by fear. Fear of the unknown and the unpredictable. The last thing a laboring woman needs is insane fabricated scenarios of what all could go wrong. Leave Eeyore at home and call after the baby is born. When it comes to birth attendants, less is definitely more.

Finally, think twice about whom to accept advice from. Decide what you want the outcome of your birth to be, find other women who have already successfully achieved what you want to achieve, and then do what they did. If you go to the hospital expecting a birth experience as peaceful and natural as somebody else had at home, you will be sorely disappointed.

Remember, it is your responsibility as a parent to act in the best interest of yourself and your child. You cannot rely on a doctor to do what is your job.