Ms. magazine  -- more than a magazine a movement

SIGN UP FOR MS. DIGEST, JOBS, NEWS AND ALERTS

FEMINIST WIRE NEWSBRIEFS

ABOUT
SEE CURRENT ISSUE
SHOP MS. STORE
MS. IN THE CLASSROOM
FEMINIST DAILY WIRE
FEMINIST RESOURCES
PRESS
JOBS AT MS.
READ BACK ISSUES
CONTACT
RSS (XML)
 
feminist wire | daily newsbriefs

March-12-10

NIH Holds Conference on "Vaginal Birth After Cesarean" Safety and Availability

An independent panel met at the National Institutes of Health Wednesday to discuss whether vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) is a safe or accessible procedure for pregnant US women. The panel consisted of gynecologists, obstetricians and experts in maternal/fetal pain, according to RH Reality Check. They discussed the advantages and risks of both a vaginal delivery and a repeat cesarean, citing a wide range of statistical medical data for and against both cases.

According to an NIH press release, Dr. F. Gary Cunningham, panel chair, and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas said, "Declining VBAC rates and increasing cesarean delivery rates over the last 15 years would seem to indicate that planned repeat cesarean delivery is preferable to a trial of labor. But the currently available evidence suggests a very different picture: a trial of labor is worth considering and may be preferable for many women."

Dr. Cunningham cited two hospital administration surveys stating 30 percent of hospitals have stopped providing a trial of labor option because they could not accommodate the necessary conditions. 40 percent of US hospitals ban VBAC altogether, according to RH Reality Check. The panel emphasized the importance of ensuring the "immediate availability" of surgical and anesthesia personnel prior to a vaginal birth for a woman who has had a previous c-section, said RH Reality Check.

USA Today reporter Rita Rubin presented true stories of families who have protested VBAC bans to the panel, RH Reality Check reported. Other audience members presented the argument to the NIH panel that mothers must have the right to choose their birthing method. However, as Susan Jenkins, legal counsel for The Big Push For Midwives, told RH Reality Check, "the panel refused to take a position on whether a pregnant woman has the same constitutional right to informed refusal as any other adult in the U.S. This is unconscionable and I wonder what this administration's take is on an HHS panel questioning whether pregnant women are entitled to the full benefits of U.S. citizenship in regard to patient autonomy."

Media Resources: RH Reality Check 3/10/10, 3/11/10; NIH Press Release 3/10/10


© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine

If you liked this story, consider making a tax-deductible donation to support Ms. magazine.

 

 

Send to a Friend
Their
Your
Comments
(optional)


More Feminist News

9/12/2014 Violence Against Women Act Turns 20 - Saturday will be the 20th Anniversary of the groundbreaking federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Passed in 1994, VAWA was the first piece of federal legislation to specifically address domestic violence and sexual assault as crimes and to provide federal funding to improve local response to violence against women, including training and resources for law enforcement and judges. President Barack Obama on Tuesday issued a proclamation commemorating the VAWA anniversary. . . .
 
9/12/2014 Indiana Woman Charged With Feticide For Premature Delivery - An Indiana woman has been charged with feticide after she delivered prematurely and sought hospital treatment. Purvi Patel, 33, sought help at an emergency room for vaginal bleeding where it was discovered that she had delivered prematurely at home. . . .
 
9/11/2014 Missouri Legislators Pass 72-Hour Abortion Waiting Period Law - Missouri legislators voted late last night to triple the state's current 24-hour waiting period to 72 hours, with no exceptions for rape or incest. Governor Jay Nixon previously vetoed the bill in July, calling it "extreme and disrespectful." Missouri's House voted 117-44 to override the veto, and then the Senate used a procedural move to stop a Democratic filibuster of the bill and vote 23-7 to complete the veto override Wednesday. "The only purpose of a 72-hour waiting period is to attempt to punish, shame, and demean women who have arrived at a personal decision that politicians happen to disagree with," said the president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights in a statement. . . .