But my pro-Cesarean and pro-medical-care views are not the only problem I have with this ridiculous article.
I'm only going to address the most egregious lines from it, because otherwise I'd be here all day. And this article is only about 600 words long!
Inducing childbirth -- bringing on or hastening labor with the drug oxytocin, also raises the risk of complications that lead to cesareans. Experts say miscalculations often result in the delivery of infants who are too young to breathe on their own.Dudes - lungs are functioning at the 27th-29th week of pregnancy. No one would induce a child more than a week early. Yes, at that point the baby can very well breathe on its own.
Cesareans also have been shown to increase premature births and the need for intensive care for newborns.Citation needed. And... how? (If you mean children born later to women who have Cesareans, then maybe. Maybe.)
Most U.S. physicians discourage vaginal deliveries after a cesarean because of some widely publicized cases several years ago in which the uterus split disastrously along the prior incision. The modern C-section in the United States is the low transverse, an incision in the bottom part of the uterus, from side to side. Those heal better. All the studies say, in those types of incisions, the risk is less than 1%, probably a half percent that it will open during labor. Doctor's will insist on a C-section again for the second birth because of a 1% chance of a uterine rupture.DUDE. I'd like to point out, 1% isn't a very small number. That's one instance out of every hundred. Yeah, I'd certainly like to avoid a 1% chance of my uterus erupting catastrophically during childbirth, putting both me and my baby in imminent danger.
I mean, there are legitimate things to say about the overmedicalization of all that. But this article either doesn't say them, or says them very, very poorly.