C-Section Debate

Another Yahoo article to send me into a furied passion.
Read, "Battle Lines drawn over C-Section", located at
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050824/ts_usatoday/battlelinesdrawnovercsections

Article discusses how most hospitals will not allow a pregnancy to be delivered vaginally if the mother had previously birthed by C-section.

I feel strongly about this one, I admit. I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but I am pretty positive I'm right on this one.

My ex-hippie, ex-nudist parents gave me a great book during my pregnancy.
Natural Childbirth the Bradley Way, by Susan McCutcheon.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0452276594/qid=1124992130/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-3721009-8961611?v=glance&s=books

The Bradley Method of childbirth is about as natural as you get. Teaches you how Lamaze and other breathing exercises used to calm you during labor actually make the experience more stressful. Talks about how episiotomies are completely unnecessary, and ruin a woman sexually from thereon. Discusses Caesarian Sections, and how most hospitals/M.D.s do an unnaturally high proportion of them because they don't want to wait the standard 36 hours for the labor process. ( You didn't know how long labor really is, did ya? It starts way before you know anything is happening.)

You see, insurance companies dictate our health care. They don't want to pay for excessive stays in the hospital - no more than 48 hours for a natural birth, around the same for a C-section.

It is important for me to note that I didn't have a natural childbirth - the MDs insisted a C-section was medically necessary. However, my mother followed the Bradley method for two of her three children's births, and felt that it was much easier when painkillers and episiotomies were not introduced.