"The trouble with people is not that they don't know, but that they know so much that ain't so." Josh Billings.

Lately, prominent obstetricians, including Dr. Benson Harer, the president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have been waging a campaign intended to increase our already outrageous cesarean rate. They are trying to convince the public that cesarean section is so safe, and vaginal birth so injurious to mothers and babies, that women should not be deprived of cesareans on demand. An article in the December 4, 2000 Newsweek and Harer's appearance last summer on Good Morning America are cases in point. Without access to the obstetric research, their arguments for the benefits of c-sections seem reasonable. In my opinion, this is on a par with tobacco company spokespeople of yore claiming that cigarette smoking improved lung function.

Does Vaginal Birth Injure the Mother?

The belief that vaginal birth harms women has come largely from the observation that women tend to have weaker pelvic floors shortly after vaginal birth than women having planned cesareans. In addition, many older women experience uterine prolapse (the uterus sags into the vagina) or urinary or anal continence problems (incontinence of gas, urgency, or fecal incontinence) related to weakness or injury. This has led some obstetricians like Dr. Harer to leap to the conclusion that planned cesarean is protective.