Objective readers of the New England Journal study would conclude neither that VBAC was unduly risky nor even that VBAC women should never be induced.

3 things they would conclude are:

• The first cesarean should be avoided both because of the inherent risks of major surgery and because it introduces risks into future pregnancies.
  
• Induction of labor should only be done when the risks of awaiting labor outweigh the risks of inducing it -- a situation that occurs far less often than the typical obstetrician thinks it does.
  
• When induction seems the most prudent course, don’t use prostaglandins.

Page Three:
If obstetric intervention isn't about safety, then what the heck is it about?

Page Four:
Learn more about the biases against VBAC

Page Five:
References

Are OBs really objective about VBAC? Obstetric opposition to VBAC isn’t about safety. Obstetricians have been quite open about their motivation to condemn VBAC. In 1996, a prominent obstetrician and the editor of an obstetric trade magazine proposed a prototype of what he called an “informed consent” form. It described the dreadful things that could go wrong with a VBAC but said nothing about the equally dreadful things that could go wrong with a repeat cesarean, let alone the dangers of accumulating scars for future pregnancies. Few women would be brave enough to attempt a VBAC after reading this form. This doctor frankly admitted that the form was intended to forestall lawsuits and that using it would “send your [cesarean] rate soaring.” Since then, malpractice insurance companies have widely adopted it and begun recommending that their obstetrician clients use this form or others like it. Many of them have.