SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
It used to embarrass my children and now merely amuses them that as their birthdays approach, I find myself reviewing their births in remarkable detail through small hour-by-hour glimpses. I relive my apprehensions as birth approached, the intense hours of labor, the superb nursing staff, my brilliant husband and advocate, and the joy at holding our babies.
For our son, whose labor and birth took 40 hours, I also devote a little time to remembering the overbearing ob-gyn whose services were forced on us by hospital policy and who tried every strategy he knew to force me to have a cesarean section birth, unsuccessfully and unnecessarily, as it turned out.
For our daughter, there's another dimension; her birthday -- she turned 18 last week -- coincides closely with the anniversary of the abortion I had several years prior when birth control failed. I associate my joy at her birth with the gratitude that it was a chosen one. Sometimes I think about the miscarriage I had the year before our son was born; though I grieved at having miscarried, I was grateful that it happened early enough that it wasn't traumatic and understood that it was nature's way of selecting out unhealthy fetuses.
This year, these ruminations were augmented by the screaming debates about "personhood" bills, giving embryos and fetuses "all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents." In past anti-abortion debates, I've resisted descriptions like "a war on women"; I have friends who oppose abortion and are strong pacifists. But the new personhood agenda is fundamentally dangerous to women, while destabilizing legal and medical precedents.
When our son was born, the aggressive ob-gyn turned out to have the highest C-section rate in the region; I attributed this to his fear of malpractice suits combined with a nasty misogyny, if his hostile manner was any indication. In some states, women have actually been tied down and forced to have C-sections because a doctor determined that it was safest for the baby. Women having stillbirths not only must agonize and grieve their loss; under personhood laws they could face possible charges of homicide, if someone determines that they erred in self-care during pregnancy. In at least one case, an ill woman was forced to have a C-section because the hospital determined that her baby's needs outweighed her own, and both died.
Pregnancy and childbirth have always been dangerous, both for mothers and fetuses, and doctors and midwives have had their hands full working to optimize outcomes for all. What they don't need are prescriptions determined by poorly thought-out laws.
One doesn't have to experience abuse to understand it, but in this case, my own experiences make these personhood bills very personal. Obviously, my abortion would have been illegal, and I would have been forced to give birth to a child I could not properly care for then. Had I not given birth successfully to our son through vaginal birth, I could have been charged with harming or killing a fetus. Had my miscarriage happened later, I could have been accused of endangering the fetus. My many friends who chose to have a vaginal birth after an earlier C-section would have had to weigh legal liability against all the other factors.
Pregnancy and childbirth carry enough challenges as it is. It is deeply distressing that presidential candidates have signed a pledge to support the deeply invasive definition of personhood. Don't conservatives say they want less government interference in our lives?
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
It used to embarrass my children and now merely amuses them that as their birthdays approach, I find myself reviewing their births in remarkable detail through small hour-by-hour glimpses. I relive my apprehensions as birth approached, the intense hours of labor, the superb nursing staff, my brilliant husband and advocate, and the joy at holding our babies.
For our son, whose labor and birth took 40 hours, I also devote a little time to remembering the overbearing ob-gyn whose services were forced on us by hospital policy and who tried every strategy he knew to force me to have a cesarean section birth, unsuccessfully and unnecessarily, as it turned out.
For our daughter, there's another dimension; her birthday -- she turned 18 last week -- coincides closely with the anniversary of the abortion I had several years prior when birth control failed. I associate my joy at her birth with the gratitude that it was a chosen one. Sometimes I think about the miscarriage I had the year before our son was born; though I grieved at having miscarried, I was grateful that it happened early enough that it wasn't traumatic and understood that it was nature's way of selecting out unhealthy fetuses.
This year, these ruminations were augmented by the screaming debates about "personhood" bills, giving embryos and fetuses "all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents." In past anti-abortion debates, I've resisted descriptions like "a war on women"; I have friends who oppose abortion and are strong pacifists. But the new personhood agenda is fundamentally dangerous to women, while destabilizing legal and medical precedents.
When our son was born, the aggressive ob-gyn turned out to have the highest C-section rate in the region; I attributed this to his fear of malpractice suits combined with a nasty misogyny, if his hostile manner was any indication. In some states, women have actually been tied down and forced to have C-sections because a doctor determined that it was safest for the baby. Women having stillbirths not only must agonize and grieve their loss; under personhood laws they could face possible charges of homicide, if someone determines that they erred in self-care during pregnancy. In at least one case, an ill woman was forced to have a C-section because the hospital determined that her baby's needs outweighed her own, and both died.
Pregnancy and childbirth have always been dangerous, both for mothers and fetuses, and doctors and midwives have had their hands full working to optimize outcomes for all. What they don't need are prescriptions determined by poorly thought-out laws.
One doesn't have to experience abuse to understand it, but in this case, my own experiences make these personhood bills very personal. Obviously, my abortion would have been illegal, and I would have been forced to give birth to a child I could not properly care for then. Had I not given birth successfully to our son through vaginal birth, I could have been charged with harming or killing a fetus. Had my miscarriage happened later, I could have been accused of endangering the fetus. My many friends who chose to have a vaginal birth after an earlier C-section would have had to weigh legal liability against all the other factors.
Pregnancy and childbirth carry enough challenges as it is. It is deeply distressing that presidential candidates have signed a pledge to support the deeply invasive definition of personhood. Don't conservatives say they want less government interference in our lives?
It used to embarrass my children and now merely amuses them that as their birthdays approach, I find myself reviewing their births in remarkable detail through small hour-by-hour glimpses. I relive my apprehensions as birth approached, the intense hours of labor, the superb nursing staff, my brilliant husband and advocate, and the joy at holding our babies.
For our son, whose labor and birth took 40 hours, I also devote a little time to remembering the overbearing ob-gyn whose services were forced on us by hospital policy and who tried every strategy he knew to force me to have a cesarean section birth, unsuccessfully and unnecessarily, as it turned out.
For our daughter, there's another dimension; her birthday -- she turned 18 last week -- coincides closely with the anniversary of the abortion I had several years prior when birth control failed. I associate my joy at her birth with the gratitude that it was a chosen one. Sometimes I think about the miscarriage I had the year before our son was born; though I grieved at having miscarried, I was grateful that it happened early enough that it wasn't traumatic and understood that it was nature's way of selecting out unhealthy fetuses.
This year, these ruminations were augmented by the screaming debates about "personhood" bills, giving embryos and fetuses "all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents." In past anti-abortion debates, I've resisted descriptions like "a war on women"; I have friends who oppose abortion and are strong pacifists. But the new personhood agenda is fundamentally dangerous to women, while destabilizing legal and medical precedents.
When our son was born, the aggressive ob-gyn turned out to have the highest C-section rate in the region; I attributed this to his fear of malpractice suits combined with a nasty misogyny, if his hostile manner was any indication. In some states, women have actually been tied down and forced to have C-sections because a doctor determined that it was safest for the baby. Women having stillbirths not only must agonize and grieve their loss; under personhood laws they could face possible charges of homicide, if someone determines that they erred in self-care during pregnancy. In at least one case, an ill woman was forced to have a C-section because the hospital determined that her baby's needs outweighed her own, and both died.
Pregnancy and childbirth have always been dangerous, both for mothers and fetuses, and doctors and midwives have had their hands full working to optimize outcomes for all. What they don't need are prescriptions determined by poorly thought-out laws.
One doesn't have to experience abuse to understand it, but in this case, my own experiences make these personhood bills very personal. Obviously, my abortion would have been illegal, and I would have been forced to give birth to a child I could not properly care for then. Had I not given birth successfully to our son through vaginal birth, I could have been charged with harming or killing a fetus. Had my miscarriage happened later, I could have been accused of endangering the fetus. My many friends who chose to have a vaginal birth after an earlier C-section would have had to weigh legal liability against all the other factors.
Pregnancy and childbirth carry enough challenges as it is. It is deeply distressing that presidential candidates have signed a pledge to support the deeply invasive definition of personhood. Don't conservatives say they want less government interference in our lives?