

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, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. 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. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —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?