I strongly support legal recognition of the human rights, bodily integrity, and autonomy of pregnant women to make decisions about the health care and medical treatments to which she will consent. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the right of competent persons to decline medical treatment, and courts have also held that no person can be compelled to submit to medical treatment for the benefit of another. These are basic constitutional rights to life and liberty that are implicated. A woman does not lose her constitution and human rights simply because she becomes pregnant and chooses to continue the pregnancy to term. The concept of a forced cesarean section, with the woman tied down screaming "I do not consent to this procedure," while she is forcibly anesthetized and major abdominal surgery (which carries a three-times higher risk of maternal death than vaginal birth) is forced upon her -- this concept must be repellent and horrifying to citizens of a country that was founded on the basis of those rights to life and liberty. And yet, some local courts and judges are being manipulated by hospital attorneys into ordering pregnant women to do absurd things -- such as months of compulsory bed rest for a single mom who has a full-time job and two older children (which happened a year or so ago in Florida, even though evidence based studies prove that bed rest is not effective to prevent miscarriage).

Oh my gosh. I am totally shocked by this. This is why all of mine will be born at home from now on. My midwife does breech deliveries all the time. I doubt very much that the breech delivery was the cause of that babies death in Pittsburgh and anticipate that it will be very difficult to prove. Breech birth is normal birth. Period.

It's just one more way the government is tryin to abuse its power. I was fortunate enough to deliver both of my kids without any complications but only a women who has given birth knows what emotions they are experiencing. I believe that the mom should be able to make the choice and that the court shouldn't be able to get an injunction to have custody of the baby just because she chooses something different then the doctors.

While I would never have a homebirth, I totally feel its a mother's right to choose how she wants to give birth. I'll be damned if I let someone tell me what I can and cant do with my own body

Wow - thank you for this rather disturbing article! At least we are asking the right questions about ethics, rights, and informed decision-making. The ability to legally consent requires the ability NOT to consent - otherwise, it is force or coercion. Furthermore, it is disrespectful.

A pregnant alcoholic crack addict doesn't get arrested for harming her unborn child. Another woman wants to avoid drugs to ensure the healthiest birth for her baby and the doctors have a fit.

Welcome to American obstetrics.

I have worked with children with voice boxes and others stuck covering their entire body with clothing despite the heat outside because their STD ridden mothers refused to be burdened with a stomach scar. I also have a Catholic mother who had an ectopic pregnancy rip open and was bleeding to death refuse to sign the consent for an emergency abortion. The only reason she lived to raise my brother and I is the Doctor told her she would pass out from the pain before the medicine could course thru her system and when it did he would hand the consent form to my father. So while I can say as a woman entering her seventh month of her second pregnancy that I have rights and one of them is to make decisions about my healthcare or lack thereof I can also see that we are not as knowledgeable as Doctors about health issues and sometimes their better judgment deserves to override our wishes.

I am shocked that a hospital would try to force a C-section on a woman whose medical history proves that there is absolutely no need for it! Were the doctors listening when she told them that she'd had babies bigger than this with no complications? I am even more shocked that they went so far as to seek custody of the baby! On what grounds was that granted??? Just because she makes a decision about her labor and delivery, it has no bearing on whether or not she'll be a good mother! There is no abuse or neglect of her older children. If the doctors disagreed, their course of action should have been to allow the woman to labor normally and monitor her closely. IF a problem arose, THEN push for the c-section. Until there is an ACTUAL complication, it is the patient's choice how to proceed.

She deserves a public apology from the hospital, if not the court, too. They behaved so badly that she, while in labor, left to find another hospital. How absurd! Good for her for doing that! Shame on the doctors AND the courts!! I wonder how much evidence the judge was given before the decision was made to take this woman's baby away. I'm so glad she proved them all wrong!

I find this hospital's actions totally reprehensible. Especially the fact that the mother did not have the ability to legally defend herself prior to the order being issued. The system needs to change that anyone would be submitted to any medical procedure against their will without first having legal representation to dispute it. We give more rights to our criminals than a sane woman making a choice that is rightfully hers to make about her body.

This doctor just wanted to make money on the c-section operation. Instead he ended up costing the hospital money by hiring an attorney in an attempt to force this pregnant woman into the operation. Gee, I wonder why healthcare is so damn expensive in this country!!!!

Nobody will do anything to apprehend a pregnant alcoholic crack addict. Try to avoid drugs and surgery to give your baby the healthiest start, and you're a danger to your unborn child.

I don't understand American obstetrics.

Something tells me we're not getting the entire story here. It seems highly unlikely. I wouldn't be surprised if the mom tested positive for GBS and is so obsessed with having a vaginal birth that she'll go to any lengths to do it.

What a random, unrelated and idiotic remark, TieDyeJedi. Yes, women are loose, making decisions to kill their babies! You gotta be a doc--except that you prolly meant GD, not GBS. Either way, totally bogus remarks.

Jedi, that was a pretty ignorant remark. Even if she WAS Positive for GBS, it certainly does not mean she has to have a cesarean. And why, after she's already given birth easily six other times before, is she suddenly in the wrong for wanting to do it this way again? I'd say by now she knows her body, and nothing about what this woman was saying sounded irrational or uninformed. To the contrary, everything the hospital suggested/attempted to force on her sounded completely irrational and uninformed. There is NOTHING evidence-based in what they were trying to get her to do.

This is wrong on SO many levels! I am NOT in favor of the rights of abortion, BUT if in the minds of the law it is legal for a woman to KILL her child in the name of Choice at any time before birth, HOW IN THE WORLD is it the right of the courts to swoop in and take over for the life of a baby when the mother is seeking the safest way to BIRTH??? If it is her CHOICE to MURDER this baby, it is surely her CHOICE to BIRTH her baby as she CHOOSES!!!

There is a big difference between a woman who has had several normal, healthy births and drug addicts and neglectful mothers. One has proven herself responsible, and the others have proven themselves incapable of making good decisions.

Having been given the choice of an inducted vaginal delivery or a c-section 17 years ago, after spending the latter part of my first pregnancy with gestational diabetes, AND given the possible scenarios if I decided to go with the inducted vaginal delivery (ranging from a difficult delivery to my baby dying in the birth canal because the shoulders and chest of a gestational diabetic baby most often are too large to fit through it), I chose the c-section. I had waited a long time to have a baby (I was 33) and I wasn't going to risk HER health by being SELFISH. It was the right decision. As the nurses who had assisted in the delivery were cleaning me up afterwards, one of them leaned over and said, "you made the right choice. You would have never delivered that baby vaginally." Sometimes medical personnel do know best. While this woman may have successfully delivered 6 other large babies vaginally, this particular doctor may not have been present durin those deliveries. He was using his experience and expertise to arrive at his decision. That IS what we pay them for...

no man should rule a woman

I believe in this case, after an established track record of 6 other children born naturally & healthy under similar circumstances, the mother being of sound mind, there is NO slippery slope. This hospital & whatever Dr. Quack made that call should be punished for this. But of course they have no comment, there's no comment they can make that would support their extremely poor decision in this family's case. Totally different, for my first & only child I had only dilated to 5cm after 14 hours, the baby's heartbeat was erratic, the medical staff urged a C-section, & although I was reluctant, there were just too many unknowns for me to deny it. They were probably right, & my son was born healthy & has been ever since. I could NOT risk his life for my preferences--but again mine is like the opposite case.

Pray remember, we now live in a time when the State of New Jersey kidnapped three healthy, developmentally-normal, well-cared-for children from their parents at gunpoint; then proceeded to do the same with a fourth child literally hours after her birth; because the Department of Child "Welfare" disapproved of the kids' NAMES. As far as the minions of the State are concerned, We the Peons are chattel, and are to be treated accordingly.