Baby Stolen from Mother for giving birth vaginally.

[PUPAGANDA]

Is a Woman in Labor a "Person"? New Assaults on Pregnant Women's Civil Rights in a NJ Case
http://unplugthesignal.com/2009/07/23/baby-stolen-from-mother-for-giving-birth-vaginally.aspx

Yet another ruling is providing legal support for the false belief that obstetricians are infallible and stripping pregnant women of basic civil rights that are then accorded to other individuals. In the case, New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. V.M. and B.G., the New Jersey appellate court found that V.M. and B.G. had abused and neglected their child, based on the fact that the mother, V.M., refused to consent to a cesarean section and behaved erratically while in labor. The mother gave birth vaginally without incident, and the baby was "in good medical condition." Then she was never returned to her parents, and the judge in the case approved a plan to terminate their parental rights and give custody of the child to foster parents. What, beyond the obvious, is wrong with this picture?

http://unplugthesignal.com/2009/07/23/baby-stolen-from-mother-for-giving-birth-vaginally.aspx

[PUPAGANDA]

Original Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/louise-marie-roth/is-a-woman-in-labor-a-per_b_242307.html

Wow yet another example of the fascist control we are under. So I guess if you don't elect to have a cesarean you are an unfit mother.......the death of birth is upon us. People should ask around and they will find the majority of people around them where force to have a cesarean.

There are sooo many cases where babies are stolen from mothers placed on up to 7 psychotropic drugs and abused over and over again in the foster system or by CPS workers. We live in a fascist tyrannical state, where the system is ushering in complete control. People better speak up or soon we will have no rights and every aspect of our lives will be controlled and managed.

[PUPAGANDA]

Really hoping the infowars team would spotlight this article and share it with the infowarriors. This is very important!

[luckee1]

If you post the article for all to see it usually gets a response.  And if you post it in news tips.

Is a Woman in Labor a "Person"? New Assaults on Pregnant Women's Civil Rights in a NJ Case

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/louise-marie-roth/is-a-woman-in-labor-a-per_b_242307.html
Louise Marie Roth
Posted: July 21, 2009 05:35 PM

Yet another ruling is providing legal support for the false belief that obstetricians are infallible and stripping pregnant women of basic civil rights that are then accorded to other individuals. In the case, New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. V.M. and B.G., the New Jersey appellate court found that V.M. and B.G. had abused and neglected their child, based on the fact that the mother, V.M., refused to consent to a cesarean section and behaved erratically while in labor. The mother gave birth vaginally without incident, and the baby was "in good medical condition." Then she was never returned to her parents, and the judge in the case approved a plan to terminate their parental rights and give custody of the child to foster parents. What, beyond the obvious, is wrong with this picture?

First, from a legal perspective, individuals have a right to informed consent and bodily integrity. In obstetrics, informed consent is a blurry concept since many hospitals perform obstetric procedures on laboring women without informing them of the evidence concerning those procedures or their risks. Perhaps this legal case illustrates how paternalistic hospitals can be with respect to pregnant women -- assuming that the hospital staff know best and that informed consent is unnecessary. Never mind that hospitals tend to be run with organizational efficiency, rather than patient interests, in mind. In this specific case, one obstetrician who tried to convince the mother to consent to a c-section concluded that she was not psychotic and had the capacity for informed consent with regard to the c-section. It is clear within the law there is no informed consent without informed refusal, so this obstetrician's conclusion should have made V.M.'s refusal to consent to the c-section her decision alone. If this mother is not legally permitted to refuse major abdominal surgery, then she is clearly stripped of her civil rights to informed consent.

In fact, individuals are not legally required to consent to invasive procedures even to save other individuals, including fetuses that lack full legal status. But in this case the district and appellate courts subverted a pregnant woman's informed medical decision-making in the name of fetal rights, arguing that her refusal was a form of abuse and neglect of the child that had not yet been born. This is another dangerous precedent, along with other court-ordered cesarean cases, that will allow all pregnant women to lose their rights to bodily integrity and informed consent. It may be understandable, if not excusable, that the courts don't understand medicine or recognize that medical judgment is fallible, but it is hard to understand how they could so fundamentally misinterpret the law, in which performing surgery on an individual without that person's permission can constitute criminal "battery" under common law.

The court's opinion also suggests that lawmakers have no concept of what it is like to be in labor. Women in labor tend to find themselves on a different mental plane, where they have to focus inward and work with their bodies to give birth. As midwives know, some women become belligerent. Some seek privacy and seclusion. Most women in labor are likely to find the routine and usually unnecessary procedures of hospitals to be invasive and unwelcome. Yet the courts that decided this case didn't seem to be aware that women are unlikely to behave the same way when they are in labor as when they aren't. The decision cites hospital records that describe the mother, V.M., as "combative," "uncooperative," "erratic," "noncompliant," "irrational" and "inappropriate." Also, her husband indicated that the way she was acting was not her "normal manner and that she is not as 'tranquil.'" Why would anyone expect a woman in labor to be compliant, tranquil, or rational? What kinds of expectations does our society have for women undergoing a powerful physiological process, often with an absurd amount of poking, prodding and general interference? This mother was uncooperative with hospital staff, but clearly her uncooperativeness had nothing to do with the well-being of her baby. There is no reason to believe that she did not have the well-being her baby as her top priority, even though she was not a model patient. There is also no reason to believe that everything the hospital staff wanted to do was essential or even beneficial for the well-being of either mother or baby. In fact, typical obstetric care engages in many procedures that are unnecessary and often harmful, more out of habit and for the convenience of hospital staff than in the best interest of patients.

While the court opinion also focuses on the parents' psychiatric diagnoses (which are fallible medical judgments) and their history of care in determining their fitness as parents and abrogating their parental rights, their psychiatric state would never have been questioned if the mother had not refused invasive abdominal surgery -- which was entirely within her rights. The tragic consequence for this family was separation from their infant daughter from the moment of her otherwise uneventful vaginal birth. That kind of injustice can't have been good for the psyche.

[Brocke]

I posted this on another thread but I thought it should be here as well. They are trying to make it policy that the father not be allowed to be present during the birth. Once the man is removed from the birth process the doctors will have complete control to dictate how the baby is born regardless of the risk to both child and mother.


Watch Pregnant in America. The institutionalized medical profession want total control of the birthing process. If they had their way 100% of women would get epidurals, induced labor and cesareans once the "accepted safe" time limit is reached.

If giving birth was so dangerous the human race would have died out millennia ago.

Pregnant in America
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/educational_and_howto/watch/v18550583jWD3Rn7X


Men must give labour a wide berth, says obstetrician Michel Odent

Michael Odent
The Sunday Telegraph
July 19, 2009 07:17am

    * Doctor wants dads banned from labour ward
    * Says they complicate birth, it's too traumatic
    * Blog: Stop telling women how to give birth
             

London obstetrician Michel Odent argues that when women give birth their partner should not be present.

"For many years, I haven't been able to speak openly about my views that the presence of a father in a delivery room is not only unnecessary but also hinders labour.

To utter such a thing over the past two decades would have been regarded as heresy and flown in the face of popular convention.

But, having been involved in childbirth for 50 years and having been in charge of 15,000 births, I feel it's time to state what I - and many midwives and obstetricians - privately consider the obvious: that there's little good to come, for either sex, from having a man at the birth of a child.

I'm convinced that the participation of fathers is one of the main reasons for long and difficult labours. And there are a number of basic physiological reasons for this.

First, a labouring woman needs to be protected against any stimulation of the thinking part of her brain, the neocortex, for labour to proceed with any ease.

This part of the brain needs to take a back seat and allow the primal "unthinking'' part of the brain, connected to basic, vital functions, to take over.

Yet, motivated by a desire to "share the experience'', the man asks questions and offers words of reassurance and advice. In doing so, he denies his partner the quiet mind she needs.

The second reason is that the father's release of the stress hormone adrenalin as he watches his partner labour causes her anxiety and prevents her relaxing.

It has been proven that it is physically impossible to be in a state of relaxation if there's an individual standing next to you who is tense and full of adrenalin.

With a man present, a woman cannot be as relaxed as she needs to be during labour. Hence, the process becomes more difficult.

I have been with many women as they struggled to give birth, with their partner at their side. Yet, the moment he leaves the room, the baby arrives.

After birth, too, a woman needs a few moments with her baby, particularly between the time of birth and when she delivers the placenta.

In order to deliver the placenta easily, her levels of oxytocin - the hormone of love - need to peak.

This happens if she has a moment in which she can forget everything, save for her baby, and if she has time in which she can look into the baby's eyes, make contact with its skin and take in its smell, without distractions.

Often, when a baby is born, men cannot help but say something or try to touch the baby.

Their interference at this key moment is, more often than not, the main cause for a difficult delivery of the placenta, too.

But it's not just the fact that men slow down labour that makes me cautious about their presence at the birth.

There are two other important questions I would like to see answered scientifically.

The first is: are we sure that all men can easily cope with the strong emotional reaction they have when they participate in the birth?

Over the years, I've seen something akin to post-natal depression in men present at birth.

In its mild form, men take to their bed in the week following the birth, complaining of everything from stomach ache or migraine to a 24-hour bug.

It's well known by those who study depression that, rather than admit a low mood, men often offer up a symptom as a reason why they've taken to their bed.

The final question I would like answered is what, if a man is present at birth, will be the effect on the sexual attraction he feels towards his wife?

When men began standing at their partner's side in labour, I remember my mother's generation saying that the couple's intimate life would be ruined.

And, given that the key to eroticism is a degree of mystery, I'm left believing they had a point.'

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25804208-36398,00.html

[Dok]

Just amazing, im sure there wouldnt have been any problems if the mom wanted to murder the baby with an abortion. Wheres the courts then? This kind of crap is getting way out of hand, and only WE THE PEOPLE can correct it. 

[luckee1]

Just amazing, im sure there wouldnt have been any problems if the mom wanted to murder the baby with an abortion. Wheres the courts then? This kind of crap is getting way out of hand, and only WE THE PEOPLE can correct it. 

QFT!

[Wolfhausen]

Unbelievably insane story.

[sociostudent]

Really hoping the infowars team would spotlight this article and share it with the infowarriors. This is very important!

um...we did.

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=121991.msg759357#msg759357

Anyone wanna merge the topics, plz? maybe rock or jtcoyote?

[Jay of Nebraska]

Any excuse they can find to achieve their agenda and all in the name of self righteousness in regard to the relationship and birth of a mother and child.

Talk about going against nature and the nature of the strongest natural bond that is only superseded by a relationship with God.

Man, this is one of the greatest ironies that I have ever heard of in relation to parent to child relationships.

It reminds me of what a minister once said to me.

"When people say that evil is good and good is evil long enough they start to believe it.  When a mother does something that she believes is best for her child to protect it in her own best way and people say that this is evil then there is something very wrong with the entirety of the situation.  The providence of nurturing, birthing, raising and protecting children is th providence of women and it is good."

Now, sure the devil's advocate could claim that the mother was not behaving in the best interest of the child yet in truth the sacrifice and difficulty that she endured was in the interest of the child because of the additional work she was willing to do in the interest of the child's birth.

It be akin to claiming that because you work and disallow the state to be the sole governance of income, raising and educating your children that you are guilty of negligence of the children and don't have their best interest in mind.....Simply Ludicrous

[PUPAGANDA]

I totally believe people have be indoctrinated with false information and beliefs when it come to birthing a child. It shouldn't even need to be labeled "Natural Birth... We should just be calling it birth and anything else "Unnatural Birth."
Just the same as Organic food...when did poison ooopppss...(Pesticide laden food become normal) and a label of "Organic" have to be put on food that is naturally grown?
Why...because those with labels are outside of what is perceived to be normal...people really need to pay attention to language and how words are used in our culture to manipulate the thoughts of the people.

[Brocke]

Australian News

The Australian
‎Jul 31, 2009

by Siobhain Ryan

Government plan to ban homebirth an attack on "Women's Rights"

The Rudd Government's plan to ban midwives from attending homebirths is an attack on women and their right to give birth how they choose, Family First Senator Steve Fielding said today.

Senator Fielding will be attending a rally today at 11am outside Minister Roxon's office where he will be joined by approximately 200 mothers and midwives to voice his opposition to the ban on homebirths.

"This is an outrageous decision and one which is totally inconsistent with all other health care systems which operate around the world.

“I’ll be meeting with the Health Minister later today to discuss the matter.

"It is a woman's right to decide how she gives birth. It is not up to the Government to tell her how to do this or where to do this.

"Slapping midwives with a fine of $30,000 simply for helping deliver a baby in a woman's home is ridiculous.

"It is just another example of the Rudd Government treating Australians like children and trying to tell us what is best for us.

"Numerous studies have shown that for low-risk women with appropriate transfer-to-hospital options available, homebirths are at least as safe as births in hospitals or birth centres.

"This Bill is a dangerous move because it will not put an end to homebirths.

"Whether the government likes it or not, women will continue to give birth at home. All this will do is drive homebirths underground with disastrous ramifications for women and their newborn.”

http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13203:government-plan-to-ban-homebirth-an-attack-on-qwomens-rightsq&catid=72:australian-news&Itemid=200

[Brocke]

Woman pregnant with 12 children

By staff writers
NEWS.com.au
August 18, 2009 08:55am


    * Woman at least 16 weeks' pregnant
    * Defying doctors' advice to terminate
    * Survival chance "one in hundred"

A WOMAN pregnant with 12 babies is determined to give birth to them all naturally - and the father is right behind her.

Despite being warned of the “colossal” risks, the Tunisian woman is defying medical advice and if successful, will smash the current record of nine babies born naturally.[/color]

That record is held by a Sydney woman in 1971, but all nine of her children died.

Doctors warn the same fate is likely for the unnamed mother-to-be’s 12 children, saying the feat is “impossible”, but she says she feels fine.

One doctor told the Daily Mail the chances of even one baby surviving were “one in a hundred”.

The stress of carrying the babies could see them born as early as 20 weeks into her pregnancy, and given that doctors have confirmed she’s carrying six boys and six girls - a process that can only be carried out after 16 weeks - she could well be in labour sooner rather than later.

The woman’s pregnancy comes seven months after Californian mum Nadya Suleman - popularly known as “Octomom” - delivered eight healthy children.

However, Suleman’s eight children were delivered by caesarean section.

The woman’s husband, identified only as Marwan, said the couple were overjoyed, having endured several miscarriages in the past before turning to fertility treatment to conceive the brood.

"In the beginning we thought that my wife would give birth to twins,” he told The Sun.

“But more foetuses were discovered. Our joy increased with the growing number."

It is not clear whether the mother was offered the option of “selective reduction” - terminating several of the foetuses - in order to increase the chance of survival of the remaining foetuses and their mother.

However, the Tunisian Government says it will do “all it can” to care for the mother and her babies.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25945562-401,00.html

[adissenter2]

more insanity as usual

BUMP

[Brocke]

Birth induced, footy star to play final

By Mark Stevens
Herald Sun
September 01, 2009 09:25am


Brian Lake in action against Collingwood / Picture: Michael Dodge

DOCTORS will tomorrow induce the birth of Western Bulldog Brian Lake's girl, ensuring the star full-back will be available for the AFL finals.

Lake said he was looking forward to confronting Geelong at the MCG on Saturday and then welcoming the latest addition to his family home for Father's Day.

"I'm excited, but there's a bit of nerves as well," he told the Herald Sun.

Lake's fiancee, Shannon O'Malley, was due to give birth on September 16, but after consultation with doctors the pair agreed to bring the birth at Freemason's Hospital forward.

"We had a baby boy Cohen born in 2007 two weeks premature, which didn't worry us because it was around Christmas time," Lake said.

"Obviously the idea was to do it mid-week because with footy finals I didn't want to be worried about it around Saturday or Sunday."

In 2000, Brisbane Lions star Daniel Bradshaw missed an MCG elimination final to be at the birth of his first child. The Lions lost.

Three years ago, Sydney Swan Darren Jolly vowed to miss the Grand Final to be at his pregnant wife's side but was spared the decision when his daughter arrived 48 hours before the bounce.

Others have played on. Kangaroos forward Saverio Rocca left his wife in labour to play in a 2005 elimination final.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26010939-421,00.html