Choice Matters

L. Roth
{"title":"Choice Matters","authors":"L. Roth","doi":"10.18574/nyu/9781479812257.003.0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter analyzes the effect of reproductive regimes on VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean), midwife-attended birth, and homebirth. Many hospitals have formal or de facto bans on VBAC, even though 60–80% of women who attempt a VBAC will have a successful vaginal birth. Providers have increasingly restricted VBAC since July 1999, but forcing a woman to have major abdominal surgery (or any medical procedure) without her consent is a violation of her civil rights. An analysis of how state-level reproductive rights laws affected the odds of VBAC reveals that VBAC is less likely in fetus-centered regimes with restrictive abortion laws, especially after June 1999. Midwife-attended birth and out-of-hospital birth are also less likely in fetus-centered regimes. Taken together, these results point in the same direction: fetus-centered reproductive rights regimes constrain pregnant women’s ability to make reproductive decisions about birth, not just abortion.","PeriodicalId":354942,"journal":{"name":"The Business of Birth","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Business of Birth","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479812257.003.0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This chapter analyzes the effect of reproductive regimes on VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean), midwife-attended birth, and homebirth. Many hospitals have formal or de facto bans on VBAC, even though 60–80% of women who attempt a VBAC will have a successful vaginal birth. Providers have increasingly restricted VBAC since July 1999, but forcing a woman to have major abdominal surgery (or any medical procedure) without her consent is a violation of her civil rights. An analysis of how state-level reproductive rights laws affected the odds of VBAC reveals that VBAC is less likely in fetus-centered regimes with restrictive abortion laws, especially after June 1999. Midwife-attended birth and out-of-hospital birth are also less likely in fetus-centered regimes. Taken together, these results point in the same direction: fetus-centered reproductive rights regimes constrain pregnant women’s ability to make reproductive decisions about birth, not just abortion.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
选择很重要
本章分析了生殖制度对VBAC(剖宫产后阴道分娩)、助产士接生和家庭分娩的影响。许多医院正式或事实上禁止VBAC,尽管60% - 80%尝试VBAC的妇女会成功地顺产。自1999年7月以来,医疗服务提供者越来越多地限制VBAC,但未经妇女同意而强迫其进行大腹部手术(或任何医疗程序)是对其公民权利的侵犯。对州一级生殖权利法律如何影响VBAC几率的分析表明,在以胎儿为中心的国家,特别是在1999年6月之后,有限制性堕胎法的国家,VBAC的可能性较小。在以胎儿为中心的制度下,助产士助产和院外分娩的可能性也较小。综上所述,这些结果都指向同一个方向:以胎儿为中心的生殖权利制度限制了孕妇做出生育决定的能力,而不仅仅是堕胎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Birth Matters Reproductive Regimes What’s the Rush? Choice Matters Myths of Malpractice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1