Florida Hospital Demands Woman Undergo Forced C-Section


In an action that appears to be increasingly commonplace, a Florida hospital has threatened to force a pregnant patient to undergo cesarean surgery against her will, or to report her to child welfare authorities for attempting to exercise her right to make the medical decisions she deems best for herself and her family.

Jennifer Goodall of Coral Gables was informed in a July 10 letter from the chief financial officer of Bayfront Health Port Charlotte that because she decided to attempt vaginal delivery before agreeing to cesarean surgery in her fourth pregnancy, her prenatal care providers intended to report her to the Department of Children and Family Services, seek a court order to perform surgery, and perform cesarean surgery on her “with or without [her] consent” if she came to the hospital.

A complaint on behalf of Goodall was filed in federal court last week by National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) and Florida attorney Patricia E. Kahn, seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent the hospital from carrying out its threats. Federal District Judge John E. Steele denied the request, stating in part that Goodall has no “right to compel a physician or medical facility to perform a medical procedure in the manner she wishes against their best medical judgment.”

Goodall is now 41 weeks pregnant and has told her lawyers she is terrified to enter a hospital. Given this and the weight of medical evidence in Goodall’s favor regarding the safety of the delivery she wanted to have, it is unclear whether the hospital or the courts are considering “best medical judgment” and in whose interest they are acting.

Goodall delivered her three other children via c-section and now desires to undergo what is commonly known as vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). In decades past, VBAC was a common choice for women who had previously had c-sections, rising from roughly 5 percent of all deliveries after a cesarean in 1985 to roughly 28 percent by 1996. The rate of VBAC deliveries started to fall in the late ’90s, according to the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, reaching 8.5 percent in 2006 due in part to “restrictions that some hospitals and insurers placed” on the procedure. In tandem with what some have noted as pressure on women to undergo cesareans, the rate of cesarean delivery overall in the United States simultaneously increased dramatically over the past four decades, from 5 percent to over 31 percent in 2007.

Medical and public health bodies have long criticized the high rate of cesarean sections in the United States. The World Health Organization points out that at the current rate of 30 percent of all deliveries, cesarean sections in the United States far exceed what should normally be between 5 to 10 percent of all deliveries. ACOG agrees. “The current cesarean rate is undeniably high and absolutely concerns us as ob-gyns,” ACOG President Richard N. Waldman said in a statement. “[ACOG’s] VBAC guidelines emphasize the need for thorough counseling of benefits and risks, shared patient-doctor decision making, and the importance of patient autonomy. Moving forward, we need to work collaboratively with our patients and our colleagues, hospitals, and insurers to swing the pendulum back to fewer cesareans and a more reasonable VBAC rate.”

“The risks associated with a vaginal delivery are lower than the risks associated with a C-section overall, as long as you can deliver the baby at a facility equipped to handle a C-section in case of emergency,” Roger W. Harms, an obstetrician at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and medical editor-in-chief of MayoClinic.com, said in a statement. And the recovery time is faster. Undergoing a cesarean surgery for the fourth time carries a 1 in 8 chance of major complications. In short, VBAC deliveries are safer for both the pregnant person and the fetus and lead to fewer complications.

These facts did not escape Goodall, who said in a statement released by NAPW:

My decision to allow labor to proceed before consenting to a surgical intervention is based on years of research, careful consideration of the risks to me and my baby, and my family’s needs. All I want is to be able to go to the hospital when I’m in labor and have my medical decisions respected – and my decision is to proceed with a trial of labor and not have cesarean surgery unless some medical complication arises that makes cesarean surgery necessary for my or my baby’s health. Instead of respecting my wishes like they would for any other patient, my health care providers have made me fear for my safety and custody of my children. The people who are supposed to be caring for me and my baby have put me into an even more dangerous situation. I know I’m not the only one to go through this; I’m speaking out because pregnant women deserve better.

“I would definitely consent to surgery if there were any indication during labor that it is necessary,” Goodall added. “I am trying to make the decision that will be safest for both me and my baby, and give me the greatest chance at being able to heal quickly after my child is born so I can care for my newborn and my three other children.”

NAPW staff attorney Farah Diaz-Tello expressed disappointment in Judge Steele’s ruling. “The process of labor and delivery isn’t a procedure; our client is the one trying to avoid a compelled medical procedure. Deciding whether and when to consent to surgery is a constitutionally protected right,” she said in a statement. Diaz-Tello explained that every appellate court to rule on this issue on a full record has held that pregnant women retain their constitutional rights, including rights to medical decision-making and bodily integrity. “No woman should fear that because she’s pregnant, she can be threatened, coerced, or deprived of her constitutional rights,” she said.

But this is exactly what happened to Rinat Dray in Staten Island and to at least six other women in Florida, according to NAPW. “Florida is particularly bad for people giving birth,” Diaz-Tello told RH Reality Check in an email. “We know of at least a half dozen other women who have had court orders or threats of legal action this against them, but the certainty with which hospitals have made these threats makes us think there are more we don’t know of.”

According to declarations of medical experts filed with the lawsuit, the hospital’s actions violate medical ethics. In a statement to NAPW, Mary Faith Marshall, director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics & Humanities at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, called the hospital’s actions “troubling.”

“Given the clear statements from ACOG’s Committee on Ethics and other professional groups that coerced or court-ordered medical procedures are not ethically justified, it is stunning that a hospital would threaten such an action,” she said.

Diaz-Tello acknowledged the hospital’s concerns about malpractice liability, but noted that there is no legal or ethical authority that supports managing liability concerns by forcibly performing unwanted surgery. “The Florida Supreme Court has said health care providers are protected from liability when they respect and follow the decisions of a competent and informed patient to delay or refuse a proposed treatment, even when there are risks involved,” she said in the NAPW statement. “Ms. Goodall has explicitly and carefully documented her informed decision to proceed with a trial of labor; there is no justification for forcing her, or any person, to have unwanted surgery to protect a hospital’s bottom line.”

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Jodi Jacobson on twitter: @jljacobson

  • dudebro

    Ignoranr asshats always assume that c-sections are easy peasy no risk.

    • Stacy48918

      Ignorant asshats always assume that vaginal birth (before or after C-section) is easy peasy no risk.

      Fixed it for you.

      • Arekushieru

        While I don’t understand why women would choose to undergo ‘natural’ childbirth, you clearly missed the point. No one was saying that vaginal childbirth was easy peasy no risk, they were simply stating that there ARE risks to c-sections. Natural childbirth is clearly more dangerous than a c-section and you would know that we realize that if you looked around the site. Thanks.

        • Jennifer

          “Natural childbirth is clearly more dangerous than a c-section” That’s simply false, actually.

          • Jennifer

            But regardless, it’s her body and her choice. Pregnant women are either people with control over their own bodies, or they aren’t.

          • Stacy48918

            Of course she can control her body. By going to a different hospital. Which she did.

          • Arekushieru

            No one, especially that far along in the stages of pregnancy, should be forced to seek medical treatment elsewhere. That’s discrimination. After all, being forced to seek similar treatment elsewhere would never occur with a man.

          • Arekushieru

            No, it is not. Repeated C-sections may be more dangerous than a single instance of childbirth or VBAC but a single C-section compared to a single vaginal birth or multiple C-sections compared to multiple vaginal births, not so clear and simple. Thanks.

          • Stacy48918

            Actually, it’s not. A pre-labor C-section is much less dangerous to the baby’s LIFE than is vaginal birth. It does carry an increased morbidity for mom (infection, pain, etc) and minute increased risk of mortality (embolism, anesthesia reaction, etc). But when it comes to the life of the baby, a C-section is much safer than vaginal birth.

          • Kyrean

            And the life of the baby is all that matters, amiright? /s

            Time and time again, I see women discounted, refused their agency, and treated as less than human because they are pregnant. They are treated as nothing more than an incubator, and if they have serious problems but a healthy baby, they are told to “quit complaining, because you have a healthy baby, and that’s what matters.” No. The outcome for the mother matters just as much, IF NOT MORE, than the outcome for the baby.

            And this is why I will never, ever allow myself to get pregnant, and especially not to give birth. I do not want to be dehumanized in favor of some proto-human.

      • dudebro

        So? That has no bearing on my statement.

  • BelligerentBruncher

    This is simple. If the doctor, or hospital, doesn’t feel comfortable with her having a VBAC, then they can tell her that they will only do a C-section. If she doesn’t like it, then fine. Go to a different provider.

    • lady_black

      It doesn’t work that way. Hospitals are bound to respect the refusal of a competent patient. Patients DO have rights, and they do not end at hospital admission.

      • Pox Voldius

        This country still has too many paternalistic, sexist assholes that think pregnant women aren’t competent persons, that their pregnancy hormones make them crazy and not fit to decide anything for themselves.

      • BelligerentBruncher

        Healthcare workers don’t determine competence. Judges do.

        You’re thinking of capacity.

        And in the state of Florida, you do not have the right to harm yourself.

        • dudebro

          And in the state of Florida, you do not have the right to harm yourself.

          Choosing to live in Florida = self-harm

        • lady_black

          OF COURSE you have the right to harm yourself. Who’s going to stop you? A patient is PRESUMED to be competent unless adjudicated otherwise. And that’s pretty tough to do. It doesn’t matter if the person is mentally handicapped, has a history of poor decision-making, and requires round-the-clock caregiving. Judges are loathe to remove people’s civil rights. Legally there is no difference between capacity and competency. Adults are assumed to be both capable and competent. This woman is no different. You are simply wrong on the law.

          • Ginger

            As was the judge.

      • Stacy48918

        If she shows up in labor they are required to treat or transfer. But before that they absolutely can tell her they refuse to plan to assist her in her attempt.

    • Dez

      Wow such lack of concern over the health of a pregnant woman. You’re disgusting.

      • BelligerentBruncher

        If you cared about her health, then you’d agree that a C-section is her best option.

        But you don’t.

        • JO

          our job as healthcare workers is to present the facts to help the patient make an informed decision. if we agree or disagree with a patients decision is irrelevant. we still have an obligation to respect their decisions, maintain their safety, and give the highest level of care possible.

          The issue with denying her treatment when she is in labor is that she is unstable condition. Under the federal EMTELA law it is illegal to turn her away/deny her treatment because she does not agree with your plan of care. If she makes the decision to leave against medical advice (AMA) that is her decision.

        • JamieHaman

          Did you miss the part about the risks of repeat c-sections in the comment by Kelly Northham CNM? You told her thanks for the info. Pretty clearly the c-section is NOT the best first option for this woman.

          It’s her body, it’s her decision. It’s her life.

        • Dez

          “The risks associated with a vaginal delivery are lower than the risks associated with a C-section overall, as long as you can deliver the baby at a facility equipped to handle a C-section in case of emergency,” Roger W. Harms, an obstetrician at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and medical editor-in-chief of MayoClinic.com, said in a statement. And the recovery time is faster. Undergoing a cesarean surgery for the fourth time carries a 1 in 8 chance of major complications. In short, VBAC deliveries are safer for both the pregnant person and the fetus and lead to fewer complications.
          Learn to some reading comprehension.. It is you that wants to force a woman an unnecessary medical procedure or potentially risk her life trying to find another hospital that will respect her decisions. But we all know “pro-lifers” could care less about the health of women.

    • Aneurysm

      did you read the article dumbass? Hope you never have a hospital knock you unconscious and perform major surgery on you.

      • fiona64

        Teenaged dudebros who think pregnancy is all fairy farts and sunshine can safely be ignored. Just so you know.

      • BelligerentBruncher

        If the surgery is in the benefit of my own health, then I’d oblige.

        • lady_black

          That does NOT MATTER. A patient is allowed to refuse treatment, even for the benefit of their own health.

  • JO

    Fromwhat I’ve read, vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) is considered
    “safe” after the 1st caesarean. After 2, it’s not considered safe,
    generally not allowed, and mothers are counseled on the risks/benefits
    of VBAC after 2 caesareans. “Women requesting for a trial of vaginal
    delivery after two caesarean sections should be counselled appropriately
    considering available data of success rate 71.1%, uterine rupture rate
    1.36% and of a comparative maternal morbidity with repeat CS option.”

    I think the OB does have the right to refuse medical treatment to a pt
    that does not agree with their suggested plan of care and is an “at
    risk” patient, just as it is the right of the pt to refuse medical
    treatment from that OB for not feeling comfortable with their plan of
    care.

    Where it gets complicated is when she goes to the hospital in labor. EMTELA
    (fed law) requires that you treat a pt in unstable condition, you cannot
    turn them away. A pregnant woman most certainly is in unstable
    condition. Here, she most certainly would decline having a C-section.
    So then the issue becomes how much staff do you have on hand? how
    prepared and equipped is your hospital to treat a pt who wants VBAC
    after 3 previous C-sections? Just to give you an idea, we’re talking
    about an OB who is no more than 15 mins away from the pt at any given
    moment, an OR room equipped and ready for an emergency, an
    anesthesiologist, nursing staff, etc. Certainly if she did not agree
    with any treatment plan she could sign an Against Medical Advice (AMA)
    and leave.

    There have been other cases similar to this one where the courts ruled in
    favor of the mother. I mean, clearly not consenting to a procedure and
    having it performed on you anyways, without a court order to do so, is
    battery. Threatening to perform a procedure against a pt’s wishes is
    assault.

    I can also understand from the medical side that it’s a tough spot to be
    in. Don’t do the surgery, woman and child are harmed or die, later
    claims she/they weren’t informed, get sued. Do the surgery, mother and child
    are healthy but you’ve violated her rights, get sued.

    I guess I would say that at the end of the day, it is her decision. If I
    were her nurse, I would advocate my ass off for her and make damn sure
    no one performed surgery on her without her consent. (it seems other
    courts also agree with this stance).

    • Chaosfeminist

      Excellent very nuanced addition to the discussion. OB is not my specialty. My concern is with the paternalistic letter by the CFO. This isn’t a member of the care team, not even a member of QI or risk mgmt. It seems they could have handled it better and avoided so much bad press

    • JamieHaman

      Do you have a link showing a court rejecting a doctor/hospital’s demand for surgery before the birth? Or after? I can find several for after, but the forcible surgery has already been done. What I can’t find is any where a judge denied the medical profession, upholding a woman’s right to make her own medical decisions concerning VBAC or c-section. Thanks.

  • fiona64

    What she’s asking for is actually pretty standard: the right to *attempt* VBAC before consenting to a c-section. I don’t see why anyone would object to that, to be honest.

    • Stacy48918

      You should visit the blog Hurt by Homebirth and take in the pics of parents cradling their (preventable) dead newborns. That is why there is opposition to an attempted VBA3C. If her uterus ruptures the baby could die.

      • Laurie Bertram Roberts

        So my mother almost died from a uterine rupture in 1990 because her doctor insisted she attempt to VBAC. She almost died. She was fully cooperative. She had to have an emergency hysterectomy.
        Most women who have a rupture don’t have fully ruptures.
        Also you are comparing her birth to a home birth, why? Clearly it would take longer to transfer and do intervention if a woman is VBACing at home.
        So this scare tactic you are using about the woman not doing as she’s told being what will lead to fetal death is bogus. Sometimes fetal death happens.
        Endnote the woman went into labor attempted her VBAC then consented to a section and had a healthy baby. So all your assumptions were bullshit.

        • expat

          I drove drunk and got home fine, so all of your assumptions about risk were bullshit. (i have never driven drunk)

          • Laurie Bertram Roberts

            All your assumptions about HER not cooperating, please follow along. She had the birth she wanted SAFELY. She labored as long as she could, it didn’t happen, she had the c-section-healthy birth.

    • fiona64

      Reply to expat, in moderation, who wrote: That means that she didn’t have informed consent and the doctors were
      well within their rights to refuse to go along with a fool’s errand.

      If this is the case, then part of the fault lies with physicians who failed to provide informed consent. Informed consent includes discussion of *all* risks, benefits and alternatives to the procedure, and documentation of same.

      • fiona64

        Reply to expat, in moderation:

        if what you say is so, and the hospital has documented that it provided information on all of the risks, benefits, and alternatives, that’s that. They still have to abide by the patient’s wishes at the end of the day when it comes to these matters.

        • expat

          There is a big misunderstanding in what happened in this case: the hospital did not take the patient to court, the patient took the hospital to court for refusing to provide a service they were not equipped to handel. If you ask a doctor to perform a risky procedure on you and they decline, then you doctor shop until you find a surgeon willing to go along with your shenanigans for the right price, you don’t sue the original doctor for having a sense of ethics (do no harm).

          • Laurie Bertram Roberts

            How are they not equipped to handle a natural birth that MAY need an emergency c-section due to uterine rupture? If that’s true they need to close their birth center immediately.

          • expat

            If you need a lifesaving heart operation, you go to a hospital known for good cardiac surgeons. Alternatively, you could wait until you are dying and show up in the ER of a rural clinic to get a quick and dirty heart operation, but I wouldn’t recommend it.

          • Laurie Bertram Roberts

            SMH that is the most nonsensical comparison ever

  • Chaosfeminist

    Bayfront Health Punta Gorda Leadership Team:

    Chris Loftus, Interim Chief Executive Officer
    Randy Blanchard, Chief Nursing Officer
    Jason Miller, Chief Financial Officer
    Dr. Thomas Noone, Chief Medical Officer
    Perry Horne, Assistant Chief Nursing Officer

    Bayfront Health Port Charlotte Leadership Team:

    Richard H. Satcher, Chief Executive Officer

  • thefeministbreeder

    Since RH Reality Check recently posted an article condemning women who go out into the woods to give birth, can your editors and writers now perhaps see why some women choose to forego hospital birth? Some of us are trying to avoid being literally raped by a scapel. What’s happening to this Florida woman happens every day in hospitals all across this country. I understand perfectly why some women would rather have a baby alone in the woods than enter this system.

    • Arachne646

      I can see that, once you’re in one part of “the system”, and you don’t behave properly, the rest of it’s ready to reinforce your obedience. For a pregnant woman, in the USA, to have equal rights, as though she were an actual person, might take an decision like Citizens United, but an Equal Rights Amendment might be a better idea–modern, developed countries have gender equality in their Constitutions!

    • Mirhanda

      NOT literally raped. I’ve been raped and I’ve also had a (necessary) c-section. What you mean is *figuratively* raped. Unless you somehow think they shove a scalpel into your vagina, in which case you’re wrong about being raped and also seriously misinformed as to what a c-section involves.

      http://www.pandys.org/whatisrape.html

      • JamieHaman

        Invasive surgery against your stated will, the insertion of foreign objects into your body over your objections is rape. Not a “sexual’ rape, but a real rape none the less.

        • Mirhanda

          I really hope you never have to know just how incredibly, cruelly wrong you are. I hope you NEVER have to know that.

          • JamieHaman

            Sorry that happened to you. Would not wish it on my worst enemy. My question for you would be this, since a woman being sexually violated obviously has no control over the situation, what makes you think it is different than being operated on against your will, where you also have no control over the situation? Both are life threatening events. Both are being done to you without either consent, or cooperation.

            Both involve the insertion of an implement forcibly into the body of a woman over her objections. The hospital is indeed claiming to be prepared to use force to achieve it’s objective. Which is to insert an object into a woman’s body.

            Tell me again about the difference.

          • Mirhanda
          • JamieHaman

            Ok, scratch the earlier comment…let me put it like this, the idea of being operated one (I’ve had 2 c-sections) without my consent puts me in the same heart thumping blood pressure soaring sweating puking rage place that rape does. Peace.

          • Mirhanda

            You are full of shit.

          • JamieHaman

            Your entitled to your opinion. Like millions of other women I’ve been through sexual assault, seen my friends go through sexual assault, and have had two children via c-section.

            Sorry you’ve been through some of it too.

          • Mirhanda

            I think you’re lying through your teeth now. You know what IS like rape? FUCKING RAPE IS LIKE RAPE YOU SORRY PIECE OF SHIT.

          • dudebro

            Oh shove it. She is entitled to her opinion as are you.

          • Mark Choi

            No, she’s actually not. Words have actual meanings, and those meanings are not determined by how one individual choses to use or abuse them. If they were, no one would be able to make sense of anything anyone ever said.
            The word rape has a meaning and it is NOT “unwanted insertion of objects into your body”. If it did, any number of things would then be rape. Mosquito bites? Rape. Bad food at a restaurant? Rape. Falling on broken glass? Splinter? Someone poking you in the eye? Rape, rape, and rape.
            That said, getting so bent out of shape about the difference between “literally” and figuratively” is a bit silly.

          • dudebro

            No, she really is entitled to her opinion.

          • Mark Choi

            No, she really isn’t. Opinions are only of value if they are based on reality not likes, and truth, not fiction, and are worth even less when demonstrably false.
            Beyond that, certain things are not a matter of opinion, so having an opinion on them is meaningless.

          • dudebro

            What Gregarious said.

            And Jamie never said that forced surgery is literal rape. She meant it in the figurative sense.

            The point all along has been that sexual rape/forced surgery involve teating a person as a mere means to an end. As an object. To deny their free will.

            Does it bother you when uterus owners compare forced gestation and birth to rape?

          • Mark Choi

            Yeah, too bad he was wrong.

            As to the original argument, she was defending the following statement:

            “Some of us are trying to avoid being literally raped by a scapel [sic].” This statement, even if you go by the “classical definition”, is not correct. Factually. And as stated, she most certainly did NOT mean the fugitive sense.

            Just because two things have similar emotional and moral ramifications does NOT make them identical.
            Similarly, it makes no difference what bothers me and what doesn’t. This is a discussion of language, not morals/

          • Arekushieru

            Apparently you can’t read. Dudebro used the feminine pronoun for Jamie, but you used the masculine pronoun. Wow.

          • Mark Choi

            You don’t actually believeyou have a point, do you?

          • Arekushieru

            Uh, yes, I do. If you would actually read the comments section, you would have seen that I was typing another comment to you, at the time you were responding. Which might JUST explain my comment about you not being able to read. Besides, misgendering Jamie WAS the fucking point. Also see that you are an ableist, btw.

          • Mark Choi

            No, it was not “the point” at ANY point I this entire thread.
            And being that EVERY one of my posts has been about language, NOT rape, calling me “ableist” is just more proof of your idiocy.

          • Arekushieru

            Do you not know what the term ‘idiot’ is usually used to describe? Yeah, you’re the LAST person I want to have an argument with regards to semantics. Oopsies?

            Btw, I was referring to my OWN fucking comment when I said the point was misgendering Jamie. TBSFS.

          • Mark Choi

            Why, yes, as a matter of fact I do. And I used it in exactly the correct manner. Do you have a point?

          • Arekushieru

            So you know that idiot was commonly used to identify people who have lower intelligence scores than other people, through NO FUCKING FAULT OF THEIR OWN, and it is still attributed with such a negative meaning behind it, and you STILL wonder why I’m calling you ableist? WOW.

          • Mark Choi

            I am fully aware of the etymology of the word “idiot”. Plus I speak French.
            I am using the term because you have evinced a complete and utter lack of appreciable intellect. I.e., you’re an idiot.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            “Arekushieru” is mad because in the past people have assumed that she is a man because they looked at her avatar. He’s very touch about those sort of things. I mean she.

            She also calls people “ableist” a lot. I think it’s because it is often asumed that she has mild MR, maybe from FAS or something. Not really sure.

          • Arekushieru

            No, only YOU have assumed that I am male, erm, excuse me, you and your many sockpuppets that is…. Oops???? Thanks for proving your misogyny, yet, AGAIN, btw.

            I have a form of disability very much akin to autism. My IQ, itself, is QUITE fucking high. Which ESPECIALLY means that diagnosing me based on prejudiced views IS fucking ableist. So grab a fucking brain.

          • dudebro

            If you re-read Jamie’s statements, she clarified. Jamie did not mean “literal rape”.

          • Mark Choi

            First, of all, it is not I who needs to re-read the thread! Jamie is not the one who made the original claim, thefeministbreeder is. Furthermore, Jamie’s statements in no way, shape, or form, constitute a claim that that was not what SHE meant, in response. In fact, her statements constitute a defense of the use of the term “literal” in categorizing this response.

          • dudebro

            Except Jamie clarified. So whatever. Knock yourself out. This is a pointless argument over semantics and I’m not interested. I have better things to do with my time.

          • Mark Choi

            She did NOT clarify the issue of the word “literally” at all, at any point in this thread.
            And this has been a semantic argument from the outset. So why did you even bother to involve yourself?

          • dudebro

            Yes she did. She said that she did not mean it literally as in the sexual sense, just that having been rapefd, it makes her feel the same way – very anxious- when she thinks about it.

            An intimate violation of bodily autonomy freaks her the fuck out. Sounds reasonable to me.

          • Mark Choi

            And again, NO SHE DIDN’T. You repeatedly saying the contrary over and over again does not make it any more true.

            She said, verbatim:

            “Invasive surgery against your stated will, the insertion of foreign objects into your body over your objections is rape. Not a “sexual’ rape, but a real rape none the less.”

            Note the use of quotes around the term “sexual”, the connoting a specific instance of a broader category. Also note that she specifically continued to call “non-sexual” rape, rape, nonetheless.
            Also note the complete lack of the terms “literal” or “figurative”. At NO point did she claim that she did not mean it literally, and in fact, she said jet the opposite.
            Nor did she say what you paraphrased her as saying. She said what she said, not what you claim she did, and I unlike you, directly quoted her. You will not find ANY of what you claim she said ANYWHERE in her actual quoted statements.

          • dudebro

            Not true. You are just reading into it what you want to read because. I don’t know? Giant stick in ass?

          • Mark Choi

            I am NOT “reading [anything] into” what she wrote. I am directly quoting her, FFS! The one reading things into what she said, and purposely paraphrasing, since her exact words don’t back up your assertions, is you.

          • dudebro

            I have only become as involved as I am because you saw fit to start lecturing me first and foremost because I said that Jamie had the right to her own opinion. Apparently that really bothered you. I was quite happy to let the matter drop.

          • Mark Choi

            First, again, I am not the person who made the original statement in this regard. Second, factual matters are NOT things one is entitled to opinion about. No one can stop you from having them, but that does not make them right. Finally, you write:

            “This is a pointless argument over semantics and I’m not interested. I have better things to do with my time.”

            and then:

            “I have only become as involved as I am because you saw fit to start lecturing me first and foremost because I said that Jamie had the right to her own opinion.”

            And AGAIN, this was an “argument over semantics” from the very beginning. If that causes you to have no interest, and to have better things to do with your time, that was true from the VERY FIRST POST!
            And yet here you are.

            Contradict yourself much?

          • dudebro

            Jamie is entitled to her own feelings on the matter. As a victim of rape herself, if both forced c section and rape induce the same kind of panic attack then yes, she is allowed to feel that way. What you are essentially saying is that she can’t feel equally threatened by both, because her feelings are not ‘factually correct’ which is utter hogwash.

            That is what I meant when I said that she is entitled to her own opinion. And no, I wasn’t planning on getting this involved, but you saw fit to take me to task for defending the great destroyer of the English language, JamieHaman.

            Overall its a stupid argument, and as plum said, it appears to be a pissing match over whose rape was bigger and badder, and over who has or doesn’t have the right to feel the way they do.

            A colossal waste of time, really.

            Anyways we are all liberals, we shouldn’t fight. You seem cool Mark, and welcome to RHRC.

          • Mark Choi

            First, being a rape victim is totally irrelevant. But nice try with the appeal to authority. Second, just because two things make someone feel the same way does not justify claiming they are the same thing. Being held in a choke hold and drowning make me feel the same way, but I would not refer to them by the same word. For some people, spiders and roller coasters make them feel the same way. They would claim to be riding a spider.
            As for what I am “essentially saying”, you now introduce yet another logical fallacy,the straw man argument. That is NOT what I am essentially saying. At all. Period.
            It has NOTHING to do with how she feels, it has to do with the words used to describe an item, and in particular, the claim that that word is “literally” what tyne term is. Your straw man argument is way tis utter hogwash.
            Further, AGAIN, it was NOT JamieHaman who was originally taken to task, it was the O.P., a response to which she was replying, something I have now pointed out repeatedly. Your failure to acknowledge this, and instead to keep repeating this nonsense, is telling.
            Finally, it has NOTHING to do with magnitudes of rape, it has to do with the definition of two words, “rape” and “literally”, and the reifications of misusing them. ramifications that I am NOT the only person to have pointed out.
            Yes, it is a stupid argument, but not for the reasons you have listed.
            And BTW, there is no such word as “anyways”.
            And I am cool.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            I am saying that forced birth surgery is literal rape. I am saying that. And Mirhanda can kiss my bippy.

            When I was young I had oral sex performed on me by a gynecologist i went to see. I had no idea what oral sex was. I was a complete innocent. I was in total not able to speak shock.

            While I was still in that shock, the doctor filled out a form that said I was unable to work so I could get worker’s compensation for a ‘bad back’ for a year at least. To shut me up of course. To bribe me because he raped me.

            I have also been the victim of stranger rape. The feelings of shock, dislocation, etc. etc. were the same. I was lucky. None of my rapists, and I have been raped more than once, beat me or killed me. Except my Mother.

            Nobody is going to tell me what rape is. I know perfectly well what it is. My Mother did sexual checking to me while beating me up at age 12. My Mother raped me.

          • dudebro

            Now you have done gone destroyed the English language by feeling the way you do. Mark Choi will be very very cross with you!

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Mark Choi can kiss my royal canadian ass, as my Mother would say.

          • dudebro

            His whole raison d’etre is to troll the internet and talk down to people. Very self-important he is. Which is why I enquired as to what he hoped to achieve here…

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            That was a brilliant riposte. And an excellent description of his behavior and intentions.

            I have met trolls with the same qualities before so often that I often wonder if it is the same troll.

            Kind of like discussions in my domestic violence support group. Eventually we figured it was all the same guy and he just grew taller, shorter, mustache, no mustache, at will.

          • JamieHaman

            Not so. Bad food, no, because no one is forcing the food down your throat. Falling on broken glass, no, that’s falling down, not someone else shoving glass into your body. Mosquito bites, no, they aren’t life threatening so far as I know.

            Choice is what makes the difference. Choosing to have the surgery, and choosing to eat at a bad restaurant are very different types of choices.

            Being force fed, being forced to undergo surgery, these things fall under FORCED.

            We aren’t talking about children here, we are talking about grown women who are perfectly capable of making intelligent, rational decisions concerning what they want to do in terms of childbirth.
            This hospital, and these doctors are treating this woman like nothing more than an incubating child. They are not respecting her CHOICE to try a VBAC, nor are they comprehending that she is willing to have the surgery if the VBAC doesn’t work.

            Hospitals are always prepared to do C-Sections when there are pregnant women in labor. If they aren’t, they are not a good hospital. Since it occurs that this particular hospital has a higher than average C-Section surgeries for the number of patients, that should tell you the doctor’s priority is not the well being of his patient, but the ease of his personal surgical schedule.
            To put a woman and child through the trauma and physical destruction of surgery, with all it’s attendant risks for the sake of a doctors well being is some kind of bs where I come from.
            Refusing to give her the choice of childbirth is a form of rape. Again, just not a sexual rape.

          • Mark Choi

            Sorry, but those examples fall squarely within the stated definition, and as such, the only way you can get out of it is to change that definition, which you know conveniently do. Beyond that, since when is the “rape” part of the assault inherently “life-threatening”? Divorced from it’s moral connotations, this complaint is ludicrous. Beyond that, even if it weren’t, in a large portion of the world, mosquito bites most certainly ARE life-threatening. So you you are still stuck in a linguistic conundrum, a conundrum you are not confronted with when you stick to the correct terminology.
            Nor is choice what makes the difference, either in regard to the original subject, OR to your stated examples.

            As to your final statements, so what? I never voiced any opinion re: the topic at had, vis-à-vis forced C-sections, so what on earth does any of that have to do with anything?!?

          • Arekushieru

            Nope. would you care to go back and read and provide ACTUAL refutations, next time?

            Yes, choice does make a difference. In ALL instances of rape. If a woman chooses to have sex, is she being raped, after all? Oops?

            Finally, mosquitoes can be removed which means they are not forcing themselves on you which means they are not violating one’s bodily autonomy, So, again, NONE of your analogies fit the definition SHE gave. Oops.

          • Mark Choi

            WTF are you babbling about?!? Refutations of what? This discussion is about word meanings, not rape itself you ignoramus.
            Beyond that rapists can be “removed” too, so WTH is your point?!?

          • Arekushieru

            You REALLY believe that you provided fact-based, clear-cut evidence in that post to which I responded? Not going by your OWN logic, freak. You want other people to continuously distinguish between literal and figurative rape, each and every time they make a statement as if it’s not fucking obvious, by that point. You can do the SAME, then and repeat your own words ad nauseam just to make things equal. You didn’t, therefore you have provided NO refutations. Whether it’s about word meanings or rape, is irrelevant. Whether you defend your statements in the same manner that you demand everyone ELSE do, however IS fucking relevant.

            Again, the person who has difficulty arguing semantics is trying to educate US on proper language? Just as the fact that she didn’t use literal and figurative to distinguish between sexual and other forms of rape can imply that she makes no distinction, it can also imply that… wait for it… wait for it… she DOES. Also, do you not understand the different meanings of ‘real’? Specifically, that it is rape that actually physically happens to people. NOT that it is being described as literal or figurative. OOPS.

            Finally, I was referring to the fact that a mosquito can be removed before it becomes force, which is why I fucking STATED that before following it up with a comment about the mosquito ‘forcing’ itself on someone. Please learn to fucking READ.

          • Mark Choi

            Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. Mostly because I did.

            As to your poorly thought out comment: “You want other people to continuously distinguish between literal and figurative rape, each and every time they make a statement as if it’s not fucking obvious”

            Yes I do. Are you claiming this is somehow some sort of Herculean mental task for you? Especially when they actually use the term “literal” in their comment? Why do I not find this surprising?

            As you the next bit in your rambling, semi-literate rant, I am having NO difficulty arguing semantics. There are websites, and chapters in English textbook discussing the misuse of the term “literal” just as it was misused here. That fact that you do not have a proper education in English is not my problem.

            “Just as the fact that she didn’t use literal and figurative to distinguish between sexual and other forms of rape can imply that she makes no distinction….”

            Um, newsflash. She DID use the term “literal” to distinguish the term rape. THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT, FFS! Because it was NOT a literal rape, it was a C-Section.
            And furthermore, I am NOT the only person taking the O.P. to task for this, including other rape victims, who chastised her for belittling their suffering by making the connection.

            Finally, a rapist can be “removed by force”, too, so your distinction is immaterial and irrelevant. Please learn to fucking THINK.

          • JamieHaman

            When someone is pinning you down, and has their hand conveniently on your throat, or a pillow over your face, or a 200 lb. body squashing the hell out of you so you can’t breathe, tell me that isn’t life threatening. That isn’t ludicrous. Neither is listening to them threaten your parents, sibs, or children. (Leaving out guns, knives, or fists & feet to brutalize)

            Because those individuals who are willing and able to do this thing to a man, woman or child are capable of killing that pinned person. That person wasn’t able to stop the pinning, how in the hell to you think they will then stop their own murder?

            Mosquitoes as conscious beings? I don’t think so. Glass, or food? I think not. I had thought it obvious that we are talking about conscious people, (and corporations now that they are people) deliberately, willfully choosing to forcibly violate a human woman’s body, against her will. Clearly, I was wrong about that!
            If the only definition of rape you accept is sexual assault, then we differ on the meaning of rape.

          • Mark Choi

            And NONE of those things are part of the definition of rape, and so are NOT inherent to the act. If they were, you’d also be on the side of those that champion the idea of “legitimate rape”. Great company.

            On the flip side, tell me that when you are bitten by a mosquito carrying malaria, that that is not life threatening.

            As to mosquitos being “conscious beings”, what on earth does that have to do with anything? It certainly has nothing to do with the issue of the meaning of the word “literal”, you know, the topic under discussion.

            “If the only definition of rape you accept is sexual assault, then we differ on the meaning of rape.”

            FINALLY YOU GET IT. Yes, we differ on the meaning of “rape”. The problem is, my definition matches the accepted, dictionary definition of the word, and yours DOES NOT. As such, the use of the term “literal” is entirely inappropriate in this context, as stated, because the term means “taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory”, you know, what you find in a dictionary. Oh, but I forget that you don’t care about a word’s usual meaning, you feel entitled to provide your own.

          • JamieHaman

            Why is this such a big deal to you? Are you a grammar teacher for the sixth grade?

          • dudebro

            My thoughts exactly.

            Besides.. Dictionary definitions only record common usage, and usage changes over time. Language is fluid, it is not set in stone.

          • Mark Choi

            “Dictionary definitions only record common usage”

            OMFG, really? The DEFINITION of “literal” IS:

            “taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory”,

            I.e. COMMON USAGE!!!

            So i you say “literal” you are directly stating that your use of the term is the common usage.

          • dudebro

            Jamie never said “literal”

            Why are you so bothered by this? Are you concerned that the posters here will single handedly destroy the English language as we know it?

          • Mark Choi

            She didn’t need to. Her very first post in this thread was defending the use of the term.
            And I have addressed your last paragraph multiple times in this thread.

          • Mark Choi

            Because first of all, language matters. And second, when you abuse the terms “literal” and “figurative” in this context, as already pointed out repeatedly in this threat by others, you inherently belittle and minimize the legitimate experiences of women who actually were raped. Literally.

          • Mark Choi

            Because, as I have now said repeatedly on this thread, as have others, your continued insistence on defending the use of the term “literal rape” to refer to things that ARE NOT, both trivializes and minimizes, as well as mis-categorizes, the real suffering of women who actually were raped. In addition, it gives fuel and credence to idiots who perpetuate the idea of “legitimate rape”.

          • JamieHaman

            Well, I have no idea how my post gives fuel or credence to idiots, what I posted is some of the things I’ve heard from women about their rapes.
            Here is what I do know. It isn’t my job to convince you of anything, or to make you happy about anything.

          • Mark Choi

            None of that has any bearing or relevance to anything I wrote.

          • Ginger

            Yes, rape has been defined as a unwilling penetration. That is an object (or part of person) being inserted into the other’s body. The definition does agree with Jamie.

          • Mark Choi

            Uh, yeah, no it hasn’t. Please post ANY authoritative source on the English language that defines the term thusly. Good luck with that.
            And besides, even if it did, as I have already pointed out, that makes mosquito bites, falling on broken glass, being scratched by a cat, etc., “rape”.

            Please.

          • Jennifer

            Most of those things are not things that humans chose to do. Now who’s making ridiculous comparisons?

          • Mark Choi

            Um, and rape victimes don’t chose to be raped, either, which is the WHOLE POINT.
            So um, yeah, the only making ridiculous comparisons is you.

          • JamieHaman

            Your entitled to your opinion, I’m entitled to mine. I’ve got absolutely no reason to lie about any such thing.

          • Arekushieru

            Yeah, she’s quite a regular poster, here, and has mentioned her history, before. You, however, are not a regular poster and have never mentioned anything like that, so, why shouldn’t we be disinclined to believe you by your OWN logic (not mine, because I do actually believe you, kthanks).

          • Mark Choi

            Being that neither her posting history nor even if she is telling the truth have any bearing on her original post, what is your point?

          • Arekushieru

            Uh, did you even READ the fucking reply to which I was responding? If you have issues with my point, then you should also have issues with the original poster, because I was RESPONDING TO THE VERY THING YOU WERE CRITICIZING IN MY OWN POST. You didn’t. Contradictory and biased. Whodathunkit?

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            I am a rape survivor. I was raped as a child and an adult. A forced c-section is rape.
            Curse out another respected poster here and you will not be here long, TurdBreath.

          • Mark Choi

            Nice logical fallacy there, In fact, nice THREE logical fallacies.
            And no, a forced C-section is not rape, and your experiences, however tragic, do not give you any privileged insight into correct English language usage. They are, in fact, entirely irrelevant.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Boy, are you stupid.

            I think you need to look up the meaning and derivation of the word rape in a good dictionary.

            Or not. I have an investment in you remaining stupid and crude. Every time an ass like you makes a remark like yours, women’s reproductive rights get advanced among the sane.

          • Mark Choi

            You would do well to look it up yourself, before making yourself look like an idiot.

            Oxford English Dictinoary:

            rape (n) The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will.

            Merriam Webster:
            (v) “: to force (someone) to have sex with you by using violence or the threat of violence”

            Random House Dictionary:

            (n) the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

            Collins English Dictionary:

            (n) the offence of forcing a person, esp a woman, to submit to sexual intercourseagainst that person’s will

            The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary:

            (n) The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.

            And words don’t have “derivations”, the have etymologies, and while they may be informative, they have little bearing on current use.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Simple meanings are for simple minds. You are stupid and you want me to join you in your stupid. When sexpigs like you fly.
            ………………………….
            The term rape originates in the Latin rapere, from raptus, “to snatch, to grab, to carry off”.[23][24] Since the 14th century, the term has come to mean “to seize and take away by force”.[1] In Roman law the carrying off of a woman by force, with or without intercourse, constituted “raptus”.[24] In Medieval English law the same term could refer to either kidnapping or rape in the modern sense of “sexual violation”.[23]

            Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration initiated against one or more individuals without the consent of those individuals. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or against a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent.[1][2][3][4] The term rape is sometimes used interchangeably with the term sexual assault.[5]

            The definition of rape varies both in different parts of the world and at different times in history.[26] It is defined in many jurisdictions as sexual intercourse, or other forms of sexual penetration, initiated by a person against another person without the consent of that person.[26] The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime defines it as “sexual intercourse without valid consent,”[6][27] and the World Health Organization defined it in 2002 as “physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration – even if slight – of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts or an object”.[28]

            The elements that form the definition of rape under the ICC Statute are that:[29][30]

            “The perpetrator invaded the body of a person by conduct resulting in penetration, however slight, of any part of the body of the victim or of the perpetrator with a sexual organ, or of the anal or genital opening of the victim with any object or any other part of the body.”

            “The invasion was committed by force, or by threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power, against such person or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment, or the invasion was committed against a person incapable of giving genuine consent.”

            In 2012, the FBI changed their definition from “The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” to “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” for their annual Uniform Crime Reports. The definition, which had remained unchanged since 1927, was considered outdated and narrow. The updated definition includes any gender of victim and perpetrator, not just women being raped by men, recognizes that rape with an object can be as traumatic as penile/vaginal rape, includes instances in which the victim is unable to give consent because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity, and recognizes that a victim can be incapacitated and thus unable to consent because of ingestion of drugs or alcohol. The definition does not change federal or state criminal codes or impact charging and prosecution on the federal, state or local level; it rather means that rape will be more accurately reported nationwide.[31][32]

            Some countries, such as Germany, are now using more inclusive definitions which do not require penetration,[26] and the 1998 International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda defines it as “a physical invasion of a sexual nature committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive”.[26] In some jurisdictions, the term rape has been phased out of legal use in favor of terms such as sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct.[33] Many other countries or jurisdictions continue to define rape to cover only acts involving penile penetration of the vagina, treating all other types of non-consensual sexual activity as sexual assault.[34][35] Scotland is among the countries that emphasizes penile penetration, requiring that the sexual assault must have been committed by use of a penis to qualify as rape.[36][37]

          • Arekushieru

            Keep handing his ASS to him, Plum! Not that he’ll actually read this because it proves him wrong. No, he’ll just ignore this and keep squawking at other people demanding they tell him what the hell their point is, that is if he responds, at all, now that we’ve thoroughly embarrassed him.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Thank you. That is my plan. Creepy guy.

          • expat

            The closest either of you got to countering his argument was the sentence about the (irrelevant) ancient meaning of the word. Everything else you’ve written made you look like morons (fyi).

          • Arekushieru

            Really, is that all you can say to refute our point? I, at least, expanded on my own point, with further commentary, but you refused to look at that and subsequently refused to respond to IT, instead, now DIDN’T you? At least, one would THINK that you would in order to even ATTEMPT to bolster your own argument. So, then I’d have to say that, no, we’re the ones who countered his argument and now both you and he are trying to make your points look valid by simply repeating the claims that they are.

            Besides, the main argument against Mark wasn’t what you obviously ASSumed it was. Which makes BOTH of you look like asses, not JUST him. Sadly so, in your case, since, if you hadn’t noticed (which I find highly likely, since you even skipped over the most pertinent parts of THIS argument), you and I tend to agree on almost everything else. But on the basis of ONE disagreement you apply the ableist label of ‘moron’???? Wow.

          • Mark Choi

            How does not reply to a cut and paste warrior? Well, first, your ad hominem is not only a logical fallacy, invalidating your argument, it is also not even intelligent enough of an insult to be worthy of response. Second, the etymology of a word is IRRELEVANT in conversations re: it’s current meaning!
            Or are you going to claim that a legitimate meaning of the word “virus” is slime?
            Well?
            Further, your continued pastings make me wonder seriously if you bothered to read what you were so frenetically hitting the ^V(⌘ V) key over. EVERY single paragraph you pasted verifies MY point, and conflicts with yours. Seriously, did you even bother to read them or were you hoping to just text bomb me into submission?!?

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Rape apologists are the scum of the earth.

          • expat

            He didn’t appologize for rape ANYWHERE in ANY comment. And yet you keep repeating this. You are a comment section virus, baiting an intelligent person who just wants to believe that other people are capable of rational thought. Your stubborness in refusing to be even slightly intelligent casts a sensitive soul into the depths of hopelessness.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            You do not understand the meaning of apologist used in this context. You are too stupid to be telling me what to do.

          • Arekushieru

            Nope, every single paragraph she wrote invalidated YOUR claims. As I said, earlier, apparently you can’t read very well. The truth is not an ad hominem. Besides, attacking the person does NOT invalidate the argument except for COWARDS who have no argument.

            Seriously, how does “by conduct resulting in penetration, however slight, of any part of the body of the victim or of the perpetrator with a sexual organ, or of the anal or genital opening of the victim with any object or any other part of the body.” prove what YOU are fucking saying, UNLESS you can’t read? Oops? Penetration, however SLIGHT, of ANY PART of the body of the victim. Do you NOT understand that they cannot be referring to the penetration of the perpetrator’s body for SEVERAL reasons, THEREFORE they are using the phrase “with a sexual organ” to be applied ONLY to the perpetrator NOT the victim, as WELL???? It also would NOT make sense. Since penetration of any part of the body does NOT match up with ‘only certain parts of the body doing the penetrating’. ya know? Fucking OOOPPPPSSS?????

          • Mark Choi

            Sigh. First of all, try taking a least a single class in introductilory logic; you simply don’t know what a logical fallacy is, let alone what the meaning of the word “valid” is. For instance, the following claim: if dogs have seven legs, women are made of marshmallow; dogs have seven legs; therefore women are made of marshmallows. Is this argument valid? Seriously, answer the question.
            Beyond that, as the discussion is about C-sections being rape, please list for me a single surgeon whose scalpel is part of their body at all, let alone a sexual organ. (And sorry, Edward Scissorhands is. It a real person.)
            Similarly, please explain how the abdomen is a sexual organ.
            Seriously, you’re an idiot.

          • Arekushieru

            Finally, ignoramus, the etymology of a word IS relevant, if you are going to talk about current meanings, that is, because at one point in time that WAS the ‘current meaning’ of the word. In FACT, the point you apparently fucking MISSED was that Plum ACKNOWLEDGED that definitions changed over time as well as pointing out that they changed from REGION TO REGION. If that’s TRUE, then the definition of rape is constantly changing not only from past to present but geographically, as WELL. Which means that the current and regional definition of the word would be just as irrelevant as you claim the etymologies are. So, contradict yourself, MUCH, ass?

          • Mark Choi

            First, no, the etymology is NOT relevant to the current discussion. Simply stating that it is does not make it so. The meaning of a word OVER a thousand years ago had to relevance to its use here.
            And please keep saying “ooopsie” and even captitizing it, further exemplifying the fact that you are a juvenile simpleton.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            We are talking rape not logic, Sexpig. Rape apologists are the scum of the earth.

          • Mark Choi

            1) Thank you for admitting that you are not talking logic. not that that was not already fully apparent.
            2) Where did I “apologize” for rapists? In fact, I did the opposite.
            3) Thank you for calling me a sexpig (whatever that is). Do you have a problem with pigs? Or os to sex?
            Regardless, I prefer to think of myself as a sexmanatee, but whatever.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Rape apologists are the scum of the earth..

          • Mark Choi

            So you keep saying. So what?

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            So rape apologists like YOU are the scum of the earth. I keep saying it. So what? I will say it and add a little variation here and there as the spirit moves me. Or not.

          • Mark Choi

            Feel free. It does make you any more correct. Especially since at no point did I ever say anything that can even be construed as that, and since you can offer no evidence to support your asinine accusation.
            That, and I don’t kowtow to bullies.

          • dudebro

            You are a bully. You are here, telling people how to think and how to feel. Control freak much?

            Just what, exactly, do you hope to achieve?

          • Mark Choi

            Nonsense. At no point did I ever tell anyone how to think or feel. Care to cite where?
            What I did say is what the definition of words were, and that people are not free to substitute whatever definitions they want, just because it suits them.
            And I am not the only one. Please read the other posts from women who have been “literally” raped, exhorting the O.P. NOT to use that term in referring to a surgical procedure.

          • dudebro

            What, exactly, do you hope to achieve here?

          • Mark Choi

            That this should need to be explained is a sad state of affairs, as I made it clear in the VERY FIRST POST. As did the person whose post I was defending, as did several other people, in clouding female rape survivors, who took EXACTLY the same issue with that post as I did. to wit: the lax, linguistically lazy (and incorrect) use of the term “literally” to refer to something which was NOT literally that thing, thus trivializing that very thing.
            You know, the point I have made no repeatedly.

          • dudebro

            You are just spinning your wheels.

            So, I ask, again, just what, exactly, are you hoping to achieve?

          • Mark Choi

            Do you not know how to read? Not only did I make that clear in my VERY FIRST POST, I also JUST repeated it in no uncertain terms in the post to which you are now replying!

          • dudebro

            So you don’t have an answer then?

            I feel sorry for you Mark, having to try to browbeat people into altering their subjective feelings and experiences to suit you, oh brave defender of the English language and (some) rape victims (those who happen to agree with you, those who don’t can kindly stfu).

            Thank you for making this forum a better place. If Jamie’s subjective feelings ever catch on, who knows what could happen! Rape will no longer be taken seriously, and the English language as we know it will be permanently sullied.

            Carry on, brave soldier.

          • Mark Choi

            I have answered you, directly, now, over four times. It is not my fault that you are apparently incapable of reading plain English.
            You can claim otherwise all you want, like an infantile screaming or “I know you are but what am I,” but it does not make it any more true.
            I seriously suggest you try Hooked on Phonics. At the very least it might make your replies seem at least somewhat less incoherent.

          • dudebro

            You are making fantastic progress.
            Cute, speedy hamster falls off wheel!: http://youtu.be/D0AAUpBzKnwD0AAUpBzKnw

          • Mark Choi

            Ibid.
            And thanks for proving all my previous assertions regarding your reading comprehension, your general character, and your intellect

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Keep diggning, Stupid. This is getting funnier by the moment.

          • Mark Choi

            Digging?!? I answered your question directly, and you were too stupid to understand that I did so, let alone understand the answer!

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Laughing at you.

            You have no power or importance here.

            No one respects you. Your rape remarks took care of that.

            You are not nearly as educated and/or intelligent as most of the women here and it shows in the quality of your posts.

            Stick around. I enjoy kicking you and I imagine others do too. You are not nearly as entertaining as Charles Troll though .

          • Mark Choi

            And yet you keep on replying. Apparently I have that power, at the very least.

            The empirical data do not back up your unsupportable claim.

            As to my level of education, while that is neither here nor there (and is, in fact, a logical fallacy, specifically the argumentum ab auctoritatem) I would be more than happy to pit my degree against yours any day of the week.

            But that said, I am quite sure you enjoy kicking people. And baby bunnies. And maybe small children (but not once they get big enough to kick back).

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            I mean, how stupid are you? You wander onto a message board full of feminists and you begin a conversation about rape. And you thought it would go well it seems.

            Now that is an impressive species of dumb. That is corn snorting pea picking dumb. That is so dumb the angels are laughing. You are so dumb you would get stabbed in a shootout. Dumb.

          • Mark Choi

            Not anywhere near as stupid as you, apparently. First, I did not “begin a conversations about rape”, I joined a conversation already in progress, and did so by AGREEING with a post that had already been made. By a woman. Who was a rape survivor.

            Moreover, I said NOTHING about you “understanding of rape”. Once again, with all your asinine accusations, I defy you to post a quote of where I did so.

            Nor is there anything unfeminist about ANYTHING I have written. I was defending women’s rights, championing the ERA, working as escort in clinics, and fighting for feminist causes while all you seem to be able to do is brag about being “a mean trashmouth Old Lady,” and readily admitting being a troll. By your own words.

            As to your continued ad hominem, again, I will place my degree against whatever minimal educational certifications you chose to claim. I
            Meanwhile apparently we can add combat to the list of things you know nothing about. Clue: in close quarter combat, knives are often a superior weapon, which is why we train police officers to already have their gun drawn if they approach within 24 feet of a suspect. Any less and even if they are armed with a .45, they stand a large chance of being critically injured if the suspect has a knife.

            Once again, you simply have no idea what you’re talking about.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Rape apologists are the scum of the earth. You are the scum of the earth.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            You are so dumb calling you an idiot would be an insult to all the stupid people.

          • Mark Choi

            Says the person with nothing but canned. generic insults, and who admits to be a troll.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            You read my profile. I write a politics/culture/humor blog. I echo lines from some articles I wrote.
            http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/p/bait-switch-statement-of-something.html

            http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/2012/09/i-troll-internet.html

            Are you autistic? Or do you have a reading disability? You seem incapable of understanding shades of meaning or humor.

            You suffer from black/white literal thinking. I imagine you could be just an everyday authoritarian. I have patience with those handicapped by brain states. I have a bipolar child with dyslexia.

          • Mark Choi

            And once again, the only argument you have is ad hominem.
            First, NONE of what you wrote addresses your status as a self-proclaimed troll, a status that matches your behavior evinced empirically here in this very thread.
            Second, your continual resort to ad hominem is telling regarding your own mental issues, intellect, and the veracity of your argument.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Awwww, are you darling precious feelings hurt? Baby Mark scared of the big bad Plummy. Awwwwww.

          • Mark Choi

            Um, what, troll? Nothing I said even remotely implies I am afraid of you. Period. Not intellectually, not rhetorically, and certainly not physically. You don’t have to be successful to be a bully. Just pathetic.
            Oh, and as a self-admitted troll, you can’t really defend against the charge.

          • dudebro

            Not really, no.

            Both = a form of torture and a violation of bodily autonomy

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Thank you. You said it better than I did. I am grateful.

        • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

          I disagree. It is a sexual rape. It is being done to her because she is female and they have the power to do it.

          When a rapist cannot get their genitals to do the rape job, rapists substitute objects: bottles, knives, sticks, laws. Genitals are optional.
          Rape is about sex. And rape is about power.

      • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

        Let us have a contest, TurdBreath. My rape is bigger than your rape. My rape is badder than your rape. Moron.

      • Jennifer

        “I’ve been raped and I’ve also had a (necessary) c-section” I assume you consented to the C-section. That’s sort of the important difference, not whether or not the vagina happened to be involved.

        • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

          That is the issue = consent. You are so smart and sensible.

    • AnonyMom

      Could you not use the word rape improperly to bolster your point. It’s insulting.

    • fiona64

      being literally raped

      As a survivor of sexual assault, I respectfully request that you learn the difference between the words “literal” and “figurative.”

    • Jodi Jacobson

      I think you misunderstand the role of the publication. As with any other legitimate news publication, we do publish commentary and analysis that looks at things from different vantage points. We *strongly* encourage debate. No single article written by anyone other than me as Editor in Chief can be seen as formal editorial policy or opinion. If you take issue with the piece in question, then please either comment on it at the specific article OR connect with us and we would gladly publish your critique. That is what healthy debate is about.

      Also, I do not remember any piece at any time or place that we have published that suggests not understanding why some women would want to forgo hospital births.

      Best, Jodi

  • BelligerentBruncher

    Thanks for the info. Midwifes are awesome.

  • Tony Thompson

    The actions of the hospital are completely unethical. The choice of how to have her child delivered is the mothers.

    • Stacy48918

      Right. But the choice not to assist in an unsafe choice is the doctor’s right as well.

      • Jennifer

        So how does “the choice not to assist in an unsafe choice” equal “the choice to perform surgery against the patient’s will”? Really, how does that leap get made?

        • expat

          That didn’t happen here. The patient sued the hospital for not consenting to perform a risky medical procedure that she wanted. She went to the hospital down the road and got what she wanted.

        • Stacy48918

          Well the mother sued to try and force the hospital to attend her labor. So Ms. Goodall made the leap.

  • Curtis Maes

    Oh wait. The CFO sent the letter. The hospital is worried about malpractice. They have no valid evidence that vaginal birth poses a real heath risk to this person. She won’t do what the insurance company and CFO wants so they are threating to take her children away. When a hospital is operating under the best interest of their CFO’s work plan and not their patient’s then it’s time for the hospital to get a new board and CEO.

    • madame48

      Oh and the hospital makes more $$$$ on the surgical choice

    • Arekushieru

      All vaginal birth poses a real health risk. Just sometimes they never materialize. The reason you should be opposing this is SIMPLY because it is not the woman’s choice, not making medical diagnoses about the risks of childbirth.

      • cpcurtis

        I oppose it for multiple reasons. There is no valid evidence that a vaginal birth in her case poses enough of a risk to have a mandatory C-Section. The article made it clear that if anything goes wrong at the hospital she will agree to one. C-Sections also pose a risk also. The fact that a CFO sent the letter should set off alarms.

        • Arekushieru

          So, if the woman wanted to undergo a C-section instead of vaginal birth, you would oppose the woman’s decision because there are multiple reasons why she SHOULD be undergoing vaginal birth, instead? Sorry to say, but if that’s not the case, you are NOT disagreeing with me.

          • Curtis Maes

            I would not oppose her decision for any reason. My opposition is with the hospital.

          • Arekushieru

            Again, like I said, you are not disagreeing with me. So there was no point to reiterate that you had multiple reasons to oppose a forced C-section, which includes hospitals that employ CFOs to bully pregnant women into having them. Mmkay?

        • martha sisco

          Then why did she have 3 prior C-sections?

          • Curtis Maes

            For the same reason many women do. They determined that was the best decision to make for that particular pregnancy. Exactly why is between her and her health care provider. What decision she makes for this pregnancy should not be determined by a CFO who makes threats to take her child away.

  • amazonmom

    VBA3C is not the same as a typical VBAC. The hospital figures they are going to lose either way, so go with the option that loses them less or force the patient to to go elsewhere with their demands. It’s unlikely a judge will grant the hospitals request to c section an unwilling patient who is mentally competent. Ruptured uterus is indefensible in court, no matter what the patient signs they can always say the doctor should have made them get a csection. Tort reform is the only way to get these women hospital based elevated risk procedures such as vaginal birth after multiple c sections.

    • lady_black

      No.

    • Ginger

      Except a judge did.

  • JO

    great info! most of my research came from medscape from articles written in 2010.

    clearly there is need for more research and education in regards to this issue.

    I think we all agree that the final decision remains with the patient and it is our duty as healthcare workers to respect our patients wishes, give them the highest level of care we can, even if we disagree with their decisions.

  • prolifemama

    A VBAC is possible – even advisable – after one or more C-sections, depending on the type of incision – transverse, or classic mid-line.

    In the following order, and in the care of the same high-risk OB/Gyn, I underwent an emergency C-section, followed by two VBACs, another emergency C, then an elective C.

    All surgeries were transverse-incision, which speeds healing and helps ensure successful carrying of future pregnancies and the option for a VBAC.

  • Amy Tuteur, MD

    What’s the risk of uterine rupture after 3 previous C-sections? What’s the rate of neonatal death? What’s the rate of hysterectomy? What’s the rate of maternal death? How do these rates compare to elective repeat C-section?

    Ms. Goodall is legally entitled to make whatever INFORMED medical decision she wants, regardless of risks. I have seen no evidence, however, that Goodall understands the risks of her SPECIFIC situation, based on number of previous C-sections, reasons for those sections, maternal age, weight and interval since previous birth.

    Goodall seems to be under the misapprehension that for VBAC, “one size fits all. ” If she doesn’t understand that she faces substantially higher risks than a woman who has had only one C-section, she cannot make an informed decision.

    • April Breck

      Kind of irrelevant to the story. People are allowed to make their own choices about their bodies, even if those choices are stupid.

      • Amy Tuteur, MD

        Not irrelevant at all. If she doesn’t know the risk, she can’t make an informed decision. Moreover, if she knew the statistics that applied to her specifically, she might make a different decision.

        • A. T.

          She would be at the hospital. She clearly stated if there appeared to be complications or difficulties, she would go with the C-Section.

        • Dot

          I’m real sure the hospital informed her of the risk, and she said if there were complications, then she would have a csection. It’s her body, not the hospitals or the states. Would you force a Jehovah Witness to have a blood transfusion? Go check out the book the Handmaid’s Tale. Would you like to control women like this?

          • Arekushieru

            Um, not what she said. Can you please go back and read? She was merely talking about making INFORMED decisions. Has nothing to do with forcing c-sections on a person, just so ya know.

        • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

          1. You said there are no statistics that apply to her specifically.
          2. Read the fricking article before you comment, Stupida. She has made herself informed.

        • April Breck

          Where in the story does it say she wasn’t told of the risk? Are you saying her doctors did not give her sufficient information? Because then they are still in the wrong.

    • Jodi Jacobson

      This is simply not true. Please do not infantilize her by suggesting she has not considered the risks, as she has. And your claim that her decision is unsafe is not at all supported by the evidence.

      • Amy Tuteur, MD

        What evidence? All the evidence presented applies only to women with ONE previous C-section. The statistics for 3 previous C-sections are quite different. No one has yet presented any data that a VBA3C is safe, because there is no such data.

        • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

          So if there is no such data, are you supporting using force on this woman in spite of that fact?

          • Stacy48918

            Of course she’s not. Did you bother to read her post, linked above?

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            I did not ask you. I am not interested in YOUR answer.

      • Arekushieru

        Um, Jodi, she wasn’t saying that, she was saying that she wasn’t sure if the woman had been INFORMED of the risks. AFAIK they are two different things.

      • Stacy48918

        If she had considered all the risks, why did she decline a heplock (though later talked into it), an epidural and cervical checks? Did you know that the cervix was never intended to be touched? (Ms. Goodall’s words). She was trying to make her VBAC as dangerous as possible. She clearly did NOT understand the risk she was taking.

    • Dot

      And she said it there appeared to be a problem she would allow the csection. Read the whole story.

      • BelligerentBruncher

        She did read the whole story. And she wrote an interesting piece about it here:
        http://www.skepticalob.com/2014/07/how-rh-reality-check-got-the-florida-vbac-case-wrong.html

        And she’s an obgyn and knows a whole hell of a lot more about childbirth than you do or the patient does.

        • Arekushieru

          Says the person who has no idea what childbirth entails so screams discrimination against the unborn when a woman decides to have an abortion. Yeah, your support would turn anyone away from reading otherwise factual commentary. TBSFS.

        • dudebro

          I like the Skeptical OB. She is very knowledgeable. I also enjoy reading Dr. Jen Gunter.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      I have a VBAC at 45 years old and had the easiest and most uneventful labor of all three of my children’s births.
      Use your diploma to wipe your ass cuz you learned nothing about practicing ethical medicine.
      You are not in charge. Your patient is in charge. You are just a mechanic. Act like one. Show a little humility. You will be a better doctor.

  • JamieHaman

    Well said.

  • Dot

    Funny how this is happening in a state that claims to be tea party strong, and supposedly supports rights. Well, I guess it’s just rights of men, right. Women should just shut up. That’s why men in Florida can stand their ground, but women go to jail. Florida is the arm pit of the US.

  • Mark Choi

    Classical definition? There is not such thing. If you are trying to reference the original laying “rapere” to take something by force, this has no bearing on the conversation. This is not about Latin words it is about English. Modern English, not old English (as opposed two “classical English”, whatever that is). Or do you suggest that the proper meaning of “virus” is poisonous slime?!?
    Rape most certainly IS limited to the aforementioned definition, and can only be extended to the other definitions figuratively, NOT literally.
    as to your last bit of nonsense, ask the teenager who had his pencil torn from his hand by a class mate. See how conveniently we can pick our examples?

    • Arekushieru

      Oh, really, then why can we still rape the land, etc, etc…. Yeah, no, you have NO idea of what you are talking about.

      • Mark Choi

        Because that use of the word is figurative, you moron, not literal. You know, the topic of this thread, FFS.

        • Arekushieru

          Uh, yeah, and that’s what she is fucking discussing. Know the topic of this thread, ‘moron’. FFS.

          • Mark Choi

            Yes, and she said”literal” when in fact it was NOT, but rather figurative. Do you really need definitions of all those terms posted?!?

          • Arekushieru

            Um, contradict yourself, much? First you say she DID say literal then you say she didn’t. That’s your OWN words. You demand that everyone use the terms literal or figurative every time they talk about rape, and what;s good for the goose is good for the gander, no? AW.

          • dudebro

            He believes that he has the right to tell others how to think and feel because Mark Choi is the grand arbirter of language…or something.

            He even got a nice dig in by mocking me for using “anyways.”

            We should all be cowed by his intellect.

          • Mark Choi

            “Um, contradict yourself, much?”

            No, I don’t contradict myself at all, mostly because I bother to think before I write.

            “First you say she DID say literal then you say she didn’t. That’s your OWN words. ”

            No, they aren’t and no I did not. Feel free to try to find where I did, because I didn’t. Hooked on Phonics might be a good place for you to start.

            “You demand that everyone use the terms literal or figurative every time they talk about rape, and what;s good for the goose is good for the gander, no? AW.”

            No, I don’t do that either. Feel free to quote where I did that too. Good luck with that. In fact, if anything, I would prefer that people who don’t know there difference between the two, just not use either..

          • Arekushieru

            Yeah, actually you DO do that. Not ONCE have you recorded, VERBATIM, Jamie referring to rape as either literal or figurative yet YOU are the one obsessed with things being verbatim, not US, as you MAY recall. Yet you keep saying she meant it literally or figuratively without her even having directly SAID it, doing it EXACTLY as YOU said, here, by actually AVOIDING using the terms (and that’s verbatim for ya). Meaning that your standards of reference for verbatim apply only to everyone else not yourself. Arrogant, pompous ASS much?

            Hooked on Phonics? That’s funny, considering that I was the top of my class and region in spelling and grammar. And that’s how people with my learning disability USUALLY are. You might want to try Hooked on Phonics, however, since it seems you need it so desperately.

          • Mark Choi

            OMFG, you can’t seriously be that moronic, can you?!? First I never claimed she said that, you idiot, I claimed thefeministbreeder said that. And she did:
            “Since RH Reality Check recently posted an article condemning women who go out into the woods to give birth, can your editors and writers now perhaps see why some women choose to forego hospital birth? Some of us are trying to avoid being literally raped by a scapel.”

            To which mirhanda asked her her to NOT to use the word “literally” as it was inaccurate, and offensive to her as a rape survivor. THEN Jamie chimed in, def din the use of the term. Only hen did I post, defending mirhanda as correct. And the. You chimed in with your microencephaloc nonsense.
            Sigh. At this point I supect even Hooked in Phonics is beyond your ken and capability.

  • BelligerentBruncher

    Not for a VBA3C it isn’t.

    • Arekushieru

      Uh, you contradict yourself quite a BIT, don’t you. You just agreed with a comment that explained how multiple c-sections are dangerous then continue to complain how dangerous VBA3Cs are. Yeah, you’re a misogynist, who doesn’t want women making decisions over their own bodies. Bye now.

  • Mark Choi

    Being that she wasn’t the one doing that….

  • BelligerentBruncher

    Here’s what an obstetrician thinks of the case, and more specifically, this article:
    http://www.skepticalob.com/2014/07/how-rh-reality-check-got-the-florida-vbac-case-wrong.html

    Is she an idiot as well?

  • Mark Choi

    Wh lis she? An autonomous human being who can make decisions for herself as to whom she affiliates with, and, apparently, someone who appreciates the English language, anyhow its abuse has real world ramifications, such as desensitizing people, through overuse of a term, to its use in the correct context.

    • dudebro

      You had better educate gamers, then.

      “We raped that boss mob”

      “That big fiery demon raped our whole raid”

      Etc etc

      “The whole dungeon was an exercise in surprise buttsecks”

      • Mark Choi

        Educate yourself, specifically about the difference between the words “literal” and “figurative” (you know, the entire POINT of this thread!).

        There is absolutely nothing linguistically wrong with a gamer saying “We raped that boss mob”. There, would, however, be something wrong with their saying “We literally raped that boss mob”, unless they intended to mean forced unwanted sexual intercourse.

        How is it that you keep missing this?

        • dudebro

          How is it that you keep missing the fact that Jamie didn’t mean literal rape and that she clarified and yet you are still on her case because you have a giant stick up your ass.

          • Mark Choi

            How is it that you can keep making this claim when it is absolute nonsense, not supported by the facts. She quite clearly said MULTIPLE times that she meant literal rape. She did not clarify that subject, at all. Ever. Her “clarification” confirmed that she meant to use the word “rape” in what she considered to be the literal sense.
            And it has nothing to do with having a stick up my ass. First of all, K am NOT even the original person who brought it up! But your continued abuse of the English language trivializes and minimizes the suffering of ACTUAL rape victims through your uneducated misuse of words.

          • dudebro

            Are pro choice advocates trivializing rape when they make analogies between forced gestation and birth to rape?

          • Mark Choi

            “Mak[ing] analogies” is a use of FIGURATIVE language, per se, and thus fits perfectly well within everything I and others have been saying. If they were to refer to forced gestation as “literally raped”, then that would be a different story, and yes, they would most certainly be trivializing it. But notice that you have provided NO citations where ANYONE has made that statement.

  • Mark Choi

    Being that NONE of that occurred in this tread, what on earth are you talking about?

  • Christine Gernant

    I am wondering why this lady had 3 prior C sections? Clinician preference? Prior problems during labor? Health of the mother? Other issues such as failure to progress with fetal distress?
    It is too bad that there is so little trust between clinician and patient. I think that is the real problem.

    • Jennifer

      I wouldn’t trust anyone who threatened to have me cut open against my will.

      • Stacy48918

        I wouldn’t trust anyone that took me to court to force me to perform what I felt was dangerous medicine.

        • Arekushieru

          Then don’t get into that line of business. As a medical professional, just like you may be expected to perform abortions that go against your ‘conscience’, you should also understand that you may be expected, at times, to undertake certain requests that again conflict with your ‘conscience’. Why do medical professionals have less of a standard of responsibility than pregnant women?

  • martha sisco

    What really gets me is this woman is only 29, this is her 4th. Child. I understand why the hospital took the stance it did, while some women can have a vbac, chances are if the doctors had allowed her to, and something happened to the baby I believe she would be blaming the doctor. The safety of the mother and baby are always a priority when it comes to a birth. I hope this woman is through having kids.

    • Dez

      “The risks associated with a vaginal delivery are lower than the risks associated with a C-section overall, as long as you can deliver the baby at a facility equipped to handle a C-section in case of emergency,” Roger W. Harms, an obstetrician at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and medical editor-in-chief of MayoClinic.com, said in a statement. And the recovery time is faster. Undergoing a cesarean surgery for the fourth time carries a 1 in 8 chance of major complications. In short, VBAC deliveries are safer for both the pregnant person and the fetus and lead to fewer complications.

      • Stacy48918

        “As long as you can deliver the baby at a facility equipped to handle a C-section in case of emergency”
        You’re aware, of course, that Ms. Goodall initially declined a heploc, and still did not want an epidural or cervical checks. Even if the hospital had been equipped she would have made it almost necessary to have a crash C-section under general anesthesia if there was a major complication. Ms. Goodall was actively fighting to make her VBAC as dangerous as possible, short of not being in a hospital at all.

    • Dez

      Read the article more carefully next time.

      • martha sisco

        I did read the article carefully, so what did I miss?

      • martha sisco

        By the way I have nothing against a woman trying to have a VBAC, I believe that she should had been allowed to go through labor, and attempt to have her baby naturally, but I still stand by my comment. Yes I am aware that the hospital may have jumped the gun, so to speak, but I am not a doctor and neither are you, and had she developed complications during her attempt at a vaginal birth the C-section would still had to have been done, and god forbid if the baby suffered ANY type of defect I am almost 100% sure she would have looking for an attorney. So my comment did apply to the story, just because I did not comment on the part of the hospital “forcing” her, does not mean I did not read the story more carefully.

        • Dez

          Apparently you did not read the article.

          “I would definitely consent to surgery if there were any indication during labor that it is necessary,” Goodall added. “I am trying to make the decision that will be safest for both me and my baby, and give me the greatest chance at being able to heal quickly after my child is born so I can care for my newborn and my three other children.”

    • Stacy48918

      She ABSOLUTELY would have blamed the doctors. If she is willing to take the hospital to court BEFORE she has even given birth, you bet she would have sued them if the tiniest little thing went wrong. The hospital’s declaration of “with or without your consent” is wrong, but it certainly worked to punt this legal nightmare somewhere else and I don’t blame them at all for that. This lady was completely unreasonable in her demands and the hospital was going to lose no matter how things turned out.

  • http://www.heartlandhomebirth.com Kellie Northam, CNM

    Not all uterine ruptures are “catastrophic.” And a 3% risk of uterine rupture is less than risk of placenta accrete, which usually results in a hysterectomy, which not only has a higher risk of morbidity and mortality than a cesarean, but leads to the loss of future childbearing.
    Every woman has the right to assess the risks and benefits of all her options and make the decision that is best for her.

    This article explains things well, and the citation below is
    the review she mentions regarding the downstream effects of multiple cesareans:
    http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=4257

    Eachyear 1.5 million childbearing women have cesarean deliveries, and this population continues to increase. This report adds stronger evidence that VBAC is a reasonable and safe choice for
    the majority of women with prior cesarean. Moreover, there is emerging evidence of serious harms relating to multiple
    cesareans.
    ~ Guise JM, Eden K, Emeis C, et al.
    Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights. Rockville (MD): Agency for
    Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2010 Mar. (Evidence Reports/Technology
    Assessments, No. 191.)

  • Jennifer

    You can’t assume someone doesn’t understand the risks of her individual decision simply because it isn’t the decision you would have made.

    • expat

      It is possible that she knew the risks of leaving her 3 children orphaned and still wanted the procedure done. Whatever the case, she then sued the hospital to demand that they provide the procedure that she wanted. She lost the case, of course, because if a hospital is not equipped to handle certain cases, they send the patient to a hospital which is. This is what happened and the media simply turned the story upside down and backwards. The hospital never took her to court to force a cesarean. This was stupid spin. In their defense, the hospital did make several threats in order to encourage this patient and her potential disaster to go elsewhere, but that is just what lawyers do.

      • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

        Just what lawyers do? Ewwwww. Eww.

      • Laurie Bertram Roberts

        She did go elsewhere and had a healthy baby after laboring by c-section. I am quite sure she understood the risk. I work with clients who are attempting VBACs 2c and they fully understand and are also willing to have a section IF their labor doesn’t progress, etc.
        You don’t know all the details of her actual risk assessment so what are you talking about?

      • Laurie Bertram Roberts

        I want to take this moment to note that you seem unaware that by simply having another child and 4th c-section she was at risk of dying.

        • expat

          Relative risk is the figure of merit and planned cesarean wins that contest.

  • Jennifer

    “Informed consent” does not mean what you think it means.

    • Stacy48918

      Well it certainly doesn’t mean “doctors must do exactly everything I demand of them, even if they feel it’s incredibly dangerous.’

      • Arekushieru

        No, it doesn’t mean that the doctors can provide the patient with all the information she requires to make an informed choice and then refuse to do what the patient wishes, anyways.

        Btw, if a doctor can refuse to perform certain medical procedures against the patient’s wishes, then they should be able to consent to perform certain medical procedures against the patient’s wishes, as well. Following it to its logical conclusion that is.

  • Jennifer

    For everyone claiming to be concerned about the health of the baby: Do you know what’s pretty dangerous for the baby? Making her mother terrified to enter a hospital to threatening to cut her open against her will.

    • Arekushieru

      You hit the nail on the head, Jennifer!

    • Stacy48918

      So anxiety is on par with a dead baby? Yea. At some point all I can say is “cry me a river”.

      • merryalto

        She had agreed to the hep-lock. Read your own materials linked, item #5 in her statement to the court. I think YOU are the one with the unrealistic idea of how birth should be – in a sterile room with bright lights in a most unnatural position designed to slow labor and make it easier only for the doctor. I’d bet you’d prefer it if it was like back in the 50’s when they knocked you out and you didn’t know for sure you’d had it until you woke up.

  • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

    I signed it.

  • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

    Good explanation. This has already been pointed to by others as well. The OP is a narcissist who is masturbating in public. Disgusting shitweaseal ain’t It?

  • Stacy48918

    So among the posters here, who has actually read this woman’s statement? Not only does she “just want the right to attempt VBAC”, she initially refused even a heplock, refused an epidural, refused cervical checks. It wasn’t just that she wanted to attempt a VBAC, she wanted to attempt it in the most unsafe manner possible. If she had any complications she would have had an extremely unsafe emergency general anesthesia C-section. I disagree with the hospital’s statement that they would proceed with C-section ‘with or without your consent’ but they were 100% right to tell this woman that what she wanted was incredibly dangerous and she needed to find a different provider. According to court documents she was advised of the dangers of attempting a VBA3C on May 16th…why did she wait nearly 2 months to start looking for another hospital? This lady WANTED to make this a media circus and she got that. What she didn’t get was her vaginal birth because, just as her doctors warned her, she still needed a C-section to get her baby out.

    • merryalto

      Stacy, I have read every single piece I could find on the internet about this story, including Ms. Goodall’s lawsuit, and I have not been able to find any statement by her which mentions hep-locks, epidurals, or cervical or any other kind of monitoring. Where exactly did you find this information? All I have found has presented a reasonable, educated woman who seems to have wanted to attempt a VBAC and was told she couldn’t attempt one and threatened, after she had been told she could attempt it.

      And, for someone else below, what’s wrong with having four kids by the time she’s 29? It’s not as if she’s 19. If this is her fourth, and she had two years between each, she wouildn’t have started having babies until she was 23, not exactly young for a primapara.

      • Stacy48918

        Well if she really wanted the best odds of obtaining a VBAC, spacing of pregnancies matters. Too many babies, too close together, all delivered by C-section = much higher risk of VBAC complications. That’s why her age and number of children matters. Two years between births is the MINIMUM recommended spacing by ACOG for VBAC attempts. Heck, that’s the minimum recommended spacing for ALL births – a short interpregnancy interval (<18-24 months between deliveries) is associated with smaller birth weight, preterm delivery and a host of other complications.

    • merryalto

      Stacy, I have read every single piece I could find on the internet about this story, including Ms. Goodall’s lawsuit, and I have not been able to find any statement by her which mentions hep-locks, epidurals, or cervical or any other kind of monitoring. Where exactly did you find this information? All I have found has presented a fairly reasonable, educated woman who seems to have wanted to attempt a VBAC and was told she couldn’t attempt one and was threatened, after she had been told she could attempt it. A vaginal birth after 3 C-sections has a 3.5% chance of a “bad ouitcome” according to the Skeptical OB, although she doesn’t say what she means by a “bad outcome.” Compare that to a 12.5% chance of major complications with the surgery that is a C-section, and I’d be willing to attempt it, as long as there were no other complications.

      • Stacy48918

        Well I read the mother’s actual court filing and the judge’s report. Not news article manipulations, like that presented here. You can find them (for the moment) here:
        Mother’s legal filing: http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/Declaration%20of%20Jennifer%20Goodall%20with%20Exhibits.pdf
        Judge’s ruling: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flmdce/2:2014cv00399/299997/12

        The “bad outcomes” of a failed VBA3C include uterine rupture, hemorrhage necessitating transfusion, hysterectomy and baby death. What are the “major” complications of a repeat C-section? Seems Ms. Goodall made it through the 12.5% gauntlet anyway since she still needed a C-section in the end. Whew!

        • merryalto

          I wasn’t basing my argument simply on “news article manipulations” as you imply, but I only had found the suit as it was filed in court, and not her statement so I was asking where you found that information. Thank you for the links, although I see that she had agreed with her OB to have a hep-lock, and not refused it as you claimed. As for your remark about what she had to say about the cervical checks, she had to have gotten such information somewhere, it’s too detailed for her to have made it up, and it isn’t all that far-fetched. Your disparagement and condescension about the idea that the cervix wasn’t meant to be touched is unnecessary, and wrong in itself. Think about it. The cervix is not in a part of the body where it would ordinarily be touched by the hand. Being poked by a penis during intercourse is obviously not the same as having your vagina propped open with a speculum and your cervix prodded with some tool or stranger’s finger. And don’t IUI and IVF implants require touching a cervix to insert a tube throuigh the cervix?

          The doctors, at least Dr. Young, had agreed to allow her to try for a vaginal birth. Why else would she have been able to lay out all the agreements thay had reached about her care? The person who denied her that right was the hospital financial officer, who is responsible for the bottom line, and she delivered her decision by letter less than a month before Ms. Goodall’s delivery date, and when Ms. Goodall tried to get her to reconsider the hospital’s position, this woman threatened to have the state take away all her children. What else could she do but go to court? The hospital CFO left her few options at that point in her pregnancy. Filing the court suit also was likely to stop the threatened action against her other children.

          Major complications of a c-section can include almost all the “bad outcomes” you list and more, including perforated bladder, perforated bowels, post-surgical infections, etc. You aren’t likely to get a ruptured uterus, but it will be cut open again, which is simply a neater version with the bleeding curtailed, and there’s no guarantee that the surgeon won’t slip up and perforate it elsewhere or worse in the heat of the moment. Doctors are human and they make mistakes like everyone else. Plus there is the fact that a c-section requires longer hospitalization and much longer recovery than vaginal birth. And a 12.5% chance of bad outcome for surgery is far greater than 3.5%, although she was fortunate not to have had a bad outcome.

          • dudebro

            Well stated.

  • Stacy48918

    Right but if it became necessary it would be a crash section under general anesthesia because she also refused an epidural, cervical checks and other monitoring. She had to be talked into a heplock. This lady wanted the most unsafe TOLAC possible.

    • Laurie Bertram Roberts

      Guess what that’s her right!

  • Shan

    Hi, Sue! Sorry I’m late to the discussion but I just wanted to say that I had my first child while living in the UK and the excellent care from dedicated professionals like yourself made it a wonderful experience. All our care was from midwives and I only ever saw a doctor once just to basically say “No, I don’t need a doctor” because everything was going well, happily. One midwife attended the mostly uneventful birth at a comfortable birthing center and then we had a home visit a while later to make sure everything was going fine, which it was. There was great lactation support, immediate discussions while still in hospital about birth control (even when I said “Are you kidding? Who’s thinking about sex right now?!”) and lots of practical help with learning how to take care of my new baby boy, even up to being escorted out to the car to make sure we had our car seat installed correctly and knew the proper way to secure the baby in it before we took him home. On Christmas day, no less!

    Anyway, I just wanted to say, from all the way back across the pond…thanks for all you do for all the new moms and babies out there!

  • Kristine Bowles

    The medical facility makes more money to perform a surgery than they do from a vaginal birth. That’s most likely why they would want women to have C-sections.

  • Laurie Bertram Roberts

    Please stop referring to her as stupid just because she disagreed with her medical team. Ugh!

    • expat

      Please stop accusing people of writing things that they never wrote. I never referred to her as stupid.

      • Laurie Bertram Roberts

        It is implied over and over again as you call her uninformed. Say she didn’t ‘understand’ what the doctors told her just studied ‘lay people on the internet’. Do you know exactly who she received info from?

  • Pendleton

    The medical reporting in this article is horrific and just plain wrong. Yes, we should absolutely do more VBACs in this country. However, the salient fact is that this woman has had THREE prior C sections. VBACs are only offered if a woman has only had one prior C section, because with three scars on her uterus this woman has an incredibly high risk of uterine rupture during natural labor. Uterine rupture means an emergency C section and about half the time the baby dies. There is not a doctor in the country who would offer this patient the chance to VBAC, and if they did it would be malpractice.