Every once in a while I like to go into the Web site for the CDC (Center for Disease control) and read up on their birth statistics.
The people at CDC do an excellent job of tracking all of the vital information in our country and then covering for the Medical Profession and pharma companies by telling us how fat we are as Americans, the skyrocketing diabetes rates, and that we like to sit on our bums, and watch television and eat junk food.
Nobody at CDC ever seems to connect Anti-depressant use as a potential cause for the diabetes outbreak in our nation, or that obesity is a “connect the dots” reality for those who gum up their systems with the toxic chemicals that form the ingredients for anti-depressants. No, what we get from the government is the green light for anti-depressants to now be manufactured generically, which will ensure many more Americans start to wend their way down the obesity, heart disease, diabetic, and lethargic side of the path.
The reason I go into the Birth section of the site is simply because I am often curious to know what’s up with the birth trends. It has been the habit of the CDC for the past few years since its web site really started to rock n roll, to publish preliminary data on birth, oh, usually a couple months after any given years stats are compiled.
The final report for 2002 was published in December of 2003.
The final report for 2001 was published in December of 2002.
The final report for 2000 was published in February of 2002.
My questions is, why has the CDC failed to publish a preliminary report on 2005???
We are well into the 2006 season for birth in America, and in the recent past, 2002 and 2003, not only was the preliminary report released within 12 months, but the final report was released as well.
The CDC released the preliminary 2004 data in December of 2005, but it is now seven months later and we still have yet to see a final report.
I wonder why this is?
The CDC didn’t seem to have a problem releasing preliminary data on the 2002 statistics within six months. I can only assume the computers today are faster and more equipped to process this sort of data in a timely way. Question is…Why the delay? Why the delay in the final report being published for 2004? And why the delay for the preliminary data being published for 2005?
My gut feeling is simply that they are racking their brains trying to come up with some logical no fault reason that the C-section rate has gone up yet another 4 or 5 percent in the past year. (Or did it go up a shocking 8 or 9 percent and they have no idea what to say?)
Lawsuits and evil trial lawyers? No we spun that in 2002. Women want them and are too posh to push? No, that was the message in 2003.

See, Hear, and Speak No Evil
Uh… doctors, nurses, and hospitals want them?? And every single company that has a financial tie to women having C-sections want them??? Ding ding ding, I think we have a winner.
Think about it. If you were a nurse, would you like to sit monitoring a woman in labor for 12, 18, or 24 hours? Or would you prefer to help that same mother schedule a C-section and have the baby out in less than an hour if a planned section, or less than a minute if a crash section?
If you were a doctor would you like to schedule 6 to 10 sections on any given day, or wait for those same women to spontaneously give birth with the many stops and starts of a natural labor? Perhaps disrupting your family life or golf game?
If you were a hospital administrator would you like to have the thousands of dollars a c-section magically produces in less than an hour, with dozens of staff members happily employed doing what they do best, and all those beds in the NICU filled with babies, momma resting nicely for a couple days while she recovers from a knife to her belly? $$$ cha ching $$$ cha ching…the money just keeps rolling in.
This is simply a no brainer from the medical perspective.
Recently I was talking to a fellow Bradley Childbirth teacher at a track meet. Our daughters were competing while we reconnected and chatted for a half hour or so. We both taught Natural Birth in our homes in the early 90’s here in Boulder County where I live, and became friends through our local teachers support group. I stopped teaching ten years ago in 1996 and focused all of my energies on writing and online promotion of Unassisted Childbirth. She is teaching childbirth at a local hospital. I asked her what she thought of what’s happening in birth right now.
She told me the biggest change in the past few years has been the level of fear. The couples are really afraid to give birth. She also told me that the nurses she works with are “excited” for the C-section rate to go up. Some experts are predicting the section rate to double in the next generation.
“Why are they excited?” I asked her.
“It makes their work easier,” was her reply.
And it does. The question is, what will be the repercussions on our society if most of the babies in America are born under an anesthetic haze? And what impact will this drugging of American Mothers and Babies right at the time they are supposed to be lovingly bonding with each other mean for our connectedness as families?
The Apostle Paul desribed the perilous times of the latter days in 2 Timothy 3:3 as modern families being without Natural Affection.

Do we really understand what is lost when we casually cut into the belly of a new mom and extract her child from her womb?
I believe if we did, our society would stop at nothing to promote what is normal and natural in childbirth.
Jenny Hatch
UPDATE:
ICAN – Coerced surgery major cause of rise in C-sections