Your Natural Birth

12/05/2026

Interesting comparison of epidural and water immersion. NB groups were self-selected, which may have influenced results. "Spontaneous vaginal birth was almost 17 times more likely in the water immersion group [94.5% vs 50.6%] (OR = 16.866 [6.540, 43.480], p < 0.001), whereas the odds of having a cesarean birth were almost 40 times higher in the epidural group [0.7 vs 21.9%] (OR = 39.346 [3.610, 429.120], p < 0.001). The odds of having an intact perineum were more than two times higher for the water immersion group (OR = 2.606 [1.290, 5.250], p = 0.007), whereas having an episiotomy was more than eight times more likely for the epidural group [4.1 vs 26.1%] (OR = 8.307 [2.800, 24.610], p < 0.001). Newborns in the water immersion group showed a better 5 min Apgar score and umbilical cord arterial pH and lower rates in admissions at the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Conclusions: Women choosing water immersion as an analgesic method were no more likely to experience adverse outcomes and presented better results than women choosing epidural analgesia." Full paper here https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/12/19/1919

08/05/2026

📣 Since 1985, the World Health Organization suggests a c-section rate of about 10-15% based on:

"HRP studies show when c-section rates rise towards 10% across a population, the number of maternal and newborn deaths decreases. When the rate goes above 10%, there is no evidence that mortality rates improve."

✨️With the US c-section rate in 2025 being 32.5%, does this mean more than half were not medically necessary?

As birth workers, many of us quote the 10-15% recommendation. This is not inherently inaccurate. But it does lack *some* nuance.

📣 The WHO: "Despite this, mortality is not the only outcome to consider. Other important outcomes would be short- and long-term maternal and perinatal morbidity, for example, obstetric fistula, birth asphyxia, or psychosocial implications regarding the maternal¬–¬infant relationship, women’s psychological health, women’s ability to successfully initiate breastfeeding and paediatric outcomes. Lack of data prevented the inclusion of these and other outcomes in the WHO analysis."

What does that really mean? When looking at ONLY mortality, it would seem that upwards of half of US c-sections aren't beneficial. However, because of lack of data, we cannot assess ALL areas that should be measured.

And here's more nuance:

✨️"Why can’t a c-section rate at population level be applied or used at hospital level?

"The medical and obstetric characteristics of the women attending any particular hospital are often different from those of the overall population. This results in different needs for c-section, and also different rates. For example, larger hospitals often receive referrals of most complicated pregnancies or deliveries which in turn, may need more c-sections. On the other hand, some smaller facilities may not be equipped to carry out c-sections."

What does this mean?
✨️ Ask about a hospital's c-section rate AND why the rate might be what it is.
✨️ Ask when and why they would recommend a c-section
✨️ Ask your specific provider for their rates
✨️ Consider a provider with low rates, such as a midwife

Despite lack of more data, the info we do have suggests 50% of c-sections might be unnecessary.

25/04/2026

🚨 EXPOSED: Kaiser’s internal “script” to coerce parents into newborn shots & procedures—straight from Aaron Siri.

Aaron Siri shared this document that was sent to him by a concerned insider at Kaiser.

Titled “Newborn Medications at Birth – Standard Communication & Scripting,” it’s a playbook for how staff should push Vitamin K shots, Erythromycin eye ointment, and the Hepatitis B vaccine on every newborn.

Here’s what the document actually tells staff to do (direct quotes):

• Present these medications as routine and standard care

• Use clear, confident, and consistent language

• Avoid framing as optional unless parents specifically express hesitation

• Suggested script: “As part of our routine newborn care, we will be giving your baby three important medications. This includes a Vitamin K injection to prevent serious bleeding, an eye ointment to protect against infection, and the Hepatitis B vaccine to help protect your baby from serious illness. These are standard for all newborns and help keep your baby safe and healthy.”

• If parents have questions or hesitate, add: “These medications have been safely used for many years and are strongly recommended because they prevent serious complications that can occur in newborns. We want to make sure your baby has the best protection right from the start.”

Additional reminders:

• Avoid saying “it’s optional” or “you can refuse” unless directly asked

• Escalate to the neonatologist if parents are declining

• Reinforce that this is routine, evidence-based care
This isn’t education or informed consent. This is coordinated coercion.

Hospitals are training staff to treat parental hesitation like a problem to be managed—not a right to be respected.

They scripted how to steer families away from saying no without ever admitting it’s optional.

Coercion is wrong.

Parents have the fundamental right to make medical decisions for their newborns—not be psychologically maneuvered into compliance by corporate talking points.

Ask questions.

Demand real informed consent, not sales scripts.

14/04/2026

03/03/2026

People get mad when I say this, but here we go:
Hospitals create MORE birth emergencies than they prevent.

Not because doctors are evil… but because the system turns a normal biological process into a medical event the second you walk in the door and policies are focused on preventing them legally, not necessarily giving the most evidence based care.

Let’s talk about the #1 thing everyone thinks makes birth safer:
Continuous electronic fetal monitoring.

You know… the belts they strap on you that beep every time your baby moves?

Here’s the part nobody wants to hear:

👉 Continuous fetal monitoring increases interventions, NOT safety.
👉 It does NOT reduce cerebral palsy rates.
👉 It does NOT reduce stillbirth.
👉 It does NOT improve neonatal outcomes.

But it does increase:
• C-section rates
• Forceps/vacuum use
• “Fetal distress” diagnoses
• Unnecessary inductions
• Mom getting stuck in bed → cascade of interventions

And this isn’t crunchy opinion.
This is straight out of *decades* of data.

Studies show continuous monitoring has a significantly higher C-section rate with no decrease in adverse neonatal outcomes.

Translation?
We’re creating emergencies by looking for emergencies that aren’t there.

Once you’re strapped to the bed:
• you can’t move
• contractions hurt more
• labor stalls
• Pitocin gets started
• baby doesn’t like Pitocin
• monitors look “concerning”
• suddenly you’re “not progressing”
• and then… SURPRISE! “Emergency C-section.”

Tell me how that’s safer??

Birth works better when:
• you’re upright
• you’re not tethered to machines
• you’re not starved or dehydrated
• you can change positions
• you’re not pressured by the clock
• your hormones aren’t shut down by fear

But none of that fits inside a hospital protocol sheet.

So we pretend the medical emergency started in your body when it actually started from cascading protocols and interventions. 🫠

You want the truth?
Most “birth emergencies” in hospitals are iatrogenic… meaning created BY the system.

And every mom who’s lived both sides (hospital vs home birth) knows exactly what I mean. 🫶🏼

10/01/2026

URGENT CALL TO ACTION: Protect Traditional Midwifery and Birth Rights NOW!

Friends, families, birthworkers, and advocates – we've taken a major step forward!

Our Position Statement on State-Level Midwifery Regulations and the Need for Federal Protections (highlighted by Pennsylvania's SB 507) has been sent directly to Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s office at HHS, along with key colleagues.

This is our chance to push for real change under the Make America Healthy Again initiative – safeguarding parental choice, religious freedoms, and access to safe home births for rural, Amish, Mennonite, and underserved communities amid worsening maternity care deserts.

But we can't stop here. We need YOUR help to amplify this nationwide!

READ the full Position Statement

SHARE it widely – forward to every supportive agency, business, family, friend, doula, midwife, or advocate you know. Post it in groups, email it to local organizations, and tag allies who can help spread the word.

SIGN the Organizational Endorsement Form (included below – copy, fill out, and endorse if you're representing a group, business, or as an individual advocate). We need endorsements from agencies, businesses, families, and communities to show massive support!

MAIL or EMAIL it BACK TODAY – Send completed forms to pmrccontact@gmail.com or mail to: The Pennsylvania Midwifery Relations Coalition, PO Box 19, Bartonsville, PA 18321.

This is a maternal health emergency – midwives are facing prosecution, families are losing options, and bills like SB 507 are criminalizing traditional care without our input. Let's flood HHS with endorsements to demand federal protections for unlicensed lay midwives, non-medical birth support, and parental autonomy. Act NOW – every signature counts toward restoring health freedom in America!





https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15ZbDwe2F764wjqPlRdSMLkzWw0Ft5Yj_?usp=drive_link

(text from Cardinal Birth Midwifery Service)
You can also listen to Brooke Collier and Lauren Hall speak about this on the most recent episode of Holy Wild Birth (https://open.spotify.com/episode/0Gteh5ANiDjWANWIAouPyK?si=_kYZhvrXQWeTyooI4hkkvA)d

Holy Wild Birth · Episode

20/11/2025

Know the risks

The standard method for closing the uterus after cesarean delivery, used for over 50 years, may be causing a host of long-term health issues for millions of women.

According to Dr. Emmanuel Bujold and Dr. Roberto Romero, leaders in obstetrics and gynecology, current closure practices—where sutures join the uterine lining with surrounding muscle—fail to restore the uterus’s natural structure, leading to serious complications.

Their exhaustive review reveals the risks: abnormal placenta attachment affects up to 6% of women, uterine rupture up to 3%, and premature births up to 28%. Many suffer pelvic pain (up to 35%), excessive bleeding (up to 33%), and endometriosis or adenomyosis (up to 43%). Such complications are linked directly to the scarring produced by the conventional closure method.

Bujold and Romero propose a nuanced technique: suturing tissues only of the same type, carefully reconstructing the muscle layer while leaving the uterine lining untouched for natural regeneration. Although this new method takes 5–8 minutes—twice as long as the traditional approach—the additional blood loss is minimal and outweighed by better outcomes for future reproductive health.

With cesarean rates rising globally, especially in countries like Canada where 27% of births are by C-section, prioritizing meticulous uterine repair is a critical public health concern. This shift in surgical thinking may help millions experience safer subsequent pregnancies and better long-term well-being.

Follow Science Sphere for regular scientific updates

📄 RESEARCH PAPER

📌 Emmanuel Bujold et al, "Uterine closure after cesarean delivery: surgical principles, biological rationale, and clinical implications", American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (2025)

07/11/2025

Finally telling the truth

Decades of research have shown that round-the-clock fetal monitoring does not reliably predict fetal distress, and experts say it leads to many unnecessary surgeries. But it’s still used in nearly every birth in the U.S. because of business and legal concerns, a New York Times investigation found. https://nyti.ms/3WF7yLx

01/10/2025

Wow

06/02/2025

"It's just what we do" isn't good enough when it comes to membrane sweeping in pregnancy.

Many women and families ask about membrane sweeping, which is often presented as an alternative to induction of labour.

And yet it's not an alternative to induction.

It is a FORM of induction.

Because we see so many questions about this, I have updated my blog post on this topic.

Learn what the evidence really says about this common procedure.

Read my blog post at https://www.sarawickham.com/articles-2/what-is-a-stretch-and-sweep/

10/12/2024

Many studies have challenged the idea of a fixed due date, with one researcher noting that this idea “stretches credulity.”

Gerald Wightman Lawson searched and analysed the medical literature relating to "variables on the length of pregnancy, the expected date of confinement, and prolonged pregnancy."

His research (like many other studies before) confirmed that:

"a number of factors were found to significantly influence the length of a pregnancy, including ethnicity, height, variations in the menstrual cycle, the timing of ovulation, parity and maternal weight." (Lawson 2020)

And for those who would like a bit more detail...

"The proposition that a pregnancy is 40 weeks or 280 days in duration is attributed to the German obstetrician Franz Naegele (1778–1851).

His rule adds nine months and seven days to the first day of the last menstrual period.

The expected date of confinement from this formula is approximately right in the majority of cases.

However, the idea that this rule can apply to every pregnant female – young or old, nulliparous or multigravida, Caucasian, Asian, African, or Indigenous – stretches credulity.

In addition, many women regard the 40‐week date as a deadline, which if crossed, may then place the baby under stress.

Forty weeks is such a simple, round, convenient figure that it has proved difficult to challenge, despite criticism.

Nonetheless, what might have been an appropriate formula in Germany in the 19th century deserves to be revisited in the 21st."

You can see the paper at https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajo.13253

For loads more information about "due dates", other approaches and the options available towards the end of pregnancy, see my books on induction, or visit https://www.sarawickham.com/iol