I think most women in jail are not allowed to have their babies with them. The babies are either put into the foster care system, adopted, or placed with the woman's family. I hope I'm wrong.

Why are we letting the legal system, which is not educated on evidence-based maternity care, dictate what happens to our bodies? Doctors are terrified of the one bad outcome that could have been avoided with a c-section, and are willing to do hundreds (thousands?) of unnecessary c-sections to avoid that lawsuit. They are also willing to subject women to the risks of continuous monitoring because if they don't, lawyers will use it against them. They should not be basing their care of women on their fear of litigation, but they are human, and are understandably worried about losing everything. And sometimes they have no choice--there are malpractice companies that do not allow VBACs, for example. Nevermind evidence--that's they last thing they care about.

Tort reform seems like a reasonable response to this. Trials should be based on if the doctor acted prudently and based on evidence, not whether there was a bad outcome. Women should be able to give informed consent for any intervention (or lack thereof) and it should hold up in court, so doctors aren't living in fear. And I know that doctors win most of the time, but they still want to avoid the lawsuit in the first place.

Bottom line: doctors should NOT be basing their care on fear of being sued, but they are. Tort reform would be better for all of us. Doctors wouldn't have to practice in fear, and women and babies wouldn't suffer the consequences of that fear.

Having said that, I hope this bill passes, and I hope it does what it is intended to do.

Moot it is, but so are a lot of arguments based purely on semantics. Someone told me not to miss the big flip-flop in the comments section (the admission that some cesareans are unnecessary).