Read It Runs in the Family for Free Online Page A

fact that my and Patrick’s mothers both sought out the advice and inspiration of Naomi Mayer, that both rejected the sterility of Western medicine, that they both found guides and supports, wisdom and grounding in the experiences of other women. There were differences, of course: I was a first birth, quiet, intimate, at a little distance from community, whereas Patrick was a second birth, busy and in the midst of family, community, friends, and with broken bones to boot. But both births were acts of resistance, creativity, and empowerment. That is how Patrick and I came into the world and that is how we chose to birth our own children.
    As I thought about labor and birth, I also thought a lot about nonviolence—about how nonviolence demands that we are responsible and educated, and apply our beliefs to daily activity. Nonviolence at a demonstration can look really different from nonviolence in our personal relationships or even in how we treat ourselves, but it is all part of the same package. Patrick and I envisioned a nonviolent birth experience, similar to our parents: a home birth that would be empowering, on our own terms, natural, and cheap!
    In fact, it is hard to figure out the cost of the average birth in the United States. There are so many variables—type of insurance, what kind of deductible, caesarean or vaginal birth, length of labor, complications, medications, and recovery time.
    With all the unknowns, I did know one thing: we would pay $650 to have our baby. That is a lot of money in our one-income household, but there are many women who don’t even get a shot of Pitocin—which induces labor—for that much. Fortunately, I have state health insurance, and our midwives (hallelujah) accepted it.
    In 2009, the Wall Street Journal’s Healthy Consumer columnist gave “uncomplicated, traditional” birth at a Los Angeles hospital and was shocked to discover that the total costs were upwards of $36,000. Even with all our hospital intervention and high-tech medical equipment, CNN reported that in 2007 the U.S. ranked behind the majority of other developed countries in infant mortality, with a rate of almost seven deaths per one thousand live births. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, this is the case even though all of these countries spend much less than we do on health care.
    Poverty in the United States, and economic disparities, accounts for much of our infant mortality crisis. These disparities determine the degree to which women receive prenatal care and their ability to maintain a healthy diet and lifestyle throughout pregnancy and after the birth of a child. It is worth noting that at a time when the political discourse in the United States is once again fixated on abortion and the attendant rhetoric about the sanctity of life, we hear very little about women’s access to affordable health care, consistent prenatal care, and safe, appropriate, and dignified birth options.
    Speaking of which, the World Health Organization says that a national caesarean rate of 5 to 10 percent provides the best outcomes for women and babies. In 2007, 32 percent of women in the United States had a caesarean, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
    While it is easy to put the blame on women for being “too posh to push,” a women and children’s health organization called Childbirth Connection correctly puts the onus on the medical industry. In a concise and compelling essay, they offer several reasons for why the medical industry pushes caesareans on women, including:
•   A refusal to offer the informed choice of vaginal birth
•   Casual attitudes about surgery and caesarean sections, in particular
•   Limited awareness of harms that are more likely with C-sections
•   Providers’ fears of malpractice claims and lawsuits
•   Incentives to practice in a manner that is efficient for providers
    One thing that the essay does not mention is the cost of