Much of the feminist critique of allopathic intervention in childbirth was necessary and helpful, and it changed the way most OB/GYNs practice. (We’re no longer in the 1820s, or the 1960s!) However, much of the message of the so-called “natural” childbirth movement asks women to embrace pain and mutilation as “natural” and a more authentic birth experience. (Just because Martha Ballard had a great record as a midwife doesn’t mean that that’s the way to go for all time.) For some reason, we don’t approach any other medical procedures this way–root canals, minor or major surgery, etc.–we assume that anaesthetics are not only acceptable, but mandatory. But the “natural” birth movement is too much like the biblical injunction to “bear children in pain”–and telling people that they need to experience physical pain is to me not a feminist message. That is to me an ideological expectation that we put on women’s bodies only

As for the high C-section/high infant mortality rates: both are troubling, but they’re not related in a direct causal relationship. The women who are getting C-sections are wealthier and well-insured patients for the most part, who took their prenatal vitamins, etc. The women who tragically are part of the other troublingly high statistics are not wealthy or well-insured, which is probably a major reason that their birth outcomes are not so good. (No link to the stats now–apologies–this is just my gut instinct and so am willing to be proved wrong here.)

OBOS’ policy statements are consistent with those in Reproductive Health Reality Check and the World Health Organization. Both point out that the United States has the highest percentage of C-sections (nearly 1/3 of all births), yet the worst maternal and infant mortality and morbidity rates in the developed world.

Since you’re an early U.S. historian, I suggest you review the work of Laurel Thatcher Ulrich and others on early midwifery — they demonstrate that the shift from midwives to physician-assisted births was based more on ideology than on actual outcomes.

Our Bodies, Ourselves was my bible in the late 1980s and 1990s. Its descriptions of sexuality, birth control options, and the course of pregnancy are really great. But I found that it didn’t give the whole picture when it came to childbirth. No publication could present the total picture in sufficient detail for everyone–there are other books that do different things–but I found its portrayal of “natural” births versus C-secion births to be highly ideological (with “natural” births being the “good” births, and C-section births being described as “failures”–either of a woman’s body, or of her failure to direct or control her birth experience.) I think it’s unfortunate that some stripes of feminism are just as controlling and judgmental as allopathic obstetrics used to be in the bad old days.

The cause of many birth injuries during vaginal delivery is poor prenatal and obstetrical care, as well as very young maternal age and malnutrition. Hence the problem of vaginal fistulas in developing countries.

In general C-section in the United States is quite safe, but like any major surgery, does carry risk of complications.
Again, see Our Bodies, Ourselves and their blog.

I think Hillary Clinton’s doing well is irrelevant at this point, and she should step aside and let the party go on with its work.