Back in the day when the only birthing training available was Lamaze, my husband and I dutifully attended classes to prepare for our first child. It was never openly admitted in class, but I had ascertained from TV and movies that giving birth hurts very, very, very much and the silly-sounding breathing exercises (Hee! Hee! Hee! HAW!) were the best diversionary tactics available to distract one from the pain in her nether regions.

Then I had to have a C-section and all that training went to waste.

A recent study in Sydney, Australia queried mothers on their views on complications ranging as minor as prolonged birth and superficial tears to as major as anal and urinary incontinence, vaginal prolapse and severe tearing and compared these opinions with those of doctors and midwives. The results were that first time birthers were much more willing to take risks in order to have a natural birth than were the doctors or midwives.

One out of every 4 UK pregnancies results in a C-section due to potential complications like the baby lying in the wrong position for natural birth.

According to Philip Steer, editor of the journal where the study was published, the clinical responses may, "indicate that doctors are biased by their inevitable involvement in complex cases, or labors where things have gone wrong."

I think another word for that is "experience." Sure, women have given birth unassisted thousands of years on their own, but it's important to remember that many of them (and their babies) died in the process. Stuff can go wrong, doctors realize what that stuff is, and try to keep it from happening to their patients. I personally didn't have a problem with that when my birthing situation went awry, because at the end of the proceedings, I was alive and so was my baby.

In an era of malpractice lawsuits, it's understandable why a doctor may go ahead and suggest a C-section rather than take risks. As a society, we've essentially backed the medical field into this corner and the result is C-sections that may not all be necessary and even though the mom may be willing to give it the old college try.

I love being pregnant, and I love having kids. I love breastfeeding. But I hate, and hate is really not a strong word compared to how I actually feel, nursing bras. They're all terrible. First of all, they're gigantic. Breasts become fuller with milk, of course, so they get bigger...and bigger, and bigger and bigger until they feel like they're going to burst. Hence, once needs a giant bra for the giant breasts. I can get behind that--it's rational and makes sense.

What I don't understand is why they have to be so hideously ugly and not actually provide the support required to tote around said enormous breasts. And while I may be funny, I'm also being dead serious. I have three or four (I think I banished one it was so awful) nursing bras from various manufacturers that were clearly designed with someone who either has never had breasts swollen with milk or who never wanted to look even remotely attractive without her shirt on. Those with underwires are uncomfortable. Those without lack any real support.

There's also the issue of the bras never quite managing to hold onto the breastpads placed in them to keep them from getting covered with milk leakage. I have had, however, quite a bit of success with Lily Pads, which are technically designed to be worn under things with which one can wear no bra or at night when one doesn't want to wear a bra to bed. Some women have reverted to wearing regular bras in larger sizes or just going braless all together.

What about you? Do you hate nursing bras, or have you found one that answers your prayers? Do you have a trick for making them more comfortable, or at least more tolerable?

According to a recent report, infections may be the cause of many premature births. Studies showed the more serious the infection, the more likely the premature birth and the sicker the infant. Studies also reported finding bacteria or (yick!) fungi in 15% of the amniotic fluid of women who'd given birth prematurely. Premature children are known to have an increased risk of everything from problems breathing and underdeveloped organs to cerebal palsy.

Prevention, of course, is the key. Twelve percent of births in the United States occur before the 37th week of pregnancy. Just how many of these could be preventable? The team responsible for conducting the study of infected amniotic fluid now have their sights set on detecting the infection before preterm labor starts and treating it.

The researchers studied 166 samples of amniotic fluid from pregnant women during the period of 1998-2002. They detected 25 were infected with the bacteria, fungi, or...what might be a new organism (very X-Files). All 25 infected women went on to preterm labor. Fifty-three women in whom no bacteria, etc. was detected, were able to have their preterm labor stopped.

Pic by zakwitnij.

Is there a downside to breastfeeding? A new report from the New York Times might have you thinking so. In a recent article, several studies monitoring a lack of vitamin D in infants might support that breastmilk is not enough to prevent things like rickets in children. The biggest fear is that the deficiency is more common than previously thought and is going undetected. Breastmilk apparently does not necessarily provide enough of the vitamin to children.

Doctors, of course, are rare to say anything at all negative about breastfeeding. Unlike perhaps even fifty years ago, women are being told that they simply must breastfeed, that they are wrong for not doing so, and that breastmilk is the ultimate wonder food for their infants. This may well be true, but the medical profession that's been pushing breastfeeding down our throats has also admitted to knowing there is a probable link between vitamin D deficiency and diseases like diabetes and cancer.

The answer, of course, is not to stop breastfeeding, but rather to augment a child's nutrition by adding vitamin drops, or, my favorite, cod liver oil (yummy!). The other pretty obvious answer is that if a woman is deficient in something, so, too, will be her breastmilk. Mothers should be getting plenty of vitamin D themselves in order to pass on the right amount to their infants. That should be good news to those of us who are committed to breastfeeding exclusively for as long as possible. Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and my own pediatrician recommend supplementing with the vitamin D drops.

Thoughts? I for one drink enough milk while pregnant and nursing to keep a small dairy in business. Is it enough? Who knows. Did you supplement breastfeeding with vitamins for your infants or enjoy a little cod liver oil?

Pic by timtom.ch [surfin' USA].

Jason Lee, star of such films as Mall Rats and lead in the wildly popular My Name Is Earl series, is a daddy again. Apparently the birth was kept under wraps as sources say the child made her debut August 10th. What's more exciting about this birth is really what Mr. Lee plans on naming this kid.

Lee's first child, a four-year-old son with ex Beth Riesgraf, has the infamous distinction of being named Pilot Inspektor. No, not a typo, that is indeed the child's name. (She must have been on some serious medication to have agreed to that.) Ever since then we've been waiting for the other shoe to drop. And now it has.

The name of the tot, a girl, was not available as of this writing. Let's hope Lee's new partner Ceren Alkac is able to convince him toward something a little less...well, you know...unusual. Not that unusual is bad. And let's just say Lee has some big shoes to follow--not only from his own son, but now too with the birth of Zuma Nesta Rock Rossdale. That's going to be a hard one to follow up. Let the naming games begin!

Ladies, start your engines. The hotness that is Jason Statham recently divulged he would very much like to be in the family way--as in, getting married and having kids. To many, this was a surprise; Statham is known for his tough guy roles more than being a sensitive softy.

Turns out he's not being too picky when it comes to finding the right lady to start that family. According to the actor he is both soft and sweet and knows the appropriate time to be said softy and send flowers, etc. He also mentioned that "beggars can't be choosers" when it comes to women dating him. Apparently he doesn't realize what a catch he is!

We wish Jason the best of luck in finding that special woman to be his wife and the mother of his children. If we weren't married with kids perhaps we'd find ourselves lining up to get his attention and perhaps be on the receiving end of some of those flowers.

If reports are to be believed, Gwen Stefani has had her baby. The tot, sex and name unknown at press time (and if Perez Hilton don't know then nobody knows!), was born to the singer this Thursday in California. Not sure if anyone actually cares that Stefani is a mom again, what with all the media frenzy surrounding the Jolie-Pitt twins, but I for one am excited to see Gwen take on motherhood X 2.

Stefani checked into the hospital and delivered the new arrival via C-section. Gwen's other child, Kingston, who she had with husband Gavin Rossdale, was born at the same hospital two years ago via the same procedure. You know what they say--it ain't Hollywood if it ain't a C-section. And they won't seem to let you have a VBAC even if you are interested in a natural birth after you've already had a C.

According to sources, the name of the baby is Zuma. You know, like Zima only with a "U." I seriously doubt that's the kid's name, but given the climate in la-la land these days anything for a name goes. Maybe she'll go hog wild and name the kid Jane or something.

Updated to add: The wee one's name is indeed Zuma -- in fact, it's Zuma Nesta Rock Rossdale. That's a mouthful, but it's a mouthful with meaning; according to The Baby Name Wizzard, this is a nod to a new trend in naming. And People has the full dish on where the name comes from. Just in case you're really curious.

It may seem like something of a bore by now, but actress Jennifer Garner has finally come clean about her pregnancy. the Alias star, married to fellow actor Ben Affleck, has caused much speculation over recent months after being photographed wearing comfortable clothing and posing her daughter, Violet, and some pretty expensive handbags in front of her swelling belly.

Not too long ago, former Alias co-star Victor Garber seemingly confirmed the news that Garner was pregnant again. He later recanted, saying his comments were taken out of context. Then her mother-in-law had a similar slip of the lip. Both Jenn and Ben refused to comment on her state of impending mommyhood until just recently, when she confirmed the news.

Now the watch is on to see how big she'll get, whether the baby will be a girl or boy, and what the name will be. These are the things the media is sure we care about and will take every opportunity to tell us. As or the Garner-Afflecks, I can appreciate wanting to keep some of the joy to yourself--they told when they were good and ready, and not a moment before that.

Congrats to Violet's mom and dad! She'll be a big sister soon!

(Not everyone should have kids. Click the photo to see the Top 10
Worst Celebrity Dads)

Yes, he does. The action movie star recently divulged that he wants a large family to Ok! magazine. Diesel, real name Mark Sinclair Vincent, a native New Yorker, says he wants twelve kids!

Diesel recently became a father to a daughter, and apparently the experience has been a good one! Diesel and girlfriend Paloma Jimenez welcomed the tot, whose name has not been revealed, four months ago.

%Gallery-11654%

The actor says being in the movie The Pacifier solidified his desire for children. Being around all the babies awakened his paternal instincts. Yes, even the star of such movies as The Fast and The Furious has paternal instincts!

Haute mamas to be watch out: Christian Siriano is launching a line of maternity wear! The Project Runway winner is set to unveil the line for mamas to be in Spring 2009. Pity I won't be pregnant anymore (I hope) although it may be reason enough to get knocked up if you've been considering it. Chances are, if you are pregnant and you buy Siriano's stuff, you'll look glam.

Siriano and two of his fashion buddies, Marta Abrams and Elise Rosemarin, collaborated on the line. Abrams and Rosemarin head up Moody Mama maternity wear. The collection, much like Mr. Siriano, is being called Fierce (for Moody Mama).

Funny enough, a rep for Moody Mama says Siriano joined up because he thought it would be good if a gay man and two women who'd never had children designed maternity wear together. What do you think--is it important for the designer of preggo-wear to have been preggo herself, or does it matter? I doubt Bill Blass spent a lot of time in evening gowns, but what they hey do I know. I'm sure the line from Siriano will be stunning to say the least--in looks, anyway (no word on the price).

Is there a link between having an aboriton and depression, or other psychological maladies? According to the American Psychological Association, not if a woman has only had one abortion. In a report that came out last Wednesday, women who have one abortion are no more likely to suffer depression or other mental health problems than women who go on to have their babies.

To be clear, the abortions in question were those that were elective and in the first trimester. Prior mental health as well as self-esteem issues and the fear of stigma were the main factors in post-abortion health, according to the study. Also according to the report, which I find really hard to believe, is that half--HALF!--of American women will experience an unwanted pregnancy and that about half of those--a quarter, for those of you doing the math--will get an abortion. That's a LOT of people.

I also think that it's one thing to look at a hundred studies, but it's another to talk to the women who've made this choice themselves. And yet another for those women to feel like they can be honest with their responses and reasoning behind getting an abortion. I've never had to make that choice, but I know people who have. And let me tell you something--they come from all different backgrounds, are different ages, etc. And each of those women has had to deal with the decision she made for the rest of her life. I am all for women being in charge of their bodies and strongly support the pro-choice movement, but to say that having an abortion doesn't affect a woman's mental health (for better or worse), at least for some period of time, might be a little misleading.

Several studies in a recent New York Times article entitled "Honey, I Plumped the Kids" seem to be pointing in that direction. As we all know by now, human beings are getting bigger--and by bigger, I really mean fatter. In 2005 it was estimated there were 400 million obese people on the planet. Yes, 400 MILLION. And, in what is a recent phenomenon, some of those obese people happened to be women who then became pregnant and gave birth. The result? Well, if the studies are to be believed, a pregnancy for an obese woman can lead to her children being obese as well.

Similar news to this has been circulating for some time now. It's also no news that being obese, whether or not you're pregnant, can have dramatically harmful results. Cancer, diabetes and heart disease are just a few of the pleasantries headed your way if you happen to be obese. But, what does being obese mean for your unborn child? In one of the studies cited in the Times article, women who gave birth to children before they had surgery to correct their obesity were more likely have an obese child; once the women had the surgery, the children they later bore tended to not be obese. Hence, the obesity doesn't on the surface seem to be due to genetic predisposition, but rather to the mother being , well, fat.

One theory as to why this is concerns the fact that people have access to an overabundance of sugar and fat. As a direct result, so do their fetuses. In another study pregnant female rats were allowed to have as much as they wanted of either human junk food or regular old rat food. Those who had access to the junk food ate 40% more food than their rat-chow eating buddies. The baby rats born to the junk food rats were more inclined to eat such food and were more likely to be overweight as a result of consuming too many calories.

So what does this mean for all us preggies out there? Perhaps that we should listen to our doctors and cut back on the sugar and fats. Pregnancy cravings aside, the article and the studies make a good case for being even more healthy when you're pregnant--for you and your baby.

Pic by armchairgeek.

(Click the photo to see which celebs might be "pregorexic")

It seems like it should be common sense. Don't diet while pregnant. Yet for many moms these days that seems to be the trend. Many of them are successful at it--but at what cost to their unborn children? In the United States as well as in the UK, pregnant women are succumbing to what is being termed "pregorexia," wherein the consume as little as possible during pregnancy to avoid weight gain. Experts agree this is harmful to both mother and unborn child. Fetuses get their nutrients straight from mommy; when she doesn't supply enough, like with calcium, they get it from her bones. If they can't get the nutrient from the mother, they suffer--kids are born prematurely, with a low birth weight and an increased risk of spina bifida all from mothers being underweight during pregnancy.

In Hollywood, the recent barrage of women giving birth would have have us think they were barely pregnant at all. Most of them gain hardly and weight and sport only the tell-tale bump. Almost as soon as they've given birth, they return to their pre-pregnancy weight, which was scandalously low in the first place. Some, like Nicole Kidman, have even drawn harsh rumors that she was never even pregnant at all--after seeing her less than a month post-baby her body was scarily small, prompting the media to generate the notion that her sister, who'd basically remained under cover during the pregnancy, was the one actually carrying the baby.

%Gallery-29681%

With all these Hollywood celebrities maintaining tiny frames while they attempt to bring another human being into the world, it's hard to not feel the pressure to be thin in our own lives. Forget the fact that it's pure misogyny at work, isn't it also the worst thing in the world to deprive not only yourself but your unborn child of vital nutrients and sustenance? Experts suggest that women of normal weight (meaning not underweight nor overweight) gain between 20-25 pounds during a pregnancy. That number was recently lowered from the old notion of anywhere from 25-35 pounds (and in some cases 40). instead of worrying about gaining too much weight, shouldn't we be more focused on getting our children--and ourselves--the nutrition needed to be happy and healthy?