Women in the 50s and 60s stayed in the hospital for several days after childbirth, usually.

That's because of the process at that time. You had mothers who were having to come out of anesthsia and during this time there was a lot of advancement on tools used to get the baby out of the mother. Usually this caused more damage to the mother's body than what happens now since we are getting to the point of having less evasive practices and equipment. And even some of these tools they used back then are not used now because of new options or you had mothers dying of complications from the practices of that time.

That's interesting, because natural childbirth was not the primary mode of delivery then. My grandmother was given systemic anesthesia then.

In the 1940s and 1950s women flocked to the hospital to give birth. Male physicians attended the births. It became common practice to anesthetize women during labor to eliminate any pain during childbirth. The expectant father was relegated to the waiting room to protect him from the "gruesome reality" of childbirth.

Drug use aside, perhaps because more women work outside the home now... which contributes to the production of necessary hormones (cortisol, etc)?

I think that's probably part of it. I think another factor is as mentioned in the article - older mothers and mothers (and possibly babies) who weigh more.

I agree. More exercise and less sitting around is needed not just for women, but for the general population. We're all becoming way too soft!

Yes I belive so, when i was pregnant with my only child, i had walked two miles every day untill i gave birth to my child. I always dreaded that i was going to be in the hospital for ever, but went in to labor at 3am in the morning, got to the hospital in 1 hour later, and was told i was dilated at 7. at around some time at 8am i was told to push, and after 45 minutes, out baby came. So yes exercise and all the walking helped me alot.

Back in the 50s and 60s, they knocked women out with scopalamine and yanked the babies out with forceps. Of course it was quicker.

There's that, too. Still happened in 70's. There were 3 kids in my family, and my mom only remembers delivering my sister (the youngest, born in '78), who was born in the hallway before they could get Mom to the delivery room and under anesthesia. She was unconscious for me and my brother - the doctor didn't even give her the option of a natural childbirth.

The study did not include women whose labors were induced.

Oops...I see that now. I actually looked for that but must not have read closely enough the first time. Thanks.

No problem.

It's hard to find a woman in my region who hasn't been induced. I think they're over doing the induction thing. I had 4 kids and was never induced... was on time for one, 1-2 weeks late for two, and a little over 3 weeks late for one. Now they say you must be induced if you're going to be a week late. Personally, I think it's to make the docs' lives easier!

The patient can refuse to be induced.

If you are 2 weeks past the due date, there are dangers to the baby. My son was 2 weeks past and the reason why I did not go into labor was because he was tangled in the cord (he would not drop). They could not see this on ultrsound and they did not even believe me when I said he wasn't moving anymore (because they still heard a heart beat). Not until his heart rate started bouncing around did they induce and then I waited 16 hours without an epidural before an emergency c-section.

More than once have I been poo pooed by physicians only to find out many months or years later that there really was something wrong!