Sweet Fellowship: Duggars and Friends (aka the Bates Family and Other Featured Families Thread)

[Nysha]

I think Nurie looks very pretty in the picture where she's wearing the brown sweater. Less makeup and fake posing is a good look for her.

[louannems]

Did I read her blog right in that she's had FOUR breach births vaginally?

Or does she mean they all flipped before the births?

[Temperance]

1 hour ago, Sew Sumi said:

Latest update: baby is breech and/or transverse. C-section scheduled for Wednesday unless the baby flips. The blog post goes into more detail as to the other challenges she may or may not have (Stormy IS prone to exaggeration). 

http://rodriguesfamilyministries.com/main/?p=3603#.WsxAMPYQpfg.facebook

Well, at least they discovered she's breech/transverse before Jill went into labor!

Edited April 10, 2018 by Temperance

[Barb23]

16 hours ago, Sew Sumi said:

They have a video cam. They can't record the birth, but I give her about an hour afterward to Stormify herself up and update the masses.

"Stormify" - love it ! 

Boy, Jill really disses C-sections & doctors in her update.  She doesn't seem to realize it was a knowledgeable doctor who advised them ahead of time of Baby #13's condition.  

BTW Jill, it's too bad some of us aren't as great a mother as you because we have had to have c-sections. 

I don't want anyone to suffer pain but I'm hoping they stick her good when placing her IV.  

[ginger90]

For anyone who doesn’t go to the  Rodrigues blog, here’s part of the post:

 

Let me tell you a bit of what is going on with our baby girl!   I have NEVER had to have a C-Section before with any of my previous 12 full-term births! Praise the Lord! I have ALWAYS chosen the NON-CONVENTIONAL/ NATURAL, little to no pain meds – way of doing things. 

If someone throws the word – “C-Section” at me, I resist. I want NATURAL and a mid-wife present, rather than nodding my head in full agreement at the “predictions” of doctors that may see a $ sign in giving me a C-Section as opposed the letting me birth the baby naturally. I give GOD the glory in giving me natural births with our first 12 children – including 4 breech babies right up to the the end! YIKES!

[doodlebug]

37 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

For anyone who doesn’t go to the  Rodrigues blog, here’s part of the post:

 

Let me tell you a bit of what is going on with our baby girl!   I have NEVER had to have a C-Section before with any of my previous 12 full-term births! Praise the Lord! I have ALWAYS chosen the NON-CONVENTIONAL/ NATURAL, little to no pain meds – way of doing things. 

If someone throws the word – “C-Section” at me, I resist. I want NATURAL and a mid-wife present, rather than nodding my head in full agreement at the “predictions” of doctors that may see a $ sign in giving me a C-Section as opposed the letting me birth the baby naturally. I give GOD the glory in giving me natural births with our first 12 children – including 4 breech babies right up to the the end! YIKES!

In what way would ANYONE other than this idjit consider vaginal birth to be 'non-conventional'.  Even in this day and age, most births are vaginal.  As to the 'little to no pain meds', once again, sounds like the way women have done it for centuries.  In other words, 'CONVENTIONAL'.

11 hours ago, louannems said:

Did I read her blog right in that she's had FOUR breach births vaginally?

Or does she mean they all flipped before the births?

I think she meant they turned (or were turned) prior to labor since she says it was 'right up to the end'.  In the post, she says the doctors cannot turn this baby (known as an external cephalic version); because the placenta is in a 'VERY DANGEROUS' spot.  That dangerous spot is known as the anterior wall of the uterus and many placentas implant there.  External cephalic version is done in cases where the baby is not headfirst and involves manipulating the baby through the mother's abdominal wall to try to get it to do a somersault into the headfirst position.  If the placenta is in front, then they have to grab hold of the baby through it which can lead to an abruption which is separation of the placenta from the uterine wall before delivery and can lead to serious complications for mom and baby.  It sounds like the doctors have also discouraged attempting a version because this baby might be more prone to fetal distress/compromise of oxygenation than a baby without these problems.

I've done hundreds of versions myself and would avoid doing them on women with anterior placentas or in situations where we worried that the baby was already stressed.  Sounds like Jill has actual real doctors.  In Jill's case, her belly is probably like Jello after 12 previous kids and, while it might be fairly easy to turn the kid, chances are good the kid would flip right back.

As for her assertion that the doctors perform cesareans for money, apparently she is not aware that many, if not most, insurance companies pay exactly the same amount for a cesarean as they do for a vaginal birth to the obstetrician, so there's no real financial incentive to doing a C/S for the doctor.

[SMama]

#FactsFirst, thank you @doodlebug.

[Temperance]

First Jill R makes fun of women wearing pants while either quoting her daughter Nurie, or putting words in Nurie's mouth. (Hard to tell)

Now, she makes fun of women who have c-sections.

She does realize her heroes the Duggars, both wear pants and have c-sections. Michelle and JB may not like their girls wearing pants, but it seems likely they would be upset with someone criticizing the girls to their hearing. (Actually JB and Michelle might not object or be upset, but I think most people would.) 

My point is Jill shouldn't be critical of things the Duggars do if she wants to be closer friends with them.

Jill's diatribe against c-sections is sick and nuts. There is nothing wrong with having a c-section. I think there is some prejudice against them in general that is more prevalent in their culture. 

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, ginger90 said:

For anyone who doesn’t go to the  Rodrigues blog, here’s part of the post:

 

Let me tell you a bit of what is going on with our baby girl!   I have NEVER had to have a C-Section before with any of my previous 12 full-term births! Praise the Lord! I have ALWAYS chosen the NON-CONVENTIONAL/ NATURAL, little to no pain meds – way of doing things. 

If someone throws the word – “C-Section” at me, I resist. I want NATURAL and a mid-wife present, rather than nodding my head in full agreement at the “predictions” of doctors that may see a $ sign in giving me a C-Section as opposed the letting me birth the baby naturally. I give GOD the glory in giving me natural births with our first 12 children – including 4 breech babies right up to the the end! YIKES!

I will never understand fundy logic.  Why do they not see God working through their doctors and nurses?  Why are midwives okay but not doctors?  Surely God can have a hand in a successful c-section.  Science and God are not mutually exclusive. 

[doodlebug]

16 minutes ago, Temperance said:

First Jill R makes fun of women wearing pants while either quoting her daughter Nurie, or putting words in Nurie's mouth. (Hard to tell)

Now, she makes fun of women who have c-sections.

She does realize her heroes the Duggars, both wear pants and have c-sections. Michelle and JB may not like their girls wearing pants, but it seems likely they would be upset with someone criticizing the girls to their hearing. (Actually JB and Michelle might not object or be upset, but I think most people would.) 

My point is Jill shouldn't be critical of things the Duggars do if she wants to be closer friends with them.

Jill's diatribe against c-sections is sick and nuts. There is nothing wrong with having a c-section. I think there is some prejudice against them in general that is more prevalent in their culture. 

I think the opposition to C-sections is based on their desire for huge families.  Women who have C/S have fewer kids on average, both because it is tougher on the body and because stuff that can limit fertility is more likely to happen with them.  What would Jill do if she couldn't have a baby every year?  Look at how quickly J'chelle slipped into BSC territory once the baby factory went out of business.  BTW,  I had a patient who had 10 kids all by C/S.  She would've had more had she not gone into menopause.  Kind of nutty, but not Duggar nutty.  She actually raised hers.

[ginger90]

If Jill has a section, she has rationalized that it is God’s plan. Does that only apply to her?

From the same blog:

We have HUNDREDS of people praying that she will flip, so if she does NOT, well……..it will REALLY show to me that God’s plan is C-section and I will rest fully in that. 

[emma675]

Quote

Let me tell you a bit of what is going on with our baby girl!   I have NEVER had to have a C-Section before with any of my previous 12 full-term births! Praise the Lord! I have ALWAYS chosen the NON-CONVENTIONAL/ NATURAL, little to no pain meds – way of doing things. 

If someone throws the word – “C-Section” at me, I resist. I want NATURAL and a mid-wife present, rather than nodding my head in full agreement at the “predictions” of doctors that may see a $ sign in giving me a C-Section as opposed the letting me birth the baby naturally. I give GOD the glory in giving me natural births with our first 12 children – including 4 breech babies right up to the the end! YIKES!

Two things:

1. I can't with her random capitalization. 

2. Screw you, bitch. Whether a baby is born vaginally or by C section doesn't matter. Either way is fine, as long as everyone is healthy.

[McManda]

Does Jill expect people to read with emphasis on her capitalized words? Does she give thought to if the capitalization is useful or necessary? (I'm sorry, USEFUL or NECESSARY.) 

Seriously, what's the point? It reads as stupid as best and vapid and patronizing at worst.

[lianau]

16 hours ago, louannems said:

Did I read her blog right in that she's had FOUR breach births vaginally?

Or does she mean they all flipped before the births?

My mother delivered twins naturally and the second baby was breach . So it's possible .

[prunieprune]

My first baby was breech and I tried to have her turned (wasn't successful).  I also tried to see if any hospital where I live (large metropolitan area with top-notch medical facilities) would try a breech vaginal delivery- while it was possible, it wasn't certain enough that I was willing to leave my OB so I went ahead with the c-section.  I was concerned about possible issues with future births, since it was my first baby, but have gone on to have two more vaginally.  Guess what?  All three are fabulous little people and nobody cares how they came out of me, just that they did (and we all lived to tell the tale).  

I would say that there is evidence (and I mean real evidence, not Jill's gut) to suggest that C-sections are sometimes scheduled for the convenience of MDs and in an overabundance of caution.  However, I think that Jill would have a lot of difficulty locating licensed well-established providers who don't think that: 1) breech babe; 2) 12 previous births; and 3) potential special needs baby is a no-brainer to c-section town.  

Edited April 10, 2018 by prunieprune

[doodlebug]

2 hours ago, prunieprune said:

My first baby was breech and I tried to have her turned (wasn't successful).  I also tried to see if any hospital where I live (large metropolitan area with top-notch medical facilities) would try a breech vaginal delivery- while it was possible, it wasn't certain enough that I was willing to leave my OB so I went ahead with the c-section.  I was concerned about possible issues with future births, since it was my first baby, but have gone on to have two more vaginally.  Guess what?  All three are fabulous little people and nobody cares how they came out of me, just that they did (and we all lived to tell the tale).  

I would say that there is evidence (and I mean real evidence, not Jill's gut) to suggest that C-sections are sometimes scheduled for the convenience of MDs and in an overabundance of caution.  However, I think that Jill would have a lot of difficulty locating licensed well-established providers who don't think that: 1) breech babe; 2) 12 previous births; and 3) potential special needs baby is a no-brainer to c-section town.  

 

In the case of a  breech baby (except perhaps when it is a second twin), there is a great deal of evidence based on multiple studies that they will do better when delivered by cesarean than vaginally.  They spend less time in the hospital, less likely to have a birth injury, less likely to need NICU, and most importantly, are less likely to have long term learning issues, seizures and other problems.  The differences are small, but in a country like the US where cesareans are pretty low risk surgeries, most experts feel it's not worth the risk to try to go from below.

One interesting thing discovered in the studies; the risks vary from practitioner to practitioner.  Older docs (and midwives) who did a lot of vaginal breech births back when it was the norm (all are retired or dead by now) got excellent results either way.  Kids delivered as a vaginal breech did just as well as those delivered by cesarean as long as the person delivering them had a lot of experience. The problem then became:  whose babies do we practice on? How can a practitioner get the hands-on experience to deliver breech babies vaginally?  Here in the US, they can't.  Hence, almost no one recommends attempting to deliver a breech vaginally

BTW, overall, breech babies, no matter how they're born; tend to do worse than babies who are cephalic (headfirst).  They're more likely to have distress in labor, to have birth injuries, to have breathing problems, etc.  Their apgars are lower overall.  Breech kids are also more likely to have birth defects.

Edited April 11, 2018 by doodlebug

[lookeyloo]

24 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

In the case of a  breech baby (except perhaps when it is a second twin), there is a great deal of evidence based on multiple studies that they will do better when delivered by cesarean than vaginally.  They spend less time in the hospital, less likely to have a birth injury, less likely to need NICU, and most importantly, are less likely to have long term learning issues, seizures and other problems.  The differences are small, but in a country like the US where cesareans are pretty low risk surgeries, most experts feel it's not worth the risk to try to go from below.

One interesting thing discovered in the studies; the risks vary from practitioner to practitioner.  Older docs (and midwives) who did a lot of vaginal breech births back when it was the norm (all are retired or dead by now) got excellent results either way.  Kids delivered as a vaginal breech did just as well as those delivered by cesarean as long as the person delivering them had a lot of experience. The problem then became:  whose babies do we practice on? How can a practitioner get the hands-on experience to deliver breech babies vaginally?  Here in the US, they can't.  Hence, almost no one recommends attempting to deliver a breech vaginally

BTW, overall, breech babies, no matter how they're born; tend to do worse than babies who are cephalic (headfirst).  They're more likely to have distress in labor, to have birth injuries, to have breathing problems, etc.  Their apgars are lower overall.  Breech kids are also more likely to have birth defects.

That is so interesting @doodlebug  is it speculated that the breech babies are compromised by their breech position or are in that position because of other issues?  I guess I don’t know how to ask the question. Maybe chicken / egg?

And did you hear that Seth Meyer’s wife had the second baby in the lobby of their building? Talk about popping it out!

[doodlebug]

32 minutes ago, lookeyloo said:

That is so interesting @doodlebug  is it speculated that the breech babies are compromised by their breech position or are in that position because of other issues?  I guess I don’t know how to ask the question. Maybe chicken / egg?

And did you hear that Seth Meyer’s wife had the second baby in the lobby of their building? Talk about popping it out!

It seems most likely that, because of their other problems, babies end up being breech simply aren't able to move as well as kids who aren't. For example, think of Jill's baby who has apparently had an intrauterine stroke.  If she has weakness of an arm or leg or both due to it, it could be that she simply wasn't able to move into position like a more agile baby might.

I saw the clips of Seth Meyer talking about it on the Today Show this morning, he was pretty funny, although stunned.  Apparently, her first baby came very quickly, they got to the hospital barely in time with that one.  Women who have fast labors tend to get faster and faster.  I've certainly had patients who had labors that lasted less than an hour, some of whom delivered at home or in the car.  I had one patient with very fast labors, about 45 minutes total.  With her third, her husband ended up pulling into the local fire station where she was delivered in the back seat of their car by paramedics.  She was really embarrassed about it, her kids usually came about a week late, so we made plans to induce her before her due date.  She went into labor 2 weeks EARLY that time, and, as she was being delivered by the paramedics at the same fire station, one of the firemen said, "Hey, didn't you have a baby here a couple years ago?"  She said she wanted to crawl under the seat, bad enough it happened agin, but to have the firefighters recognize her from the last time she'd delivered at the firehouse....

Edited April 11, 2018 by doodlebug

[Zella]

13 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

I had one patient with very fast labors, about 45 minutes total.  With her third, her husband ended up pulling into the local fire station where she was delivered in the back seat of their car by paramedics.  She was really embarrassed about it, her kids usually came about a week late, so we made plans to induce her before her due date.  She went into labor 2 weeks EARLY that time, and, as she was being delivered by the paramedics at the same fire station, one of the firemen said, "Hey, didn't you have a baby here a couple years ago?"  She said she wanted to crawl under the seat, bad enough it happened agin, but to have the firefighters recognize her from the last time she'd delivered at the firehouse....

That's a great story!

And thanks so much for always sharing your professional expertise! I've learned so much from your posts!

[yogi2014L]

24 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

It seems most likely that, because of their other problems, babies end up being breech simply aren't able to move as well as kids who aren't. For example, think of Jill's baby who has apparently had an intrauterine stroke.  If she has weakness of an arm or leg or both due to it, it could be that she simply wasn't able to move into position like a more agile baby might.

I saw the clips of Seth Meyer talking about it on the Today Show this morning, he was pretty funny, although stunned.  Apparently, her first baby came very quickly, they got to the hospital barely in time with that one.  Women who have fast labors tend to get faster and faster.  I've certainly had patients who had labors that lasted less than an hour, some of whom delivered at home or in the car.  I had one patient with very fast labors, about 45 minutes total.  With her third, her husband ended up pulling into the local fire station where she was delivered in the back seat of their car by paramedics.  She was really embarrassed about it, her kids usually came about a week late, so we made plans to induce her before her due date.  She went into labor 2 weeks EARLY that time, and, as she was being delivered by the paramedics at the same fire station, one of the firemen said, "Hey, didn't you have a baby here a couple years ago?"  She said she wanted to crawl under the seat, bad enough it happened agin, but to have the firefighters recognize her from the last time she'd delivered at the firehouse....

 

@doodlebug thank you so much for your expertise and I always enjoy your posts. Especially as a currently preggo, I always learn from you. We are truly lucky to have you on this forum! And 45 minute labors! Thats really...efficient! And scary haha. 

My sisters first was 9 hours start to finish and her second was 6 hours start to finish, we joke her next one is going to be born in the car. But she actually was pretty stressed about it when she got close to her due date with #2

ETA: Jill can suck a dick with her sanctimonious posts. Does she not know that it is pretty trendy right now to not die in childbirth? What an effing twat.

Edited April 11, 2018 by yogi2014L

[Heathen]

Seth Meyers cracked me up. "She looked like someone who was hiding a baby in a pair of sweatpants!" Lol 

I had a science teacher in the eighth grade who swore she had an eleven-month pregnancy. She said she conceived against her doctor's advice after having some kidney issues, and that all attempts at induction failed. She said her labor, when it finally started, lasted half an hour, the baby's hair was past her shoulders, and the nurses clipped her fingernails in the delivery room. I've always wondered if that whole scenario was even possible. This would have been in the 1950s or '60s, probably. @doodlebug? 

Back on topic. I hope the baby does as well as she can and that she is not in pain. 

[Heathen]

Deleted. 

Edited April 11, 2018 by Heathen
To remove personal information

[xtwheeler]

16 minutes ago, Heathen said:

Seth Meyers cracked me up. "She looked like someone who was hiding a baby in a pair of sweatpants!" Lol 

I had a science teacher in the eighth grade who swore she had an eleven-month pregnancy. She said she conceived against her doctor's advice after having some kidney issues, and that all attempts at induction failed. She said her labor, when it finally started, lasted half an hour, the baby's hair was past her shoulders, and the nurses clipped her fingernails in the delivery room. I've always wondered if that whole scenario was even possible. This would have been in the 1950s or '60s, probably. @doodlebug? 

Back on topic. I hope the baby does as well as she can and that she is not in pain. 

I'm not the highly esteemed doodlebug, but I have seen some post-dates babies, and they look very different! Vernix (white stuff on their skin) is gone, nails are long, etc. The placenta is where the really shocking difference is, and why doctors really won't let you go more than 2 weeks post dates anymore - - the placenta begins to break down and no longer efficiently provides oxygen and nutrients. They look like they're rotting away in very post-dates deliveries. 

My mom's 2 labors were about an hour with my brother, and less than an hour with me. I was born while my dad was parking the car after getting her to the hospital. Unfortunately, she did not pass that trait along, and after 14 hours of hard labor and at 2 centimeters still (with 5 minute contractions 30 seconds apart) I was blessed with a c-section once my baby's heart rate started to halve with every contraction. If you believe in God, surely you must believe God is in the medical school curriculum and your surgeon's hands, as well.

[Gweilo]

8 minutes ago, xtwheeler said:

 If you believe in God, surely you must believe God is in the medical school curriculum and your surgeon's hands, as well.

Exactly! When my dad was having surgery, my prayers went: "Dear God, please let his surgeons be well rested today, confident in their knowledge, surrounded by support staff who are alert and calm, and remember their training and studies, amen." If I was Jill R, I should have just hovered a bible above the affected part and poured a libation of Plexus.

[doodlebug]

48 minutes ago, Heathen said:

Seth Meyers cracked me up. "She looked like someone who was hiding a baby in a pair of sweatpants!" Lol 

I had a science teacher in the eighth grade who swore she had an eleven-month pregnancy. She said she conceived against her doctor's advice after having some kidney issues, and that all attempts at induction failed. She said her labor, when it finally started, lasted half an hour, the baby's hair was past her shoulders, and the nurses clipped her fingernails in the delivery room. I've always wondered if that whole scenario was even possible. This would have been in the 1950s or '60s, probably. @doodlebug? 

Back on topic. I hope the baby does as well as she can and that she is not in pain. 

In a word, no.  She was probably wrong about her due date, it happened a lot back before ultrasounds.  If she'd been sick before she got pregnant, that could've messed up her periods.  It is most likely that the inductions failed because she just wasn't term yet; and stuff like Pitocin works best at term.  A lot of babies have long fingernails, and, back in the day, nursery nurses often trimmed them.  They don't do it anymore because of liability issues.  (yes, people have sued because someone trimmed the baby's nails)  As for hair past her shoulders, I've seen some pretty hairy kids, never seen a baby born with hair that long and I've seen thousands of 'em.

[Heathen]

It sounded fishy to me even at thirteen. Thanks, @doodlebug! 

[Catfin]

3 hours ago, doodlebug said:

In the case of a  breech baby (except perhaps when it is a second twin), there is a great deal of evidence based on multiple studies that they will do better when delivered by cesarean than vaginally.  They spend less time in the hospital, less likely to have a birth injury, less likely to need NICU, and most importantly, are less likely to have long term learning issues, seizures and other problems.  The differences are small, but in a country like the US where cesareans are pretty low risk surgeries, most experts feel it's not worth the risk to try to go from below.

One interesting thing discovered in the studies; the risks vary from practitioner to practitioner.  Older docs (and midwives) who did a lot of vaginal breech births back when it was the norm (all are retired or dead by now) got excellent results either way.  Kids delivered as a vaginal breech did just as well as those delivered by cesarean as long as the person delivering them had a lot of experience. The problem then became:  whose babies do we practice on? How can a practitioner get the hands-on experience to deliver breech babies vaginally?  Here in the US, they can't.  Hence, almost no one recommends attempting to deliver a breech vaginally

BTW, overall, breech babies, no matter how they're born; tend to do worse than babies who are cephalic (headfirst).  They're more likely to have distress in labor, to have birth injuries, to have breathing problems, etc.  Their apgars are lower overall.  Breech kids are also more likely to have birth defects.

Interesting theory, makes sense. My doc said much the same re: forceps deliveries just before delivering DD with "salad tongs." Lol. Three hours pushing, one gentle guide of her head with forceps and DD was born.  We'll not discuss pelvic floor repair at this juncture however. 

[Temperance]

8 hours ago, doodlebug said:

In the case of a  breech baby (except perhaps when it is a second twin), there is a great deal of evidence based on multiple studies that they will do better when delivered by cesarean than vaginally.  They spend less time in the hospital, less likely to have a birth injury, less likely to need NICU, and most importantly, are less likely to have long term learning issues, seizures and other problems.  The differences are small, but in a country like the US where cesareans are pretty low risk surgeries, most experts feel it's not worth the risk to try to go from below.

One interesting thing discovered in the studies; the risks vary from practitioner to practitioner.  Older docs (and midwives) who did a lot of vaginal breech births back when it was the norm (all are retired or dead by now) got excellent results either way.  Kids delivered as a vaginal breech did just as well as those delivered by cesarean as long as the person delivering them had a lot of experience. The problem then became:  whose babies do we practice on? How can a practitioner get the hands-on experience to deliver breech babies vaginally?  Here in the US, they can't.  Hence, almost no one recommends attempting to deliver a breech vaginally

BTW, overall, breech babies, no matter how they're born; tend to do worse than babies who are cephalic (headfirst).  They're more likely to have distress in labor, to have birth injuries, to have breathing problems, etc.  Their apgars are lower overall.  Breech kids are also more likely to have birth defects.

Would this still be true if you were to "flip" the baby long before delivery? I've heard stories about women who were told they were breech and they tried to turn the baby before labor. 

[Jynnan tonnix]

10 hours ago, xtwheeler said:

I'm not the highly esteemed doodlebug, but I have seen some post-dates babies, and they look very different! Vernix (white stuff on their skin) is gone, nails are long, etc. The placenta is where the really shocking difference is, and why doctors really won't let you go more than 2 weeks post dates anymore - - the placenta begins to break down and no longer efficiently provides oxygen and nutrients. They look like they're rotting away in very post-dates deliveries. 

Interesting. I haven't seen a huge number of really, really new babies outside of those people post on their Facebook pages, and in general I don't know which of those were born past their due dates or otherwise. My granddaughter was born early in the 10th day past her due date after a 36 hour labor, and, as I've mentioned, looked (to my doting grandma eye) to be uncommonly perfect and alert. So do those extra days of "baking" contribute to how 'finished the baby appears at birth? makes sense, but I never really thought about it other than past-term babies being a bit chubbier and more filled out.

Anyway, as this seems a semi apropos spot for it, here's the photo I mentioned upthread of granddaughter only about 8 hours after she was born:

[ginger90]

8 minutes ago, Jynnan tonnix said:

 

Anyway, as this seems a semi apropos spot for it, here's the photo I mentioned upthread of granddaughter only about 8 hours after she was born:

She is adorable!

[andromeda331]

27 minutes ago, Jynnan tonnix said:

Interesting. I haven't seen a huge number of really, really new babies outside of those people post on their Facebook pages, and in general I don't know which of those were born past their due dates or otherwise. My granddaughter was born early in the 10th day past her due date after a 36 hour labor, and, as I've mentioned, looked (to my doting grandma eye) to be uncommonly perfect and alert. So do those extra days of "baking" contribute to how 'finished the baby appears at birth? makes sense, but I never really thought about it other than past-term babies being a bit chubbier and more filled out.

Anyway, as this seems a semi apropos spot for it, here's the photo I mentioned upthread of granddaughter only about 8 hours after she was born:

She is so cute!

[doodlebug]

4 hours ago, Temperance said:

Would this still be true if you were to "flip" the baby long before delivery? I've heard stories about women who were told they were breech and they tried to turn the baby before labor. 

Yes, most of us try to flip the kiddo before labor.  Once labor begins or the water breaks, it's a lot harder to do.  Some people will do versions as early as 32 weeks.  The thing is, many, if not most, kids who are breech at 32 weeks will flip spontaneously to headfirst without any interventions, why not let Mother Nature do it?  I usually try to do versions around 36-37 weeks because the baby should do well even if we need to do an emergency delivery.  As the pregnancy gets closer to the due date, the baby gets bigger and there is relatively less amniotic fluid surrounding it which makes it difficult to vert.

As for post dates, as noted above; the amount of fluid around the baby tends to lessen and can even be dangerously low which can lead to problems with cord compression.  The vernix (cheesy stuff on the baby's skin that keeps it from wrinkling up in the fluid) wears away and so the baby's skin can pucker like it's been in the tub too long.  The skin can often start to peel, too, so overdue kids tend to be a little flaky.  They also can start to lose weight because the placenta starts to calcify and there aren't as many nutrients getting through. However, this happens at different rates in each case.  Some kids will look way overcooked at a week overdue, others look just fine at 2 weeks or more.

As far as the 11 month pregnancy with the shoulder length hair; presume the kid was born at 9 months.  How likely is it to see a 2 month old with hair below their shoulders?  Doesn't happen.  If a baby doesn't have shoulder length hair at 2 months outside the womb, it can't grow that long inside it either.

[EAG46]

When I was born 46 years ago there WAS no ultrasound, so when my mother went to the hospital in labor with me, the fact that I was breech was a surprise.  And being a big baby, I couldn't be flipped, so I was a C-section.  I was also almost 2 weeks late.  But still in those ancient days she had more and better medical care than I suspect this newest baby of Jill R will receive.  Has the baby been born yet?  

[Jynnan tonnix]

10 hours ago, EAG46 said:

When I was born 46 years ago there WAS no ultrasound, so when my mother went to the hospital in labor with me, the fact that I was breech was a surprise.  And being a big baby, I couldn't be flipped, so I was a C-section.  I was also almost 2 weeks late.  But still in those ancient days she had more and better medical care than I suspect this newest baby of Jill R will receive.  Has the baby been born yet?  

When I was born 59 years ago no one realized that my mother was carrying (identical) twins. Apparently the way we were situated made an extra heartbeat difficult to discern. I was due at the beginning of March. In late December my mother's blood pressure shot up and her doctor made an appointment to see her January 3rd after the holidays. My father was away for a couple of weeks at the time, so she was staying with family and went into labor January 2nd. Since she was too far away from her regular doctor she went to the nearest hospital where everyone who took a look at her told her she was assuredly full term based on her size. It wasn't until I was born at 3 lb, 2 oz, that they believed she actually had her dates right, and yet still no one suspected twins until the young nurse left with my mother to wait for the placenta screamed that another baby was coming.

Sadly, my sister didn't make it. In this day of ultrasounds and other tests I'd assume it would probably have been almost certain that twins would have been confirmed and emergency services in place by the time we were delivered, and every chance that we would have both survived. It's still a scenario which I could easily see taking place with the Duggars/Dr.Jill and her "medical things", though. Hope it never comes to that

Edited April 12, 2018 by Jynnan tonnix

[DkNNy79]

15 minutes ago, Jynnan tonnix said:

When I was born 58 years ago no one realized that my mother was carrying twins. Apparently the way we were situated made an extra heartbeat difficult to discern. I was due at the beginning of March. In late December my mother's blood pressure shot up and her doctor made an appointment to see her January 3rd after the holidays. My father was away for a couple of weeks at the time, so she was staying with family and went into labor January 2nd. Since she was too far away from her regular doctor she went to the nearest hospital were everyone who took a look at her told her she was assuredly full term based on her size. It wasn't until I was born at 3.2 lb, that they believed she actually had her dates right, and yet still no one suspected twins until the young nurse left with my mother to wait for the placenta screamed that another baby was coming.

Sadly, my sister didn't make it. In this day of ultrasounds and other tests I'd assume it would probably have been almost certain that twins would have been confirmed and emergency services in place by the time we were delivered, and every chance that we would have both survived. It's still a scenario which I could easily see taking place with the Duggars/Dr.Jill and her "medical things", though. Hope it never comes to that

What a story.  Thanks for sharing.  I am so saddened to hear about your little sister :(

[Love2dance]

4 hours ago, Jynnan tonnix said:

Interesting. I haven't seen a huge number of really, really new babies outside of those people post on their Facebook pages, and in general I don't know which of those were born past their due dates or otherwise. My granddaughter was born early in the 10th day past her due date after a 36 hour labor, and, as I've mentioned, looked (to my doting grandma eye) to be uncommonly perfect and alert. So do those extra days of "baking" contribute to how 'finished the baby appears at birth? makes sense, but I never really thought about it other than past-term babies being a bit chubbier and more filled out.

Anyway, as this seems a semi apropos spot for it, here's the photo I mentioned upthread of granddaughter only about 8 hours after she was born:

Awww, thanks for posting the picture. She is so precious. 

[NewGranny]

My niece just had her first baby on March 28th.  She was due on April 2nd, but since her doctor was going out of town, she opted to have her water broken to induce since she was afraid to have a strange doctor see her.  She had no idea that the nurses would be doing most of the checking.  LOL  Anyway, her baby girl was obviously not ready to come out because 31 hours after they broke her water she had to have a c-section due to her fighting against the pictocin because she was afraid of pain (FYI she wanted to have natural childbirth so I am not sure what she thought was going to happen pain wise).  She finally allowed to be medically induced, but still no baby.  She then developed an infection from her water being broken too early and having strep A or B (not sure which) that the doctor was aware that she was positive for 2 weeks prior but did not treat.  So she had an emergency section and the baby had to stay in the NICU for a few days because she had a fever as well.  I was not happy with her doctor or my niece for trying to force the labor for no good reason.

Anyway, I just started following Jill and her family and since FJ doesn't seem to want to approve my request to join the site, I guess that I will baby watch there but post here.  :)

[FakeJoshDuggar]

On 4/10/2018 at 1:11 AM, Sew Sumi said:

Latest update: baby is breech and/or transverse. C-section scheduled for Wednesday unless the baby flips. The blog post goes into more detail as to the other challenges she may or may not have (Stormy IS prone to exaggeration). 

http://rodriguesfamilyministries.com/main/?p=3603#.WsxAMPYQpfg.facebook

Why do I feel like Nurie is sucking up to the parent who likely controls the food?  (I’m cynical, I admit it.)

[sr7698]

Holy crap.  Nurie's "note" looks like something I would have made in 4th grade.  Complete with tracing a marker over letters written in pen.  

[Normades]

12 minutes ago, sr7698 said:

Holy crap.  Nurie's "note" looks like something I would have made in 4th grade.  Complete with tracing a marker over letters written in pen.  

I thought the same thing.  It looks very juvenile, not like something an 18 year old young lady would have written.  It's so sad that these kids don't get a chance at a decent education.

[Sew Sumi]

Just checked FB. No news yet. I'd actually be surprised if she posted anything today, despite my jokes about Stormifying herself up to do a video.

[doodlebug]

46 minutes ago, Sew Sumi said:

Just checked FB. No news yet. I'd actually be surprised if she posted anything today, despite my jokes about Stormifying herself up to do a video.

I hope she's just not feeling up to posting and not that the baby is doing poorly.  Jill and Chimpy aren't my favorite people, but I wouldn't wish a sick baby on anyone.

Nurie seems incredibly childish, not just her writing, but her entire persona.  I remember being 18 and I remember being far more mature than she seems to be.  It's not just the intellectual stunting, it's the emotional stuff that bugs.  Remember, Jill has been soliciting a husband for Nurie for almost a year now.  Then look at that note.  She is not anywhere close to being adult enough for marriage.  

Edited April 11, 2018 by doodlebug

[bythelake]

On 4/10/2018 at 12:20 PM, ginger90 said:

For anyone who doesn’t go to the  Rodrigues blog, here’s part of the post:

 

Let me tell you a bit of what is going on with our baby girl!   I have NEVER had to have a C-Section before with any of my previous 12 full-term births! Praise the Lord! I have ALWAYS chosen the NON-CONVENTIONAL/ NATURAL, little to no pain meds – way of doing things. 

If someone throws the word – “C-Section” at me, I resist. I want NATURAL and a mid-wife present, rather than nodding my head in full agreement at the “predictions” of doctors that may see a $ sign in giving me a C-Section as opposed the letting me birth the baby naturally. I give GOD the glory in giving me natural births with our first 12 children – including 4 breech babies right up to the the end! YIKES!

If it were not for the fact that Jill is an idiot, I would really take offense with her comment about the doctors seeing $ signs.

Years ago, one of the doctors I worked with added up how much he was actually being paid for prenatal care and delivery. At that time the doctors were asking $1000. for prenatal care and delivery. The insurance companies would only pay a portion of that, usually 80%.

The doctor added up all the prenatal visits, the hours spent  at the hospital with the laboring patient, the actual delivery, and the postpartum visit.

If a patient had a complicated pregnancy and was seen more often, it was included in that fee. If she had complications post-partum, and needed extra office visits, that was all included.  When he finished tallying it all up, it came up to less than minimum wage per hour.

If he/she happened to be a popular doctor and had more than one patient in labor, they could wind up staying there for days. I remember one doctor's wife bringing her husband a clean shirt,underwear and socks because he hadn't been home for 3 days.

It seems like Jill is getting good prenatal care. It would be nice if she would shut her mouth and appreciate all that is being done for her.

[Zahdii]

Jill R. had the baby.

Janessa Ruth. 8 lb, 7 oz

No word yet on anything else.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Zahdii

[Heathen]

9 minutes ago, Zahdii said:

Jill R. had the baby.

Janessa Ruth. 8 lb, 7 oz

No word yet on anything else.

Janessa? 

In Duggarville, Jim Bob and Mullet are pissed that they missed a J name. 

I hope Janessa is as well as can be expected and does not suffer. 

[Ocean Chick]

That’s a good sized baby anyway. Jill at least didn’t starve herself during pregnancy in order to keep her figure. 

[Fuzzysox]

Congrats to the Stormy's family on the new precious sweetest blessing.

Janessa sounds like a made up name because she couldn't decide between Jana or Vanessa. Meh, not what I expected.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Fuzzysox

[Tabbygirl521]

Jana + Jessa, her most admired Duggars. 

[madpsych78]

8 minutes ago, Tabbygirl521 said:

Jana + Jessa, her most admired Duggars. 

That's what I was thinking! Janessa = Jana + Jessa

[McManda]

Hmmm ... Janessa. Not sure what I expected, but their oldest daughter is named Nurie. It's not like they were tied to traditional names. 

Best of luck to you, little Janessa. I have a feeling you'll need it.