I'm pregnant with #4, and I've been thinking a lot about my second daughter's birth lately. She was posterior, and it was by far the most dramatic of my labors. It went relatively well, but it was different than I would have chosen and I still second-guess my own decisions and the actions of the midwives who attended my birth (CNMs at a low intervention, baby-friendly hospital). I think it's worth revisiting because my brother and I were also born sunny-side up (2/3 of my mom's births) so I suspect there's some kind of anatomical/inherited tendency to carry our babies that way and it's something that might crop up again with this baby.
First, no one told me she was posterior until it was time to push. I'm not sure why? It frustrated me, because I had worried a lot about posterior births, researched a lot, and learned a lot about birth positions, labor positions to turn a baby. I would have worked harder during labor (spent more time on all fours, etc.) to turn her if I had known she was posterior again. A few days before at my prenatal, she had turned anterior.
She was still at -2 when I was fully dilated. My bag was also intact, and I asked the midwife to break my water, thinking maybe that would help her descend. Bad call, especially since she wasn't engaged (cord prolapse risk??)
The birth tub made my body temp rise (is that common? is it a sign that the water temp was too high?) so they asked me to get out. I was in transition and I have a very hard time getting from one place to another in transition, so I ended up staying out of the tub from that point on.
My midwife decided to try a flat on back, hyperextended (or something like that? I think my hips were elevated or something??) position for pushing, because she thought that would help dd get past my pelvic arch. I started pushing before fully dilated and before baby was engaged. My midwife held my cervix back and it was basically directed pushing. It was really an awful, painful pushing stage. I don't think I had a true urge to push but the back pain was so intense at that point that I just wanted everything to end (as I pushed, I was quite vocally telling my daughter to get the heck out of me. LOL). She came in about 45 minutes or an hour, which I know is relatively fast but in contrast my first was only a 20minute pushing stage and my third came out in a couple of quick pushes..
I can't recall reading other women's birth stories involving pushing when baby wasn't engaged. Was that just a really weird thing to do or is it more common than I realize? Is the pushing position the midwife recommended for a posterior birth something others do commonly? In contrast, I pushed my #3 out from a fully standing position and my first was sitting up, legs held back.
Anyone else have posterior birth stories? Input? (I'd love midwife/doula insight, but I know I'm not supposed to post this in the birth professionals forum.)
First, no one told me she was posterior until it was time to push. I'm not sure why? It frustrated me, because I had worried a lot about posterior births, researched a lot, and learned a lot about birth positions, labor positions to turn a baby. I would have worked harder during labor (spent more time on all fours, etc.) to turn her if I had known she was posterior again. A few days before at my prenatal, she had turned anterior.
She was still at -2 when I was fully dilated. My bag was also intact, and I asked the midwife to break my water, thinking maybe that would help her descend. Bad call, especially since she wasn't engaged (cord prolapse risk??)
The birth tub made my body temp rise (is that common? is it a sign that the water temp was too high?) so they asked me to get out. I was in transition and I have a very hard time getting from one place to another in transition, so I ended up staying out of the tub from that point on.
My midwife decided to try a flat on back, hyperextended (or something like that? I think my hips were elevated or something??) position for pushing, because she thought that would help dd get past my pelvic arch. I started pushing before fully dilated and before baby was engaged. My midwife held my cervix back and it was basically directed pushing. It was really an awful, painful pushing stage. I don't think I had a true urge to push but the back pain was so intense at that point that I just wanted everything to end (as I pushed, I was quite vocally telling my daughter to get the heck out of me. LOL). She came in about 45 minutes or an hour, which I know is relatively fast but in contrast my first was only a 20minute pushing stage and my third came out in a couple of quick pushes..
I can't recall reading other women's birth stories involving pushing when baby wasn't engaged. Was that just a really weird thing to do or is it more common than I realize? Is the pushing position the midwife recommended for a posterior birth something others do commonly? In contrast, I pushed my #3 out from a fully standing position and my first was sitting up, legs held back.
Anyone else have posterior birth stories? Input? (I'd love midwife/doula insight, but I know I'm not supposed to post this in the birth professionals forum.)








DD was posterior (and born sunny side up, so never turned) but I really had a short, uncomplicated labor. I also didn't know DD was posterior until probably 90 minutes before she was born. My water broke at 2:30 am, but I didn't have any contrax. I went to the hospital around 5:30 or 5 and had an enema to start labor around 8:30. (I had said I'd like to try nipple stimulation instead, which my m/w was fine with, but the nurse misheard and brought the enema and I was really scared of being induced, so I just let her go ahead and give it. Wouldn't do that again. lol)
