Black Women Have More C-Sections. “Racism” Is the Easy Answer. The Data Tell a Harder Story.

In 2024, Black women had the highest C-section rate in America — 37 in every 100 births. The reflex answer is racism. I put that answer to the data, and it does not hold up the way you would expect.

Every time these numbers come up, the explanation arrives fast: Black women have more C-sections because of racism.

It is a clean story. It fits what we already believe. And when I hold it against the data, it comes apart — in ways that should bother both sides of the argument.

Start with the fact, because it is real and it is large. In 2024, Black women in the United States were delivered by C-section 37.5 times out of every 100 births. White women, 31 times. The gap does not shrink when you look only at the lowest-risk births — first-time mothers, one baby, head-down, carried to term. There it is still about 31 in 100 for Black women and 26 in 100 for white women. And the gap has grown. In 2016 it was about half as wide. In the 1980s, Black women actually had fewer C-sections than average. A gap that grows over forty years is not written in anyone’s biology.

Some of it is real medicine

Part of the difference is not bias at all. It is illness.

Black women carry more of nearly every condition that leads to a surgical birth. Fibroids — benign muscle growths in the uterus that can block a normal delivery — appear in more than 80 out of 100 Black women by age 50, against about 70 out of 100 white women, and they roughly double the chance of a C-section.

High blood pressure in pregnancy is more common: about 21 in 100 versus 15 in 100. Obesity, which makes labor harder and longer: 57 in 100 versus 40 in 100. And most sobering, the risk of stillbirth is more than twice as high. A group carrying that much more risk should have more medically needed surgery. That is good care, not prejudice.

The comfortable rebuttal that also fails

When the illness explanation runs out, the popular answer is the hospital. Black women give birth in a smaller set of hospitals that do more C-sections, so the system sorts them into surgery. The sorting is real. But when researchers ran the experiment on paper — moving Black women to the same hospitals where white women deliver — the gap in low-risk C-sections barely closed. Even insurance, which I have long argued matters more than race for whether a mother survives childbirth, does not explain this one. The gap follows the patient, mostly inside the same buildings.

The test that actually matters

So is it the doctor in the room? One study was built to answer exactly that. Researchers took 726 birth providers and showed them identical fetal monitor strips. The only thing they changed was the patient’s race — Black or white.

The providers chose surgery at the same rate for both.

No bias in the decision that produces most C-sections.

And when women themselves ask for a C-section with no medical reason, Black women ask less often, not more. The loudest version of the story is the one the cleanest evidence supports least.

Where a real driver hides

Here is a cause that does hold up, and it is worth sitting with. For years, the calculator doctors used to predict whether a woman could safely deliver vaginally after a prior C-section had race built into its math. It handed Black women lower odds, which nudged them toward another surgery — even though Black women were more likely to try a vaginal birth and less likely to suffer the complication everyone feared. That was not a cruel doctor. It was a biased equation, used in good faith. It was removed in 2021. That is what a real structural driver looks like: specific, written down, and fixable.

What it means for you

If you are a patient, the lesson is not that your doctor is against you. It is to ask what your C-section is actually for. Ask about your own risks — your blood pressure, your fibroids, your blood sugar. And if you have had a C-section before, ask whether a vaginal birth is still on the table, because for years the tool that answered that question was quietly wrong.

My Take

The higher Black C-section rate is not bedside racism — the experiment says no, and women’s own choices point the other way. It is not simple biology — the gap grew, and some hospitals erase it completely. It is three things stacked together: real illness that calls for real surgery, one broken tool we have finally started to fix, and a leftover gap, about half of it, that honest researchers cannot yet explain. “We cannot explain it yet” is not the same as “racism.” One is an excuse to stop looking. The other is an instruction to keep going. We should keep going.

A note on how this was researched

I researched this piece with an AI — Claude, running its Fable 5 model — and then checked every number against the original sources: the CDC’s birth records and the published studies, each with a real citation. I use these tools the way Daniel Kahneman taught me to treat my own judgment: as something to check, never to trust on faith. The machine finds and organizes. The positions are mine.

Bottom line

Before you repeat the easy answer, look at what the data actually say. Share this with a colleague who still believes the gap has one simple cause. ObGyn Intelligence is free because the evidence should travel. If you want to keep it independent, a paid subscription does exactly that.

References

1. Osterman MJK, Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Driscoll AK, Valenzuela CP. Births: final data for 2024. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2026;75(2).

2. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Driscoll AK, Drake P. Births: final data for 2016. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2018;67(1).

3. Main EK, Chang SC, Tucker CM, Sakowski C, Leonard SA, Rosenstein MG. Hospital-level variation in racial disparities in low-risk nulliparous cesarean delivery rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2023;5(11):101145. PMID: 37648109.

4. Baird DD, Dunson DB, Hill MC, Cousins D, Schectman JM. High cumulative incidence of uterine leiomyoma in black and white women: ultrasound evidence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188(1):100-107. PMID: 12548202.

5. Li H, Hu Z, Fan Y, Hao Y. The influence of uterine fibroids on adverse outcomes in pregnant women: a meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024;24:345. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-024-06545-5.

6. Ford ND, Cox S, Ko JY, et al. Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy and mortality at delivery hospitalization — United States, 2017–2019. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71(17):585-591.

7. Hales CM, Carroll MD, Fryar CD, Ogden CL. Prevalence of obesity and severe obesity among adults: United States, 2017–2018. NCHS Data Brief No. 360; 2020.

8. Pruitt SM, Hoyert DL, Anderson KN, et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in fetal deaths — United States, 2015–2017. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69(37):1277-1282. PMID: 32941410.

9. Bane S, Mujahid MS, Kan P, Main EK, Carmichael SL. Can birth hospital explain racial/ethnic differences in cesarean birth among low-risk births? An analysis of California data, 2007-2018. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2026;13(4):2893-2904. PMID: 40327292.

10. Aron DC, Gordon HS, DiGiuseppe DL, Harper DL, Rosenthal GE. Variations in risk-adjusted cesarean delivery rates according to race and health insurance. Med Care. 2000;38(1):35-44. PMID: 10630718.

11. Edwards SE, Class QA, Ford CE, Alexander TA, Fleisher JD. Racial bias in cesarean decision-making. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2023;5(6):100927. PMID: 36921720.

12. Swain CA, Anderson MC, Shirazi A, Torrente S, Okwandu IC. Racial and ethnic trends in cesarean delivery on maternal request. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2026. PMID: 39775743.

13. Grobman WA, Sandoval G, Rice MM, et al. Prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in term gestations: a calculator without race and ethnicity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;225(6):664.e1-664.e7. PMID: 34043983.

14. Cahill AG, Stamilio DM, Odibo AO, et al. Racial disparity in the success and complications of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(3):654-658. PMID: 18310368.