Put a pricetag on the baby!

[justajane]

Where's this perception coming from that in life or death situations in the hospital that it takes 10-15 minutes to get a patient in the OR? I had a friend who was in a life or death situation, and the nurses and doctors literally ran her down the hall to the OR. Usually laboring women already have an IV in place (even if they don't have it hooked up), so we're talking seconds before they are wheeled somewhere to get the baby out. At home, you have to wait for the emergency vehicle and deal with potential traffic. Plus the transfer into the hospital, etc.

But the biggest risk to birthing at home is to the baby and not the mother (Gin's story and others excepted, and her story should really give any mother pause). If you have the stomach for it, read through these heart wrenching stories some time (http://hurtbyhomebirth.blogspot.com/). Yes, these might be extreme cases, but they nonetheless happened. And any information/cites coming out of Britain should not be considered for American homebirth, since midwives in Britain receive significantly more training than most American midwives.

The superbug scare is rather overblown by midwives and natural advocates as well, not to mention the horrible fear of c-sections. They should certainly be minimized, but how many women do each of us know that have had c-sections and are perfectly fine? A c-section is not a death sentence, but the way natural birth advocates discuss it you would think it is.

Although rather vociferous herself, Dr. Amy Tuteur and her website the Skeptical OB is informative and breaks down some of the arguments, providing various citations and statistics (although one of her main points is that midwives are notoriously tight lipped and won't release mortality rates).

[frogger]

Those stories (on Hurt by Homebirth) are just devastating.

I feel like homebirth is something that seems akin to MMM--challenging conventional wisdom and figuring out better ways to do things (spend money, have a baby) and all--but it is very insidiously not. I don't have any kids, but I like learning about stuff, and in a lot of ways learning about natural childbirth/homebirth felt like learning about financial independence, in that it seems like both are the skeptical approach:

-Holy shit, saving money is so cool and having FU money built up is freeing and look at all the ways frugality goes hand in hand with health and environmental consciousness!

-Holy shit, having a baby is built up with all this cultural misinformation and doing it without modern medicine mucking it up is badass and how it should be!

And I was so proud of figuring out both of these things!

Except the former is 95% valuable information and 5% harmless fanaticism, and the latter is 5% useful information and 95% lies and dangerous quackery. And coming back out of that first pass skepticism by digging deeper into real, actual peer-reviewed research and not the pseudoscientific just-so stories of NCB/homebirth proponents was a cognitive dissonance so powerful it was viscerally painful. Luckily for me and for my hypothetical future offspring I have training in reading scientific papers, so science won, and any children of mine will be born in a location equipped to deal with the likelihood of a totally straightforward birth as well as the possibility of something going catastrophically wrong. That phase only lasted about six months, while MMM is forever.

For anyone who thinks choosing homebirth (or even freestanding birth center birth) is the baby-having counterpart of Mustachianism, be wary. Dig deeper. I can pull the links to studies that have come out in just the last two years if anyone wants them.

[ASquared]

Yes, please do "pull out the studies" because the latest research supports freestanding birth centers and home birth with appropriately trained caregivers and appropriately screened women.

There are just as many "tragic stories" of women dying from hospital interventions. Amniotic emboli from cervical gels for example.  And no, C/S are not risk free. Potential for damage to bladder, intestines and other organs. Potential for infection. Wound complications. And further screwing over the woman's chance of having a vaginal birth later. Despite VBAC being the recommendation, many OB's and hospitals still refuse to "allow" this.

If you want to research this, research BOTH sides. Read up on Ina May Gaskin. The birth stories of women and children injured or killed by unnecessary interventions.

[Gin1984]

Yes, please do "pull out the studies" because the latest research supports freestanding birth centers and home birth with appropriately trained caregivers and appropriately screened women.

There are just as many "tragic stories" of women dying from hospital interventions. Amniotic emboli from cervical gels for example.  And no, C/S are not risk free. Potential for damage to bladder, intestines and other organs. Potential for infection. Wound complications. And further screwing over the woman's chance of having a vaginal birth later. Despite VBAC being the recommendation, many OB's and hospitals still refuse to "allow" this.

If you want to research this, research BOTH sides. Read up on Ina May Gaskin. The birth stories of women and children injured or killed by unnecessary interventions.

How about not sides, the facts.  Can you show any peer reviewed studies that there a benefits to home birth?  Then compare that to the wedmd article showing a four times high death rate of home birth rate compared to the hospital?  Tell me, why should be refuse life saving treatments.  Give me one single benefits of not having access to medical technology.  Nothing is risk free, but lack of medical tech is more risky than having it. 
These are not just anecdotes (though I do have one) but also statistics.  Why would you want to risk your and your child's life? 

[ASquared]

Up To Date has several references I can list, though I am traveling and don't have institutional access for about a month.  The UK is now recommending home birth OVER hospital delivery in uncomplicated cases.  In The Netherlands this has always been a common practice, with infant and maternal statistics that are much better than the US. Hmmmm.

It is BECAUSE I am concerned about my baby's (and my own) safety that I chose to avoid a hospital. I had my baby at a free standing birth center. FYI, a Children's Hospital was across the street. Free standing and hospital birth centers are not equivalent FYI. Had I chosen a hospital or a birth center associated with a hospital, I would have had a C/S.  I'm very thankful that I made the right decision for my family. (My water broke >24 hours before baby arrived, which a hospital does not "allow").

I respect the right of each woman to decide for herself where she is most comfortable birthing, and believe that all choices should be offered to her.

[frogger]

Yes, please do "pull out the studies" because the latest research supports freestanding birth centers and home birth with appropriately trained caregivers and appropriately screened women.

All righty, gimme a minute to go find where I stashed them. In the mean time, please define appropriately trained caregivers and appropriately screened women, because that's part of the problem--inappropriately trained caregivers thinking they are appropriately trained, and inappropriately screened women thinking they are appropriately screened. Without some strict regulation (which, BTW, we in the US do not have), anyone looking at what you just wrote can think they are as trained or screened as necessary and still be as ill-informed and ill-prepared as the person who drives off the new car lot thinking they got a "great deal" because they read up on some negotiating tips ahead of time.

[ASquared]

I don't know where you live.  But most states have guidelines for eligibility for out of hospital birth. Typically must be between 36-41 weeks gestation. Moms/babies must have no high risk factors. No Type I DM. Prior C/S status varies but often a disqualifier. There are others. 

Adequately trained - again most states have regulations about this. There are several pathways to becoming a midwife.  There are some OB's out there that do home birth and free-standing birth centers as well. (I was delivered by an OB at a free standing center.)

There are some states where home birth is illegal. Ironically, it is not illegal to deliver your own child at home with zero medical attention, but it is illegal for a midwife or OB to attend your care in these states. 

[Gin1984]

Up To Date has several references I can list, though I am traveling and don't have institutional access for about a month.  The UK is now recommending home birth OVER hospital delivery in uncomplicated cases. In The Netherlands this has always been a common practice, with infant and maternal statistics that are much better than the US. Hmmmm.

It is BECAUSE I am concerned about my baby's (and my own) safety that I chose to avoid a hospital. I had my baby at a free standing birth center. FYI, a Children's Hospital was across the street. Free standing and hospital birth centers are not equivalent FYI. Had I chosen a hospital or a birth center associated with a hospital, I would have had a C/S.  I'm very thankful that I made the right decision for my family. (My water broke >24 hours before baby arrived, which a hospital does not "allow").

I respect the right of each woman to decide for herself where she is most comfortable birthing, and believe that all choices should be offered to her.

The Netherlands has a 20% home birth rate.  I would not call that common.  Nor would I call, an attached or across the street birthing center equivalent to home birth, again because of delay in treatment.  But again there is a difference in the policies in the Netherlands than here.  If we are looking at US, use US data.  I find it slightly amusing that the "hospital did not allow it".  No one allowed anything in my birth, but me.

[Thegoblinchief]

You guys should start a new thread at this point. It's not answering the OPs question at all.

[chouchouu]

Although technically breastfeeding is close to free after startup costs (nursing bras, milk storage, nursing pads, creams, medicine if you get mastitis, etc), it's expensive in terms of time. 

Exactly.

It takes just as much time to bottle-feed a baby as it does to breast feed one. But with breast feeding you're done and you put them away. Bottles need to be washed, refilled and stored. I would think the time cost of bottle feeding would be way more than breastfeeding.

I found breastfeeding took me much longer than bottle feeding. For the first few weeks it would take between 20 mins to 70 minutes just to get a latch, mostly about 40 minutes. Then breastfeeding itself would usually take another 40 minutes or longer. Bottle feeding there was no latching of course and I could measure how much they had taken so that if they fell asleep I wouldn't be woken 20 minutes later by a hungry baby. Breastfeeding my twins was exhausting and costly as well. I was so exhausted we ended up getting a cleaning lady and husband took time off work because I was adamant I would do everything to breastfeed as much as possible. We had visits to the lactation consultant, special drugs and food to increase supply, breast pump was 2 euros a day to rent and parts were about 60 euros. Nothing helped that much, as the lactation consultant told me, I wasn't producing enough because I was exhausted and there's nothing you can do to stop a new mother of twins from being exhausted. She was the one who suggested I stop beating myself up about it and bottle feed. She did give me the drugs to increase supply but that's as good as it got.

Quite a few of my friends had issues with breastfeeding. I find it unhelpful when people talk about how easy it is. Everyone has different breasts, different babies. You may have found it convenient for yourself, for me breastfeeding was an exercise in exhaustion and futility. I wish I had given up earlier rather than exhausting myself to the point where I didn't have the energy to enjoy my babies like a new mother should.

[TerriM]

I found breastfeeding took me much longer than bottle feeding. For the first few weeks it would take between 20 mins to 70 minutes just to get a latch, mostly about 40 minutes. Then breastfeeding itself would usually take another 40 minutes or longer. Bottle feeding there was no latching of course and I could measure how much they had taken so that if they fell asleep I wouldn't be woken 20 minutes later by a hungry baby. Breastfeeding my twins was exhausting and costly as well.

If it's taking 40 minutes to latch, definitely call a lactation consultant for help.

Second, if they're feeding 40 minutes, most likely they were done after 10 and then suckling for the last 30.  I sadly found that out when my first was doing this (and wrecking my nipples), and the midwife just said "Yeah, he's done around 10 minutes.  You could've stopped then."

Twins is hard.  No disagreement there.  But even if you do half breast feeding, they're still getting healthy bacteria and receiving immunity from you.

[Goldielocks]

Although technically breastfeeding is close to free after startup costs (nursing bras, milk storage, nursing pads, creams, medicine if you get mastitis, etc), it's expensive in terms of time. 

Exactly.

It takes just as much time to bottle-feed a baby as it does to breast feed one. But with breast feeding you're done and you put them away. Bottles need to be washed, refilled and stored. I would think the time cost of bottle feeding would be way more than breastfeeding.

I found breastfeeding took me much longer than bottle feeding. For the first few weeks it would take between 20 mins to 70 minutes just to get a latch, mostly about 40 minutes. Then breastfeeding itself would usually take another 40 minutes or longer. Bottle feeding there was no latching of course and I could measure how much they had taken so that if they fell asleep I wouldn't be woken 20 minutes later by a hungry baby. Breastfeeding my twins was exhausting and costly as well. I was so exhausted we ended up getting a cleaning lady and husband took time off work because I was adamant I would do everything to breastfeed as much as possible. We had visits to the lactation consultant, special drugs and food to increase supply, breast pump was 2 euros a day to rent and parts were about 60 euros. Nothing helped that much, as the lactation consultant told me, I wasn't producing enough because I was exhausted and there's nothing you can do to stop a new mother of twins from being exhausted. She was the one who suggested I stop beating myself up about it and bottle feed. She did give me the drugs to increase supply but that's as good as it got.

Quite a few of my friends had issues with breastfeeding. I find it unhelpful when people talk about how easy it is. Everyone has different breasts, different babies. You may have found it convenient for yourself, for me breastfeeding was an exercise in exhaustion and futility. I wish I had given up earlier rather than exhausting myself to the point where I didn't have the energy to enjoy my babies like a new mother should.

+1
I had my first nearly 15 years ago.  Although there was huge encouragement for "breast is best", not one person mentioned that it could hurt so much (especially at first), that it was not always "easy and natural" and the scenario above is pretty much what happened to me.  My older female relatives had never breastfed, (it was discouraged back then).

So, I was pinned to the sofa / bed breastfeeding nearly constantly, with a crying hungry and large baby. Only after 2 weeks of problems did I even learn of the existence of lactation consultants, who diagnosed tongue tied baby, etc.     I was better prepared for my second, but when he was tied to intensive care, then on supplemental oxygen for 6 weeks, with all of the medical devices, and the delay in his coming home, it  made it very hard to get it to work.

What all this means for OP -- be prepared for life surprises.   Just like owning a home, you may not know what the next big(ish) price tag is, but you do know that something will happen sooner or later.

[daverobev]

Up To Date has several references I can list, though I am traveling and don't have institutional access for about a month.  The UK is now recommending home birth OVER hospital delivery in uncomplicated cases. In The Netherlands this has always been a common practice, with infant and maternal statistics that are much better than the US. Hmmmm.

It is BECAUSE I am concerned about my baby's (and my own) safety that I chose to avoid a hospital. I had my baby at a free standing birth center. FYI, a Children's Hospital was across the street. Free standing and hospital birth centers are not equivalent FYI. Had I chosen a hospital or a birth center associated with a hospital, I would have had a C/S.  I'm very thankful that I made the right decision for my family. (My water broke >24 hours before baby arrived, which a hospital does not "allow").

I respect the right of each woman to decide for herself where she is most comfortable birthing, and believe that all choices should be offered to her.

The Netherlands has a 20% home birth rate.  I would not call that common.  Nor would I call, an attached or across the street birthing center equivalent to home birth, again because of delay in treatment.  But again there is a difference in the policies in the Netherlands than here.  If we are looking at US, use US data.  I find it slightly amusing that the "hospital did not allow it".  No one allowed anything in my birth, but me.

Ok, we're in Canada. Midwives are trained and regulated appropriately. Maybe the US is different. Obviously you should do your own research.

Also, "4x as many" is not hugely helpful. 1 in 100,000 vs 1 in 400,000... or 1 in 100 vs 1 in 400 is very different.

*Edit* Also... pay for childbirth? I really.. can't get my head round that. Canada is ok, but god the UK is better. I miss the NHS so much. That's not fair.. the midwives here were fantastic. But dentistry is nearly free in the UK, eyetests are nearly free. Sigh. And that is on topic - living in the UK, many things you'd pay for elsewhere are covered.

Also, how is 1 in 5 not common? It's hardly rare!

[Gin1984]

Up To Date has several references I can list, though I am traveling and don't have institutional access for about a month.  The UK is now recommending home birth OVER hospital delivery in uncomplicated cases. In The Netherlands this has always been a common practice, with infant and maternal statistics that are much better than the US. Hmmmm.

It is BECAUSE I am concerned about my baby's (and my own) safety that I chose to avoid a hospital. I had my baby at a free standing birth center. FYI, a Children's Hospital was across the street. Free standing and hospital birth centers are not equivalent FYI. Had I chosen a hospital or a birth center associated with a hospital, I would have had a C/S.  I'm very thankful that I made the right decision for my family. (My water broke >24 hours before baby arrived, which a hospital does not "allow").

I respect the right of each woman to decide for herself where she is most comfortable birthing, and believe that all choices should be offered to her.

The Netherlands has a 20% home birth rate.  I would not call that common.  Nor would I call, an attached or across the street birthing center equivalent to home birth, again because of delay in treatment.  But again there is a difference in the policies in the Netherlands than here.  If we are looking at US, use US data.  I find it slightly amusing that the "hospital did not allow it".  No one allowed anything in my birth, but me.

Ok, we're in Canada. Midwives are trained and regulated appropriately. Maybe the US is different. Obviously you should do your own research.

Also, "4x as many" is not hugely helpful. 1 in 100,000 vs 1 in 400,000... or 1 in 100 vs 1 in 400 is very different.

There are two types of midwives in the US.  Nurse midwives, which normally work in hospitals and birth centers and non-nurse midwives which do the home births.  That training can range from classes, or apprenticing with an experienced non-nurse midwife to a multiple choice test.   And all of that is based on the fact that there are fifty different sets of laws via the 50 states.
If you are interested in the study, you could click the link.  But since you asked "For the study, Grunebaum and his colleagues used CDC data on nearly 14 million births and deaths.

The researchers found that the absolute risk of a baby dying at birth or in the 28 days following delivery was 3.2 per 10,000 births when a midwife delivered the baby in a hospital, compared with 12.6 per 10,000 births when a midwife delivered the baby at home. Moreover, if the home delivery was the mother's first, the risk increased to 21.9 deaths per 10,000 births, the researchers found."
This is not midwife vs OB but home birth vs having access to the medical care if something goes wrong, because those minutes matter.

[daverobev]

Up To Date has several references I can list, though I am traveling and don't have institutional access for about a month.  The UK is now recommending home birth OVER hospital delivery in uncomplicated cases. In The Netherlands this has always been a common practice, with infant and maternal statistics that are much better than the US. Hmmmm.

It is BECAUSE I am concerned about my baby's (and my own) safety that I chose to avoid a hospital. I had my baby at a free standing birth center. FYI, a Children's Hospital was across the street. Free standing and hospital birth centers are not equivalent FYI. Had I chosen a hospital or a birth center associated with a hospital, I would have had a C/S.  I'm very thankful that I made the right decision for my family. (My water broke >24 hours before baby arrived, which a hospital does not "allow").

I respect the right of each woman to decide for herself where she is most comfortable birthing, and believe that all choices should be offered to her.

The Netherlands has a 20% home birth rate.  I would not call that common.  Nor would I call, an attached or across the street birthing center equivalent to home birth, again because of delay in treatment.  But again there is a difference in the policies in the Netherlands than here.  If we are looking at US, use US data.  I find it slightly amusing that the "hospital did not allow it".  No one allowed anything in my birth, but me.

Ok, we're in Canada. Midwives are trained and regulated appropriately. Maybe the US is different. Obviously you should do your own research.

Also, "4x as many" is not hugely helpful. 1 in 100,000 vs 1 in 400,000... or 1 in 100 vs 1 in 400 is very different.

There are two types of midwives in the US.  Nurse midwives, which normally work in hospitals and birth centers and non-nurse midwives which do the home births.  That training can range from classes, or apprenticing with an experienced non-nurse midwife to a multiple choice test.   And all of that is based on the fact that there are fifty different sets of laws via the 50 states.
If you are interested in the study, you could click the link.  But since you asked "For the study, Grunebaum and his colleagues used CDC data on nearly 14 million births and deaths.

The researchers found that the absolute risk of a baby dying at birth or in the 28 days following delivery was 3.2 per 10,000 births when a midwife delivered the baby in a hospital, compared with 12.6 per 10,000 births when a midwife delivered the baby at home."
This is not midwife vs OB but home birth vs having access to the medical care if something goes wrong, because those minutes matter.

Ok, fair enough. I'm not in the US, so no I'm not hugely interested in the study.

Looks like Canada is MUCH MUCH better than the US. http://homebirthdeathstatistics.blogspot.ca/2012/07/canadian-study-is-bad-news-for-american.html

[Gin1984]

Up To Date has several references I can list, though I am traveling and don't have institutional access for about a month.  The UK is now recommending home birth OVER hospital delivery in uncomplicated cases. In The Netherlands this has always been a common practice, with infant and maternal statistics that are much better than the US. Hmmmm.

It is BECAUSE I am concerned about my baby's (and my own) safety that I chose to avoid a hospital. I had my baby at a free standing birth center. FYI, a Children's Hospital was across the street. Free standing and hospital birth centers are not equivalent FYI. Had I chosen a hospital or a birth center associated with a hospital, I would have had a C/S.  I'm very thankful that I made the right decision for my family. (My water broke >24 hours before baby arrived, which a hospital does not "allow").

I respect the right of each woman to decide for herself where she is most comfortable birthing, and believe that all choices should be offered to her.

The Netherlands has a 20% home birth rate.  I would not call that common.  Nor would I call, an attached or across the street birthing center equivalent to home birth, again because of delay in treatment.  But again there is a difference in the policies in the Netherlands than here.  If we are looking at US, use US data.  I find it slightly amusing that the "hospital did not allow it".  No one allowed anything in my birth, but me.

Ok, we're in Canada. Midwives are trained and regulated appropriately. Maybe the US is different. Obviously you should do your own research.

Also, "4x as many" is not hugely helpful. 1 in 100,000 vs 1 in 400,000... or 1 in 100 vs 1 in 400 is very different.

There are two types of midwives in the US.  Nurse midwives, which normally work in hospitals and birth centers and non-nurse midwives which do the home births.  That training can range from classes, or apprenticing with an experienced non-nurse midwife to a multiple choice test.   And all of that is based on the fact that there are fifty different sets of laws via the 50 states.
If you are interested in the study, you could click the link.  But since you asked "For the study, Grunebaum and his colleagues used CDC data on nearly 14 million births and deaths.

The researchers found that the absolute risk of a baby dying at birth or in the 28 days following delivery was 3.2 per 10,000 births when a midwife delivered the baby in a hospital, compared with 12.6 per 10,000 births when a midwife delivered the baby at home."
This is not midwife vs OB but home birth vs having access to the medical care if something goes wrong, because those minutes matter.

Ok, fair enough. I'm not in the US, so no I'm not hugely interested in the study.

Looks like Canada is MUCH MUCH better than the US. http://homebirthdeathstatistics.blogspot.ca/2012/07/canadian-study-is-bad-news-for-american.html

Yes, it looks like Canada is much closer to the Dutch in their training and requirements for home birth than the US.  I'd still like a study from someone who did not have to do a retraction and used the common measures, but it does look like, from a cursory look, that it is MUCH, MUCH better than the US.  If you happen to have them, I would be interested in a link.

[windawake]

I have a few thoughts here.

1. Some women choose to breastfeed. Some succeed. Some have trouble with latching on. Some women cannot breastfeed due to cancer, or other physical problems. If the baby is well cared-for, isn't that all that matters?

2. Let's not talk about anecdotal evidence about what happened to you or someone you know. The Netherlands has significantly lower rates of C-section and maternal and infant mortality and a higher rate of home birth. One of the main reasons that C-section rates are so high in the US is because medical intervention in birth is so high. Using Pitocin, having women lay in the supine position without being able to move, and use of epidurals all increase the risk of C-section. If you're at home, you're less likely to be exposed to these things. The other issue is that many midwives are 'direct entry' midwives, which means they're not traditionally trained as medical professionals. If you find a midwife who is medically trained with back-up at a nearby hospital, you're in pretty good shape.

[trailrated]

Back to the topic first full year for my son costed me about $16,000 with the vast majority being Child Support and medical costs.

[I'm a red panda]

I don't really have a side in the breastfeeding argument, but keep in mind that not all mothers or babies CAN successfully breastfeed.

Even if you plan to do it, you might end up having to buy formula.

[Gin1984]

I don't really have a side in the breastfeeding argument, but keep in mind that not all mothers or babies CAN successfully breastfeed.

Even if you plan to do it, you might end up having to buy formula.

And even if you are doing it, you may not produce enough.  I only made about half of what my daughter needed. 

[Credaholic]

How about not sides, the facts.  Can you show any peer reviewed studies that there a benefits to home birth?  Then compare that to the wedmd article showing a four times high death rate of home birth rate compared to the hospital? 

Just wanted to point out that the WebMD article you're talking about specifically says that the study finding a higher death rate hasn't yet been published in a peer reviewed journal.

[justajane]

One thing I noticed once we had kids is that our utilities have gone up by about 20%, but YMMV. This initially came from more laundry and a higher thermostat temperature in the winter. Their clothes are small, but they get them dirty often. Plus adult clothes can get dirty faster when you have a baby. And if you're doing cloth diapers, this does use a fair amount of hot and cold water.

Eventually once the kids are older, they will be if different rooms than you sometimes; thus, more electricity costs. Plus, I try my best to instill in them conservation, but they are not great at turning off lights. Now I run the dishwasher on average 5-7 times a week, whereas before I only ran it 1-2 times a week. We still bathe all three of our kids together, but as they get older, I imagine the gas and water bills will get higher. It all starts to add up. 

[tweezers]

We found our babies to be relatively inexpensive.  For both of our kids, most clothes/toys were gifts/hand-me-downs. We bought some things here and there and for Christmas/birthdays, but I haven't included these expenses.  The added utilities costs for laundry seemed negligible, although I wasn't really keeping track.  My husband stays home with them so we would have child care costs.  However, he wasn't working pre-kids because he didn't have a work permit until I was pregnant so our household budget has never included a second income.  Our expenses are higher now that they eat more (3 and 5 years) and are doing activities like gymnastics and art classes, but we still get most clothes used, hand-me-downs, or as gifts.  I would say that our clothing expenses for both kids are ~$300/year and activities are $2500/year.

First child:
-Prenatal care and uneventful hospital birth: $2500 (we had $500 deductible each year, and as soon as baby is born they are a new person with a $500 deductible)
-Maternity clothes:$200
-Cloth diapers: $300
-Breast pump, nursing bras: $450
-Crib (used) and mattress (new): $160
-Car seat: $275
-Ergo carrier: $120
-Stroller: $450
-Travel stroller: $100
-Glider rocker chair: $450
-White noise machine: $55
-Health insurance: $150/month

Second child
-Prenatal care and uneventful hospital birth: $2500 (we had $500 deductible each year, and as soon as baby is born they are a new person with a $500 deductible)
-Car seat: $275

Some costs recouped from selling outgrown stuff on craigslist/consignment
-Crib and mattress: $150
-Diapers: $130
-Stroller: $250
-Ergo: $75
-Clothing: $250

[Gin1984]

We found our babies to be relatively inexpensive.  For both of our kids, most clothes/toys were gifts/hand-me-downs. We bought some things here and there and for Christmas/birthdays, but I haven't included these expenses.  The added utilities costs for laundry seemed negligible, although I wasn't really keeping track.  My husband stays home with them so we would have child care costs.  However, he wasn't working pre-kids because he didn't have a work permit until I was pregnant so our household budget has never included a second income.  Our expenses are higher now that they eat more (3 and 5 years) and are doing activities like gymnastics and art classes, but we still get most clothes used, hand-me-downs, or as gifts.  I would say that our clothing expenses for both kids are ~$300/year and activities are $2500/year.

First child:
-Prenatal care and uneventful hospital birth: $2500 (we had $500 deductible each year, and as soon as baby is born they are a new person with a $500 deductible)
-Maternity clothes:$200
-Cloth diapers: $300
-Breast pump, nursing bras: $450
-Crib (used) and mattress (new): $160
-Car seat: $275
-Ergo carrier: $120
-Stroller: $450
-Travel stroller: $100
-Glider rocker chair: $450
-White noise machine: $55
-Health insurance: $150/month

Second child
-Prenatal care and uneventful hospital birth: $2500 (we had $500 deductible each year, and as soon as baby is born they are a new person with a $500 deductible)
-Car seat: $275

Some costs recouped from selling outgrown stuff on craigslist/consignment
-Crib and mattress: $150
-Diapers: $130
-Stroller: $250
-Ergo: $75
-Clothing: $250

That depends on your insurance, mine did not if the baby left with the mother within the 48 hour period.