I read an article recently about a woman here in Virginia who ended up moving her family to a different state because she was pregnant, wanted to have a VBAC, and did not live near a hospital that allowed them. The point of the story was that it is becoming hospital policy (rather than even doctor's choice), due to liability reasons, which may be Sarah's problem. I ran up against this hospital policy issue when I was pregnant with my twins and my doctor told me I would deliver in the OR. I was furious and told him so, and he told me that there was absolutely nothing he could do about it -- his privileges at the hospital where we had the babies were dependent upon of course his adherence to hospital policy.
So the debate has this whole other level to it -- it's not just doctors who often prefer doing sections because they are in many ways more predictable and convenient for all parties but the one being born, but about the hospital that takes that 1-in-a-million chance that the prior suture site will rupture and cause problems, and then says, "No VBACs -- hospital policy!"
I seem to have read here lately, probably in one of Sarah's posts about her prior experiences, that hospitals make more money from a section than from a normal delivery (why does this not surprise me?).
One course of action I would take in Sarah's situation is to a) check hospital and nearby hospital policies. It may be that she has a doctor willing to deliver VBAC but that he or she is no longer allowed to. I'd write the hospital and request an exception to the policy with the support of the doctor who thinks that she will be OK. If they said no, I'd call a lawyer and sue. My feeling is that VBAC is still safer, statistically and on a case-by-case basis, for mother and child.
That scenario comes down to how willing one is to take on a fight for the good of all women when one is pregnant with a toddler! I don't think I could do it, come to think of it....