What Kate Hudson said was a judgement about herself, not on other women, so there's no need to get defensive.
All my friends who have had both c-sections and vaginal births (I can think of 6 off the top of my head) have all said that if they were to have a third child they would opt for an elective caesarean next time. None of them found the recovery difficult, bar one who got a mild infection.
I don't know how anyone can say that an elective caesarean is harder than a virginal birth. I do appreciate that the recovery for a c-section is harder for more women than a vb, however there are many, many women who have vbs who have dreadful recoveries and lifelong issues as a result of their vb. I could barely walk for longer than 10 minutes for just over a year due to my physically and mentally traumatic vb.
C-sections should be used for emergencies or when the health/life of either mother or baby would be affected by a vb, and I don't think women should be able to opt for a c-section just because they don't fancy doing it the other way.
Also judgements are made both ways. One friend (who'd had two c-sections- one for a breech baby and one because she just wanted a second c-section) told another friend (who had had two vbs) that she was glad she'd had two c-sections because she didn't have "a loose fanny" like the second friend, and that her husband was happy about that. I've heard this kind of ridiculous statement a number of times.
I do think it's a waste of money to allow women to opt for c-sections when they're unnecessary just because they don't like the thought of contractions. No one does. I do think women who opt for a c-section for no particular reason are lazy.