I had a completely natural VBAC 15 months ago. =-)
First, I would suggest you visit http://www.ican-online.org and http://www.vbac.com for accurate statistics, and until you have read studies with actual statistics, I would ignore statistics quoted by people who did not VBAC. I found during my research that people opposed to VBAC never seemed to have accurate numbers.
I researched everything I could get my hands on before my VBAC, and I can tell you that the uterine rupture rate is roughly .05%, so 1 in 200, but only a small percentage of u/r cases have any lasting impact on mom or baby. So 1 in 200 does not mean 1 in 200 babies dies or has brain damage. That is a common misconception.
Also, people opposed to VBAC love to gloss over the fact that uterine rupture can occur on an un-scarred uterus as well (although not as frequently), and there are many many other problems (placental abruption for example is 2-3% chance)that are far more likely in ANY labor than a uterine rupture is in VBAC, yet they don't expect every woman to have a c/s for that risk. They also forget to mention that there are great risks to mom and baby when performing a cesarean. Cesareans are not risk-free, and that point is ignored by a lot of anti-VBACers.
Also, the fact that fewer and fewer hospitals are "allowing" VBAC is not as much due to u/r as it due to high malpractice insurance costs caused by people who like to sue. In the case that a u/r happens and there are lasting injuries or death, then it's very easy to sue on the "what if we had tried a c/s" premise. It's not as easy to sue for injury during a cesarean, because a cesarean is seen as an attempt to "save" the baby, an it appears as though the doctor did everything he or she could.
I really don't have any problem with a mama choosing repeat cesarean, but it really burns me up that those seem to be the same moms who are all over the message boards throwing out ridiculously false statistics, trying to scare other women into c/s.
Good luck to you in whatever you choose. =-)