Yeah, I get all of that. I don't think that Caeserean births have had any noticeable impact on human evolution. But if you cut out the bit about evolution, the article turns into "Caeserean births are a thing that happens" which isn't news, so I want to attack the idea that, even if the science were correct, that the premise of the article is crap. If we ignore the bad science, and we say that we will soon hit some equilibrium point where a significant majority of births are Caesarean births, I still don't see any reason to contextualize that as a bad thing, when the alternative to "more Caeserean births" is "more women dying in childbirth."
I believe that any talk about the course of human evolution that goes beyond observation ends up having a eugenics-styled squick factor. Any "bad stuff" that happens as a result of people reproducing who would have otherwise not been able to reproduce can't really be "bad stuff" without making an implicit argument that the preferred alternative to the "bad stuff" would be those people not successfully reproducing.