I don't think complaining is relevant here. The basis is that the human pelvis hasn't caught up to the size of babies' heads due to our unusually larger brains. This is similar to how our teeth size/amount haven't caught up to our smaller jaws. The smaller jaws are a result of eating food that isn't as tough (meaning less muscle and raw power to soften the food), and processing of food like meats via fire for thousands of years. This happens in evolution sometimes. The problem referred to in the article of some human heads being too big for smaller pelvises is very real no matter how it is spun. The issue at hand seems to be this: The reality is that this is a relatively moot-point issue given the temporal nature of the article. Evolution happens in deep time as kb already alluded to. The likelihood of us really finding out how our own medical interference could affect us in the longer run is zero... unless you have a time machine...."Women with a very narrow pelvis would not have survived birth 100 years ago. They do now and pass on their genes encoding for a narrow pelvis to their daughters."
Humans have not stopped evolving. We didn't hit Homo Sapiens Sapiens and then our genome just hit a freeze. Our selective pressures have changed. Most people will have kids, the real questions to ask are 'who isn't having kids?' and 'who is having the most kids?' The answers to those questions determine the composition of the next generation.
I don't think the article suggested that humans stopped evolving. Just that c-sections are causing potentially negative change.