Why are you adamant about having an IV before intubating?
i think this is the most interesting and important question to arise from this discussion: where in the sequence do you require the iv?
i think trying to reiterate fundamental guiding principles here is important because there will be great temptation in the moment to deviate from them. firstly, your number one priority is the well-being of the mom, followed closely by the baby--mom first, baby second. getting the baby out is not the number one priority though you will be pressed to think so (by nervous ob's). i would not subject mom to additional substantial risk for the benefit of the baby. secondly, not having iv access is substantial risk. it's easy to imagine where some of that risk comes from (uncontrolled hypertension on laryngoscopy in this pt already at risk for cerebral hemorrhage, laryngospasm, bronchospasm, surgical hemorrhage, uterine atony, hypotension in response to anesthetics) and not so easy to imagine every other bad scenario requiring iv access for therapy. but, i think it is very clear that not having iv access is substantially risky in this situation. the longer you go without it, the greater the risk to mom (and thus to baby).
i'd give im benzo up-front to abort seizure. it might help you get iv access if you can abort the seizure and will give amnesia if you end up giving sux without induction (though it's doubtful a seizing or postictal pt will have recall). there seems little downside to giving the benzo at this point--no bridges burned yet. i would try to hold off on sux until i get an initial assessment of the iv situation.
i would delegate iv access to an ob nurse while i tried to initially manage the airway non-invasively. if a nurse can't get it easily and quickly, it should make you wonder how difficult it would be to get yourself if you decide to proceed initially without access. i understand we're better at establishing iv access than ob nurses, but it would make me think twice about proceeding if the nurse says, 'i see nothing.' how does the neck look if you really got into trouble peripherally? i.o. is not an option for me and i suspect most (no experience, equipment not available).
i agree with parallel activity here: ob's dressing, draping, splashing while you look for access.
it's a tough situation but i think that if you couldn't quickly enough get iv access before starting, it's too dangerous to start and then struggle while bad things could happen that you could do nothing about.
if you must free your own hands from the airway to look for access, i'd consider the least invasive way to do that first. maybe an lma with someone maintaining cricoid pressure (maybe less hemodynamic swings than with dl). but, i'd intubate the trachea with i.m. sux if an lma were not tenable (still seizing, resisting lma placement, etc.) and i needed my hands for iv access; here you can justify the risk of proceeding with airway management before establishing iv access. then--before the ob's cut--i'd establish iv access, and i would not permit them to proceed without it. i think you can't justify the risk to mom. she has her airway secured and the next intervention that will decrease her risk and increase her safety is iv access, not cesarean section. it may take only a minute to pop in something, but if it's difficult you don't want to be struggling while the uterus is atonic, mom is bleeding out and hypotensive, and you have no way to treat these problems.
it's indefensible to proceed for the sake of the baby while exposing mom to substantially more risk. you may get away with it (and everyone will feel great). but if you don't, you may have a baby (healthy or not) and a dead or morbid mom and everyone will be looking at you asking why you thought it would be better to proceed without iv access. getting away with things (even if the alternative is rare) is very dangerous because it is self-reinforcing. this is, in my opinion, why it is essential to be faithful to the fundamental principles all the time.