Posted on 02/11/2007 6:38:24 PM PST by HungarianGypsy
Before an audience of cooing babies and nursing mothers, a legislative committee on Thursday approved a measure to legally define when Utah women can deliver their children at home.
Image Laura Lund of Provo attends a hearing on Thursday with daughter Leah to lobby against SB243. The measure amends a bill passed two years ago to license direct-entry midwives.
Tom Smart, Deseret Morning News The bill, which moved to the full Senate on a 4-2 vote, amends one passed two years ago to license direct-entry midwives. It gives the Legislature the right to define what constitutes a "normal" pregnancy, labor and delivery — the areas in which licensed midwives are allowed to provide care.
The state Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing has spent the past two years defining normal situations, but many, including the Utah Medical Association, believe the rules are broader than lawmakers originally intended.
Catherine Wheeler, an obstetrician and past UMA president, told members of the Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee that physicians' concerns for patient safety "essentially hit deaf ears" during the rule-making process.
"Yes, it is a natural event, but it's a natural event that can have significant complications," Wheeler said. "The physicians who are the safety net for this group are incredibly concerned."
The approval of SB243, sponsored by Sen. Margaret Dayton, R-Orem, means lawmakers are favoring medical standards over traditional midwifery, said Laura Poe, DOPL bureau manager.
"The reality is, is that you have a group of people who have a philosophy of natural childbirth," Poe said. "Their professional standards are almost 180-degrees opposed to the medical standards."
Dayton, whose husband is a retired obstetrician, said that SB243 is not about favoring hospital birth over home birth. "This is not about forcing everyone into the hospital, and it's not about eliminating choices," she said.
Still, the Utah Midwives Association contends the bill would effectively eliminate most of the home births handled by direct-entry midwives. Of the 94 babies delivered last year by licensed midwives, 96 percent would not have been allowed under Dayton's bill.
"This bill would, in effect, prevent pretty much everyone I know that currently chooses to use midwives ... from having that option because the nature of the restrictions are quite limiting," said Laura Lund of Provo, who came to Capitol Hill Thursday with her 4-month-old daughter, Leah, to lobby against SB243.
Opponents don't have a problem with many of the bill's restrictions, including no midwifery in pregnancies involving pulmonary or renal disease, hypertension, diabetes and genetic disorders.
Women with three or more consecutive miscarriages, a stillborn child or prior C-section would also be ineligible for a home birth.
But opponents said forbidding home birth for women who have had previously delivered a baby weighing more than 8 pounds 13 ounces is overly restrictive.
Of the dozen or so mothers at the Thursday morning hearing, nearly half indicated they had successfully delivered a baby of that size, or larger, at home.
"We're assuming that every woman is 5-foot-2," said Raeann Peck, a midwife with 28 years experience "Midwives do not want problems," Peck said. "We want to give the best care possible to moms and babies. And we certainly want to avoid risks."
E-mail: awelling@desnews.com
But, one line that stood out to me here :But opponents said forbidding home birth for women who have had previously delivered a baby weighing more than 8 pounds 13 ounces is overly restrictive. I had only one baby was under 8 pounds 13 ounces. My husband's side of the family is known for small women who have big babies. I find that restriction beyond absurd.
Womb to the tomb.
Here's my question: Where are the pro-abortion advocates who like to wail so much about a woman's right to her own body?
Doctors do obstetrics ... doctors do abortions. Follow the money.
A nurse-midwife occupation is very profitable. Only snag is that the nurse-midwife has to be on call as deliveries can't be scheduled by appointment.
A problem is most prople assume all midwifes are a "nurse-midwife."
In Texas a few years ago, and perhaops still, the only requirement to be a midwife was a $3.18 occupational license. No traning, experience, exam or certification was required. You most certainly did not have to be an RN, LPN, or even a CNA, Paramedic or EMT.
27 years ago last New Years eve, I labored at home for 13 hours and then, when my midwives said that they would have to break to bag with a hook, I decided to go to plan B and went to my previously planned hospital/doctor delivery. I presented 95% effaced and 99% dialated and the doctor broke the waters and my 9 91/2 son was born within 15 minutes, with the doctor having to turn him so that his shoulder didn't hang him up. I then proceeded to hemorage and required intravenous meds and blood. Quite dramatic and unless I had had the back up plan, my baby could have been oxygen deprived and I could have hemoraged to death. I think I would do it again but always with a seriously planned back up.
I am for the separation of religion from government, intervention of government to regulate when we worship at the alter of the AMA should not be allowed.
People should be free to do as they please, but they should understand that the margin of safety afforded to a pregnant mother who choses to deliver at home with a midwife is significantly less than if she chose to deliver in a hospital.
That caught my eye too.
I think what they're trying to catch are the ladies who have babies increasing in size with each delivery. Rule of thumb is if your 2nd baby is a certain percentage larger than baby No. 1, you'd better plan for a hospital delivery because No. 3 is going to be a moose!
Home delivery is great if you're mentally prepared for it. I decided on hospital for my first (it was less than 10 minutes from my house). My delivery was splendid, rapid and uncomplicated . . . but then I retained my placenta and lost quite a lot of blood. Wound up having to schedule an emergency extraction, but as soon as they knocked me out it spontaneously expelled. But none of that would have been much fun at home!
My mother-in-law pointed out to me that the hardest part of a large baby was more the carrying, than the delivery. This was my experience too. My first, 8# 8 oz., second, 9#1 oz., third, 9# 10.2 oz., moose, 10# 2 oz. (one ounce off the family record and my first home birth),the last a little 9#,7 oz. :-)
Except of course, that is exactly what it is.
My wife's first homebirth was 8 pounds 14 ounces. Her second, which took place without a midwife (came too fast, so I handled it myself) was 9 pounds even. These idiots trying to micromanage everyone else's healthcare should be kicked out on their ear in the next election. The idea that in America we would even be having debate on things like this is absurd. Whatever happened to freedom?
Black market healthcare is increasingly the best way to go, over and against the corrupt institutional medical system. Not only do our "illegal" midwives cost about 10% of hospital deliveries, they have a superior safety record (google it yourself if you don't believe me, this is well documented), and the last time my wife went to the emergency room, they tried to railroad her into a $15,000 surgery to remove her gall bladder. Some advice from the internet solved the problem with $5 worth of groceries!
I agree that is an absurd restrictions. I also wonder why no one mentions that hospitals can be a very dangerous place for babies. They are more likely to get a staph infection there than at home.
This is not about the health of the baby and/or mother it is about hospitals wanting more money in their pockets.
Huh? Something must be missing here. If Utah midwives handled a whopping 94 deliveries last year, that's not enough to keep two midwives employed full time in the whole state, nor does it sound like there's much demand from the mothers of Utah to deliver at home with the help of a licensed midwife.
As for the description of this as "a measure to legally define when Utah women can deliver their children at home", I assume this currently means only making it illegal for licensed midwives to provide services for a fee if the pregnancy doesn't meet the government's definition. But anti-abortion activists better beware -- this sort of thing is just the first step. Once the government starts asserting jurisdiction over the contents of a woman's uterus, the next step will be for the government to assert jurisdiction over everything women do that could possibly pose any risk to said contents. Home births under any circumstances? Forget it -- the government will decide (with help from the AMA and its political donations) that that's just too dangerous, and they'll charge any woman who tries it with a crime. It'll be just like all the restrictions on what you can do with your kids. You don't get to decide when it's okay to ride in the front seat of the car next to you; some states are working on making it illegal to smoke in a car with a child inside, and homes are surely next; restrictions on homeschooling abound. It's a very slippery slope.
Watch out with that "black market" medical care. At the rate things are going, it can't be too much longer before courts starts authorizing CPS to seize babies who've been born at home, along with all their siblings. Child abuse/neglect, ya know -- taking more/different risks than the government thinks you ought to.
Personally, I want to have my babies in a fully equipped hospital. But if other women want to have their babies at home, even if it's a high risk pregnancy, that's THEIR choice. And if the baby dies, the government has no business doing anything about it. In a FREE country, the government has no business outlawing the practice of letting nature take its course.
My first 5 were born in the hospital. #5 contracted a terrible infection there, and we ended up bringing her back at less than a week old. My last 3 were born at home, as will #9 this summer (barring any warning signs).
If they "outlaw" midwives in most cases, they will go underground or there will be a lot more "unassisted" births (meaning NO care provider at all).
I don't know about Utah, but certainly in much of the country midwives are largely associated with mainstream feminist ideology, which includes absolute freedom to choose abortion AND absolute freedom to opt out of the "patriarchal" medical system and have your baby at home, even when the doctors say it's too dangerous. Though I don't agree with their "patriarchal conspiracy" ideology, I do agree with them on the conclusions they've reached on both these pro-choice points. Most people on FR are fond of ridiculing the term "pro-choice", claiming it only means pro-abortion, but it just ain't so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.