The similar thing is going on in Massachusetts. I wanted to have a home birth last year, and Blue Cross told me they would only cover a birth if it was under supervision of an OBGYN.

Here you can give birth under the supervision of a midwife but only in a birthing home (and there is only 6 of them in the whole province) not at home.

this is outrageous and so very sad. it's a major step back. it's not a choice I would personally make but it should be a choice.

How incredibly sad for those midwives and their clients. We were blessed with wonderful midwifery care and a beautiful home birth for our son, and we hate to hear that others no longer have that option. Midwifery care is an excellent low-cost alternative to a hospital birth, and it is a safe option for all but a handful of mothers.

I live in NYC, and gave birth to both my children at home with the most incredible and capable midwife, Miriam Schwarzchild. Truth be told, having a homebirth (next time around, whenever that may be) is so important to me that I will continue to do so whether or not Miriam has hospital backing. If it costs me more, so be it.

Home births aren't for me, but it's sad to take away the choice for others.

What happens if you have the baby sooner than you think and your baby is born at home? My cousin was born in the car. There have to be other children born faster than expected . . .

The closing of St Vincent's was a terrible thing. It was the closest hospital to my office, and the closest hospital to the homes of many friends. I don't think the NY law is a bad thing, but it's awful that no other hospital is stepping up to help Manhattan midwives (is this all of NYC or just Manhattan?) Personally, I would never have a home birth; while it's true that it's a safe option for all but a few women, you don't know if you're going to be one of those few women until something happens. Because it does happen--I nearly lost my mom at age three because of placental abruption, and I did lose my younger brother.

I have been told that it's not legal in NC either - which is disappointing since I've long wanted a homebirth and am now pregnant with our first child. Our insurance company will not pay for any complications in labor and delivery if I choose to have a homebirth.
I'm doing my best to find a doula and a hospital supported midwife to help me in the hospital, though I'm told by many friends that many midwives around here don't offer much assistance in the hospital setting.

Wow!!! Talk about not being very progressive... I have had eight home-births all with the same mid-wife and while we have had a fight with medical insurance every time and severe disapproval from the backing doctor we are allowed to do it, here in Cape Town (R.S.A.). I think if it is something you believe in you should be allowed to have it, even if you have to fight for it... but illegal is rather an extreme stand to take.

What a step backwards for New York. I live in Ontario and all women with low-risk pregnancies can choose whether to get prenatal care from an OB or a midwife, and if under the care of a midwife whether to give birth at home or in a hospital. Midwives are in such high demand that most women call to put their names on the clinic waiting lists the moment they conceive.
I have had two homebirths and am 8 months pregnant with my third child. Barring any complications, she will also be born at home. I always think it is strange to see articles citing the mother's privacy and comfort as the primary reasons for choosing a homebirth. The statistics are clear - for women with low-risk pregnancies, homebirth is just as safe or safer for the woman and her baby as giving birth in the hospital. Midwives are health care professionals with a great deal of experience and training, and they are capable of spotting the potential for complications long before the situation becomes an emergency. They also carry resuscitation equipment and work in partnership with hospitals in case transfer is necessary.
I am shocked that insurance companies do not always cover midwifery services, as it is also a much cheaper option. Midwives not only provide a valuable service, but also save health dollars by preventing unnecessary medical procedures and hospital stays.

You can go here to sign a petition in support of NY home birth midwives, women, and babies. It only takes two minutes....

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/midwifery/

I am so saddened to see this happen to the amazingly talented and loving midwives of NY, and having had a beautiful home birth in Brooklyn two years ago I can appreciate the urgency of fixing this whole situation. Women being left in the cold in the middle of their pregnancies and midwives having to deal with this huge setback, financially and emotionally.

I saw the beginning of this in the movie, The Business of Being Born, but I had no idea it went into full effect. I'm sad for something like this to happen. It should be an option. Homebirths were THE births not that long ago.

As a New Yorker, I am thrilled that homebirths are no longer an option. Though I can understand the desire for privacy and comfort, those considerations aren't worth risking your own life or the life of your child. I recently had a friend do a homebirth under a mid-wife's care. The baby was footling breach--something they didn't learn until after her water broke and it was too late. By the time they got her to the hospital, he was brain dead. If he had been born in a hospital, they would have done an emergency c-section and she would have a healthy baby boy today. Instead, she had to bury her newborn. 99% of the time, everything goes right with births. But when things go wrong, they go wrong quickly -- which is why being at the hospital is important. For New Yorkers interested in being cared for by a midwife and having the comforts of a home-like environment, there is Roosevelt's Birthing Center. You can still have a natural birth, while being next door to the resources of the hospital you will need if things start to go wrong.

@jonnifer: Here in Asheville, I had a completely legal and lovely home birth with a certified nurse-midwife and a licensed practical midwife (and my visits were covered by insurance, though not the birth itself--it would have been covered, though, if I did have to transition to a hospital).

Though I'm not familiar with Charlotte's midwifery groups, it sure seems like there must be some that both do home births and have hospital privileges. If I should have needed a hospital birth, my midwife would have been there for the whole thing, and even would have scrubbed up alongside a doc for a C-section. All that said, we are super-lucky here to have a supportive hospital, supportive nurses, and supportive ob-gyns who give the midwives the back-up they need for the whole system to perform at its best. I do hope NYC can have this again soon! And good luck finding a midwife, jonnifer!

@janchica99 - As a mother, it should be your right to decide the environment of your birth, even when possible consequences are taken into consideration. For every 1 bad home birth that happens, THOUSANDS of bad experiences happen to women and children who are at the care of a regular OBGYN. I know because it happened to me with my first child, and I have researched the topic in great detail. It is unfortunate what happened to your friends baby, but that is not a reason to disregard the good care midwives have been providing laboring women for centuries. With my second child I had a midwife and my child was brought into this world with ease and comfort. I can not say the same for my first child, who was at the whim of an OBGYN who almost killed her. Everyone needs to look at the picture on a whole and realize that the right to choose is being stripped away from mothers.

Ah yes, the all time favourite, fear mongering.
Just as no two births are the same, neither should we assume one methodology works for all families.
By and far the vast majority of mothers do not require the care of an OB. OB's are trained in worst case scenario, midwives are trained in the art and medicine of childbirth.
While I do feel horribly for your friend, janchica99, I know without a doubt that things do go horribly wrong at hospitals as well. I've got 3 friends who've lost babies, in hospitals, in the last 18 months. That doesn't mean hospitals are bad, that simply means sometimes we have to relinquish control and realize that we can't control every.thing.

I'm quite sure that in Holland all mothers are covered by midwives, and if they are deemed high risk then they see an OB.

In my maternal history, I've had 3 hospital births, 2 miscarriages, one which took me to a hospital for a D&C. Of those 3 live births, one was delivered by my doc, not an ob, one was by a random student that happened to be passing by when the nurse stuck her arm out the door (and the janitor very nearly delivered him as she was right there tearing the bed apart) and the third was by 2 nurses. I have no.medical.need to see a specialist, I'd much prefer to see those spaces available to mothers that really do need the extra care.

The whole NYC issue is one of insurance. It has nothing to do with patient need, desire or safety. It's simply easier to deny choices than it is to fund mistakes. That's the beauty of American Health "Care".
Man, I freaking love Canada!

I'm wondering why this issue is being covered by a UK newspaper and not a NY paper?

The issue is a delicate one. I would have loved to have a natural birth, but delivered my two lovely children via C-Section. Had I not been in a hospital, things would not have ended well. I also have friends with amazing natural birth stories, and one who delivered her first born at home. I agree with Pencils that in most cases you will be fine to deliver naturally, it's just that you don't have much time if you are one of those people, like myself, who needs lifesaving intervention. It's a tough issue, but no doubt that midwives, at home or in birth centers, deserve more respect and support.

Of all the rights related to child- bearing and birthing that we as women have to fight for in this country, I have to say, in my opinion, this is pretty low on the list. I would rather put my energy towards making sure all women who want it have adequate access to birth control, proper prenatal care regardless of income, and the right to know every detail about their pregnancy and the health of their unborn fetus, a right which was recently taken away in oklahoma. I would like to see women given back control of their reproductive rights And their bodies. Laws have recently been written that would not allow women in To terminate after twenty weeks despite terminal or devastating poor prenatal diagnosis. That, despite the fact that most of these circumstances cannot be diagnosed until the twenty week ultrasound.
I am not a spokesperson for womens rights, I am simply a mother who found herself in a heartbreakingly unimaginable circumstance, shocked by the red tape and bs that exists in order to squash a womans rights to make choices that are best for her and her family.
Perhaps to those who are blessed with naïveté about what it takes to safely and healthily bring a child into this world, those who are blessed to only experience "low risk" pregnancies, this is a major issue to get upset about. But I promise you, take ten minutes to look into the horror show that is womens reproductive right and the idiot, undereducated, right wing religious zealot male suits making those judgement calls and it will be a sad day indeed.
I am a new yorker and I was incredibly lucky and grateful to have access to the care and medical services I needed when I needed them. When my new baby is born in October, I will be aware of what it truly takes to experience that miracle and will be grateful for the opportunity no matter where it presents itself.

Scratch that last sentence. I do care where the opportunity presents itself, and I hope, for my sake and the sake of my child, we are at the hospital, so that - god forbid- something goes wrong, we are among medical professionals who can properly handle the situation.

I'm very saddened that no other hospital in NYC is willing to back midwives so that their clients can have natural unmedicated births.

However, the fact that home births are now illegal may not be a completely bad thing.

I personally know of THREE home births that ended in the passing of the baby, and that's three too many for me. Not fear mongering, just passing along first hand information.

My two hospital births were completely natural and drug free. I appreciated having the medical facilities on hand just in case.

I do think that the C-section rate in this country is abominable and that there ought to be more effort to deliver babies both vaginally and without the help of medicine.

I believe in a woman's right to choose their own birth experience and used to very much support home birth. Sadly, three infant deaths of was enough for me.

Perhaps those women wanting an at home birth with a midwife should push for a change in the law that requires midwives to having physician/hospital support, and accept the risk of complications for her and her unborn child.

A physician or hospital would be crazy to take on the malpractice liability for midwives. Obstetrics is notorious for its high malpractice insurance rate. And only a small percentage of lawsuits are legitimate. The majority of lawsuits are for a bad outcome, irrespective of malpractice was actually committed by the physician or hospital. This means that if the pregnant mother smokes, drinks alcohol, does not take prenatal vitamins EVERY SINGLE DAY from day one of conception, and does not otherwise participate in standard prenatal care, and ends up having a baby with cerebral palsy, the physician and hospital is open to a malpractice lawsuit. It is unfair to expect or demand that physicians and hospitals accept liability for midwives and at home delivery.

im in my 39th week, live in nyc and have been planning my sons birth that will be taking place here in my home... legally and covered by my insurance. this new outrageous course of action apparently doesnt take effect for those already in the process. of course with the closing of st vincents -new backup options have been established. im wondering if there is more to this tho as i know of other new york women beginning their journey/planning for their homebirth and legally this isnt forbidden or being stopped.

If you look at the comment thread, the anecdotes offered by commenters demonstrate that bad outcomes happen in birth, whether at home or in a hospital. No one is suggesting that the right to birth in a hospital should be taken away, however, or minimizing the loss that would represent to mothers who believe that a hospital birth is the best choice for themselves and their babies.

Hospitals are where the overwhelming majority of American women give birth. Yet the U.S. has one of the highest rates of infant and maternal mortality in the developed world, approximately twice the rates of some Western European countries, which rely more heavily on the midwifery model. Personally, that doesn't give me much confidence that my chances of a bad outcome are decreased by being in a hospital.

The c-section rate in my community is around 40-50%. The national average is over 30%. This poses risks to the health and lives of mothers and babies. There is a recent study out of CA that shows the most significant spike in maternal mortality since the 1930s. Some are linking that to the c-section epidemic.

Also, the suggestion that mothers choose home birth out of some self-indulgent desire for comfort or privacy or a specific birth "experience" is offensive. Mothers choose home birth because they have determined it is most likely to offer the best outcome for them and for their babies--the same reason other mothers choose hospitals.

I haven't had a home birth and am not planning one at present but I fully appreciate why a woman would choose one. I also believe that it is a personal decision and that an outsider, especially one hearing or repeating anecdotes of home births gone awry, never has all the information necessary to judge that choice, or predict how the outcome would have been different in a hospital, etc., etc. Like other issues of reproductive health, it comes down to a question of whether we trust women to make the best decisions for themselves and their children, or whether a lawmaker or doctor (or blog commenter) should be doing it for them.

I recently watched The Business of Being Born documentary regarding birthing and midwifery with my partner. It was very interesting. I had never thought of an alternative to a hospital delivery (especially since my father practiced as an ob/gyn for some time). I think the birthing center would be the best option for me (when the time is right) since I live in a 3rd floor walk up and I could not imagine having to run to a hospital if complications arose.

Please beware of home births. my dear friend's baby passed away hours after birth due to GBS. she was tested positive for strep B, yet nothing was done to prevent this absolutely unfortunate event. yet she had an OB and a midwife...

i was also tested positive for the bacteria that lives in a women's body that can be passed onto the baby. i had antibiotics hours before delivery to prevent any mortality or illness.

i am positive that there are amazing and talented midwifes out there. my sister has had an amazing experience with her first child and plans to have another home birth with her second.

i really just want to make sure that all the women planning to have their children at home are aware of all preventative complications.

please inform yourself and be cautious.

I find it quite odd that women are allowed to abort their babies of their own free will, but not 'risk' the same life by having their baby at home under the care of a midwife. Where are all the people shouting that now women will have 'back alley' home births with unlicensed midwives and no help???

(btw, despite the horror stories, it is MUCH safer to have your baby at home than at a hospital, and the rate of medical intervention and emergency procedures is MUCH higher at hospitals, too)

ugh- sb3891- please share the sources for your "statistics." I wonder if they take into account the fact that women who chose to give birth at home with a midwife are generally screened low-risk pregnancies? Of course the rates of medical intervention with home births is lower- there is no way to medically intervene in your house- no surgeons, no equipment, no paddles to resuscitate a stillborn infant.
I am sure giving birth at home is great- when it goes according to plan. But, in cases where things go wrong, the hospital has the equipment and trained staff to save the life of the mother and child. And, things do go very wrong, even for what is expected to be a low-risk delivery. There seems to be this pervasive opinion that doctors, and OBs especially, are just trying to make more money and do not care about what is best for mothers and babies. In fact, most OBs are trying to do what is best based on empirical medical evidence, rather than a Ricky Lake movie.
In generations past, we were not required to put our kids in car seats. In many countries, people do not use car seats, and most kids survive. And yet, most of us are OK with the fact that our states have taken away our rights to drive with unrestrained kids. Sorry, I, for one, am not outraged.

I find it disappointing that some commentors are so ignorant of homebirth midwifery. Certified Nurse Midwives (CNM's) are, in fact, medically trained and equipped to prevent an effectively handle medical emergencies. While they do not perform surgery they do carry oxygen, pitocin, prescribe medications, order medical tests, administer IVs (like antibiotics for GBS), stitches etc. The care they give is much more gentle and intuitive and they tend to have a much more intimate understanding of labor and birth.
Unfortunately, many of the "thank god I was in the hospital or my baby would have died" stories are due to the unnecessary interventions administered by OBs to "speed things up." While they may be done with the best of intentions they are simply not proven to be safe or efficient, often ending in an emergency c-section. Had the women been in an environment where her labor was not interrupted by doctors and nurses in and out of the room, beeping machines, and bright lights she would not have had her labor stalled and would have had no need for the interventions and had a safe normal birth.
I understand that homebirth is not for everyone but its unfortunate that we do not put enough stress on the environment a laboring woman is in. We wouldn't expect an animal to labor in such a chaotic environment yet we expect much more emotionally sensitive humans to.

although it wasnt what i wanted. i support this method of child birth. come on ny!

I find it shocking and unfortunate that people with so little knowledge of home birthing and the midwifery model of care feel free to speak out so harshly against these proven safe, careful and intuitive things. As another commented, babies die in hospitals all the time, but are we trying to take away anyone's right to a hospital birth?
I beg of you naysayers: educate yourselves on the qualifications of midwives, the maternal mortality rates, what kind of lifesaving measures can be and are taken by midwives, and stop assuming that your choices and rationale are the only right ones.

Just to be clear, it's not illegal to have a home birth but it may be illegal for a lay midwife to assist you. We have the same situation in the Albany area but it certainly didn't stop me from having two wonderful home births myself, and many other women as well. It did, however, mean that my midwives had to be very secretive about their practice and I paid out of pocket for my care.

I think that homebirth with a skilled provider should be an available option, and it is sometimes covered by insurance (mine was). But if NYC goes the way of Albany in terms of legality, it still goes on quite a bit, only more underground.

What I find shocking though, both for St. Vincent's OBs and for home birth midwives, is that there doesn't seem to be any provision for women about to give birth. For women in the first few months of pregnancy, switching care providers is not too bad probably.

But if you've been seeing 1 care provider and are 7 months along, or 8 months along, or about to give birth, having to uproot and change course now is pretty traumatic in my opinion. I think some hospital or system should have offered to do midwife back up and offer space to St. Vincent's OBs to deliver at for the next few months.

Low risk home birth with a midwife is as safe or safer than a low risk hospital birth. Period. Families who aren't low risk should probably opt for a birthing center or hospital, but it ultimately should be THEIR CHOICE and midwives should be available for those who feel that a hospital isn't the appropriate setting for their family.

We live in New York state and will be having a home birth with a CNM in January. I know many low risk women who've birthed safely at home with a certified midwife. It's a safe, practical option that should be available. 30% of women in The Netherlands give birth at home with a midwife and the standard of care there is very high.

Don't be fooled into thinking this is an issue of safety. This is an INSURANCE issue and an issue of control. America ranks very poorly among western countries for neonatal and maternal mortality, yet we spend more than any other country. We have sky high c-section rates, around 30%, when the WHO recommends a c-section rate of no higher than 15% (and 5% is probably closer to the reality of necessary c-sections). Fewer than 1% of babies here are born at home and it isn't home birth that is causing these statistics, it's hospital birth.

Do your research. Home birth and midwifery care is safe.

@teeze - i love it. she's all "what? you all are talking about NY and homebirthing rights? i have a better agenda for you to care about. look at me! i have something to say!"

talk about high jacking a post.

it is because there is a genuine concern for the safety of the mother and baby that people would like to see more births attended by midwives. but who am i? i was just a mother who had a low-risk pregnancy turn high-risk at the care of the hospital and all the frivolous interventions they tried to "speed things up".
my second was a safe and sound birth, at home! the pre-natal care my midwife advise and helped me achieved was beyond anything i have heard a Dr. suggest. plus, no blood transfusions the second time around! can i get a WOOT!

i have been very blessed to have had low-risk pregnancies. and if you are high-risk then a hospital is for you and God bless them! we are truly blessed in this country and should be able to choose either way.

In Anglo-Saxon countries (or countries with a significant Anglo-Saxon presence), the issue of home births is a very emotional and passionate one. It's only when we step back, and examine health statistics that we begin to have a clearer picture. Interestingly, the right to have a home birth isn't an issue in Singapore or Switzerland, France or the Czech Republic.

As part of a health-systems comparative analysis a year or so ago, I correlated birth practices with infant mortality rates, and was quite shocked to find that not only did the countries with the lowest infant mortality rates not have home birth as an option, but also did not use midwives. The countries all had highly-medicalized birth care run and managed by ob/gyns.

The only European country with a significant percentage of home births is the Netherlands. Without looking up my statistics, I believe the Netherlands has a rate in the order of 30% -- maybe as high as 40% -- of home births run by midwives, and the remainder equally split between birthing centres and hospitals. The Netherlands also has slightly higher infant and maternal mortality rates than any other Eurozone country (although lower than the US of course). An important factor to consider in the example of the Netherlands is that it is the most densely populated country in Europe, and as such, any woman delivering at home is likely much closer to hospital than in other countries.

There are many factors implicated in infant (and maternal) mortality rates, and many of the countries with the lowest rates also have more effective health care systems, lower rates of poverty, and more supportive maternal policies (for example, many European countries require pregnant women to go on paid maternity leave 6 weeks before their due dates in order to decrease stress and improve infant and maternal health outcomes), but it is very interesting that by and large in these countries, the right to home birth is not a rallying cry or a popular option, and both doctors and hospitals are highly respected.

I think it is very dangerous to take seriously an obviously biased piece such as "The Business of Birth"; in my books, a former talk-show host without any background in health statistics or any real health care knowledge except as a user should not be accepted as any sort of authority on the dangers of hospital births and safety of home births.

The denigration of doctors and hospitals strikes me as an emotional justification, and part of the cultural phenomenon of rampant anti-intellectualism.

Personal anecdotes do not constitute valid health statistics.

People who claim that "home births are as safe or safer than hospital births" are not examining the statistics carefully. It is simply not true.

Now, as to whether individuals should have the right to decide where or how they want to give birth, that is a very different question...

(And BRAVO Teeze -- I agree with every word you wrote.)

"Now, as to whether individuals should have the right to decide where or how they want to give birth, that is a very different question..."

Not really.
And no one is saying you have to have a natural home birth. The concern is that the option has been taken away from women and their babies and that is not okay. Homebirth is a human/women's rights issue too. And it is the only issue being talked about in the article listed above.

To assume everyone is getting there information from the "Business of Being Born" is pretty funny. You did your research too, right? Do you feel confident in the statistics you stated above. If I am a stay-at-home mom, can I not be educated too even though I am not a Dr.? I have family and friends who are Dr.'s and nurses in various fields. I respect them but also know them to be human and not the perfect all-knowing medical geniuses some would like to faithfully believe them to be. Which is why I am no longer naive and complacent to just go with the flow with out having done my won unbiased research.

Have a good Sunday!

mschatelaine, try reading the Milbank Report. The OB model of care has not been proven to improve the outcomes of either babies or mothers. The OB field DOES NOT practice evidence-based maternity care, which is why for many years things like completely unnecessary episiotomies were so common. Many of the interventions used by OBs aren't proven to do anything other than get the OB onto the golf course a little quicker, which is why the C-section rate is over 30% in most states. 30% of women are not unable to deliver vaginally. Doctors don't want to get sued. When insurance companies stop controlling OB care in this country we'll see a return to a midwifery model and safe homebirths will sky rocket.

For those interested in this topic, some useful books to read are "Pushed" and "Birth: The Surprising History of How We Are Born."

Low risk home births are as safe or safer than hospital births.

Wikipedia's article on this topic is worth reading, too. A blurb from the article: "Since the 2007 review, a study of 529,688 low-risk planned home and hospital births was reported in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in 2009. The study concluded: A home birth does not increase the risks of perinatal mortality and severe perinatal morbidity among low risk women, provided the maternity care system facilitiates this choice through the availability of well-trained midwives and through a good transportation and referral system."

What this means, at least in the UK, is that if you're low risk, using a trained midwife, and are close to a hospital, then there is no increased risk to giving birth at home.

The emotional and personal benefits can't truly be measured, but home birth families tend to report much higher satisfaction rates when discussing their birth experience. For anyone considering a home birth, talk to some families who've had one. Or better yet, talk to a family that's experienced both a hospital birth and a home birth with a midwife. The differences are huge.

And remember that when something goes wrong in a hospital, that "emergency c-section" might very well have been caused by the interventions you received to speed up labor. It can also take upwards of thirty minutes for an operating room to be prepped for a c-section, which is about twenty minutes longer than it would take for me to call the hospital from home and drive there if something went awry with with my home birth. Midwives tend to know well in advance if a labor isn't progressing as expected and typically have a 10-15% transfer rate, which is part of why home birth is so safe... midwives are not hesitant about quickly transferring as needed.

People who are discouraging of home births tend to forget that babies born in hospitals also die. In America, babies born in hospitals die more often than babies born in other western countries.

The mortality rate between home and hospital births is comparable, which reflects the simple fact that sometimes nothing can be done regardless of the location. An undetected footling breech could certainly happen in a hospital and result in death, even with an emergency c-section.

Holding home birth to a standard HIGHER than that set in a hospital, the most medicalized of all environments, is inane. If the mortality rates are on par with each other, which they appear to be, then home birth should be an option.

And for those questioning the safety of the 30% of home births happening in The Netherlands, that country ranked #8 out of 43 "Tier One" countries on the 2010 Mothers' Index:

http://www.savethechildren.org/publications/state-of-the-worlds-mothers-report/SOWM-2010-Women-on-the-Front-Lines-of-Health-Care.pdf

The United States, with our over 99% hospital birth compliance rate, ranked only #28. This index includes both maternal mortality and infant mortality statistics.

Thanks for the great information @honeyhaze. I finished Pushed a few weeks ago. It is a great read.

@mschatelaine, I assume you have watched Business of Being Born, since you commented. Ricki Lake is the producer of the film, and appears throughout, but I do not recall her holding herself out to be an authority on birth, though there was plenty of footage of experts (Odent, Gaskin, Moritz, etc.). From my perspective Ricki Lake was offering her perspective as a mom who had had a hospital birth and a home birth and wanted to share her experience with other women.

For everyone against home births, read the statistics. There are actual studies and statistics. Sure everyone has heard a horror story. But I can tell you a lot more from working in the hospital for years that hospitals are NOT safer for your average person. Our hospital is the only one for over an hour that does OB and there have been many deaths due to the illegality of midwifery and lack of OB services in this entire part of the state. Plus hospitals with over 40% c-section rates. If you don't want to read the studies showing home birth safety, then at least look up the statistics of where the US falls in maternal fetal health compared to the rest of the developed world where midwifery is more common and legal.

BTW, my son was born in the hospital. Induced right before my "due date" and I was given no choice-my first was "large" at 8 lbs. 1 oz. He was premature, I hemorrhaged severely after being abandoned by the nurses on break, had a seizure, almost died, and my son still has neurological issues. I have two family members whose children have CP from similar experiences in the hospital and a friend with an almost identical but much worse case than I did and whose daughter is in a wheelchair. I don't know a single person (and I know *a lot*) who have had a home birth with anywhere near this level of trauma. Midwives don't just sit there if you need care-they get you to a hospital if you need one. Read Baby Catcher, Pushed, Born in the USA, or do the research yourself. Women should have the right to make the choice themselves and have access to midwives. Period.

In the maternity unit where i work, in Australia we have recently been reading Amnesty Internationals damning report on maternity care in the USA and i can tell you it is sad, sober reading.

Neither of our countries is doing the right thing by pregnant women and it really needs to change. Working at the coal face i can tell you that the single biggest problem is with choice (or the illusion of choice) and informed consent. Too many women and their families are being bullied into procedures that are convenient for the hospital and the doctors but are a complete fiction not at all based on evidence. One such issue is the outright shaming of home birth mothers as not being as interested in their baby's health and well being as they are for their goal of a home birth which is a logical fallacy, it is because they are deeply invested in good outcomes that they choose this mode of birth. The second outrage is the c-section rate, the WHO quotes that a rate over 14% in developed countries is associated with an increase in maternal and infant morbidity and mortality. So in australia with 35% and the USA with around 30% we are literally doing more harm than good.