Why Are Homebirths Illegal in Alabama?

PoliticalChic · #1 (**permalink**) 10-11-2008, 03:10 PM

I heard someone mention this and I just did a small amount of research. I learned that in Alabama, midwives need to be Certified Nurse Midwives and can only participate in births at hospitals. How did this bill get passed in this state? What was the logic?

Luissa27 · #2 (**permalink**) 10-11-2008, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoliticalChic

I heard someone mention this and I just did a small amount of research. I learned that in Alabama, midwives need to be Certified Nurse Midwives and can only participate in births at hospitals. How did this bill get passed in this state? What was the logic?

Probably do to liabilty and insurance reasons!

OohRah Mama · #3 (**permalink**) 10-13-2008, 08:23 AM

Probably partly due to that the U.S. has one of the highest infant mortality rates among non-Third World countries. There are many likely causes. Multiple births are up, preemie births as well; socio-economic statuses are widening rather than closing, and lack of affordable health care is reflected.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with trying to ensure some minimal standards of care in this field.

But from a standpoint of legal liability, it's getting so bad that soon hospital housekeepers are gonna need to carry malpractice insurance. Isn't there a sane, middle-road approach to everyone being somewhat responsible?

**jillian** · #4 (**permalink**) 10-13-2008, 08:25 AM

Personally, I'm wondering why anyone would be concerned that there are standards in place for midwives...

why would any woman not want women's health protected? or the baby's protected in the event of emergency?

(Although, silly moi, I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would CHOOSE to give birth at home)

strollingbones · #5 (**permalink**) 10-13-2008, 08:56 AM

why shouldnt a woman give birth at home..that is where it has been done for centuries..childbirth is a natural human condition. It is not an illness why should one be in a hospital to do it? Why do we now have the vast majority of births receiving some type of medical intervention? How high is the ceasarian rate in the US as compared to other modern countries?

AllieBaba · #6 (**permalink**) 10-13-2008, 11:02 AM

Because it's DANGEROUS. I get so sick of the assumption that because it's "natural" it's safe.

A woman who has not had a single problem in pregnancy can go downhill fast and die before anything can be done. I know women who refuse to work in the maternity ward for just this reason. Women can die when they're in a hospital, and they can die even more easily at home where nobody is set up to deal with hemmorhaging. And there are situations where the baby needs to be c-sectioned NOW or the baby dies, as well.

A woman is never so close to death as when she's delivering a child. My guess is that Alabama had a couple of women die in situations where they would have lived if they'd been in a hospital, hence the ban.

AllieBaba · #7 (**permalink**) 10-13-2008, 11:03 AM

I think I spelled hemorrage...hemorrhage...hemmooorrrhhhhaage...wron g.

sigh.

strollingbones · #8 (**permalink**) 10-13-2008, 11:14 AM

in nc you have licensed midwives. Many people here opt to use them. You can even use them in a "birthing" room at a hospital. I think if a woman is low risk and has worked with a midwife then she should decide where she is most comfortable giving birth.

AllieBaba · #9 (**permalink**) 10-13-2008, 11:19 AM

There is no such thing as a "low risk" birth. It doesn't exist.

PoliticalChic · #10 (**permalink**) 10-13-2008, 12:56 PM

There's not a whole lot of stats that compare home births and hospital births, but the ones I've look at shows no evidence that home births are more dangerous than hospital births. If anything, hospital births are slightly more risky than giving birth at home.

This law in Alabama that would prosecute midwives if they participate in home births, is another example of government trying to tell people, they know better.

If a woman has had several children without complications, and her pregnancy is low-risk, it is riskier for her to have the baby in the hospital. Recently, there has been an increase in the infection rate at hospitals. If a baby doesn't need to be born in a hospital, why would you want the baby to be exposed to bacteria, virus, etc.?

Having gone through a couple of pregnancies and births, I wouldn't want to have that right taken away. There are others that may choose to give births at hospitals for whatever reason, fine, but at least give moms that option.

Luissa27 · #11 (**permalink**) 10-13-2008, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillian

Personally, I'm wondering why anyone would be concerned that there are standards in place for midwives...

why would any woman not want women's health protected? or the baby's protected in the event of emergency?

(Although, silly moi, I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would CHOOSE to give birth at home)

or a kiddie pool in their living room.
They also thought I was going to have a normal labor and after I pushed for two hours they realized my child had a large head and was stuck on my pelvis so I had to have an emergency c section. He also laid on his umbilical cord half way through labor and his heart rate dropped. I am sure glad I was at the hospital, who knows what would have happened if I was at home.

AllieBaba · #12 (**permalink**) 10-13-2008, 05:43 PM

You probably both would have died.

Sorry, I'm not a great supporter of midwifery, though to each their own. My sister had the same experience as Luissa, absolutely nobody had any inkling she'd have a problem delivering, but both of her kids had big square heads. And if that head actually gets INTO the pelvis, there's nothing to be done, other than cut it out. Which is why it's so important to have quick access to surgery....

Silence · #13 (**permalink**) 10-13-2008, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strollingbones

why shouldnt a woman give birth at home..that is where it has been done for centuries..childbirth is a natural human condition. It is not an illness why should one be in a hospital to do it? Why do we now have the vast majority of births receiving some type of medical intervention? How high is the ceasarian rate in the US as compared to other modern countries?

well, speaking as someone who had a completely uneventful pregnancy but also almost died during child birth I'd say there's a good reason for having babies in hospitals. Do you know how many women used to die during child birth?

Quote:

A woman who has not had a single problem in pregnancy can go downhill fast and die before anything can be done.

that is what happened to me. I was 2 minutes away from bleeding out after delivering my daughter. If I had given birth at home my daughter would've been an orphan. I won't even go into all the things they had to do to keep me alive. I had to have 4 units of blood transfused after delivery.

Allie is right...there is nothing safe about child birth.

Luissa27 · #14 (**permalink**) 10-13-2008, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllieBaba

You probably both would have died.

Sorry, I'm not a great supporter of midwifery, though to each their own. My sister had the same experience as Luissa, absolutely nobody had any inkling she'd have a problem delivering, but both of her kids had big square heads. And if that head actually gets INTO the pelvis, there's nothing to be done, other than cut it out. Which is why it's so important to have quick access to surgery....

Exactly! Plus I went into shock and had to be put on oxygen. Plus there is no way I would have a natural birth. I give anyone who does props. When I got to a 3 just say I was crying like a baby.
I also say one of those baby stories where a lady was having a home birth and she started to bleed out and they had to rush her to the hospital!

AllieBaba · #15 (**permalink**) 10-13-2008, 05:53 PM

SHe's lucky she made it.