Kirsten Johnson was sitting at home on Christmas Eve when a sharp wave of pain stole her next breath. More than a week past her due date, the first-time mother immediately recognized the first sign of labor.
Johnson and her husband left their rural home near Dunning and sped off on the two-hour trek to the hospital in Kearney, a trip Johnson had reluctantly made for dozens of appointments.
Battling heavy fog and icy roads, the couple arrived around 1 a.m. The contractions intensified just before dawn.
A few hours later, Johnson held her wailing baby boy after delivering him in a natural water birth on Christmas Day 2024. While successful, it also solidified Johnson’s desire for a different avenue for birth: midwifery.
“Being a first-time mom, you don’t know what to expect,” Johnson said. “So, just hearing that X, Y, Z can go wrong and people are going to pressure you into things, it’s a lot all at once. I think, had I have had a midwife with him, I would have felt a lot more empowered.”
Mothers like Johnson interested in alternative forms of birth run headlong into existing Nebraska law.
State law prohibits nurse midwives, the most qualified group of midwives, from assisting in home births even as mothers continue to seek such care from less-educated midwives and doulas.
Nebraska is the only state in the nation where certified nurse midwives — registered nurses with advanced training — can’t assist with home births. Nebraska is also one of only two states that requires physician supervision of nurse midwives.
A 1984 state law licensed and regulated nurse midwives, but a last-minute addition requested by the Nebraska Medical Association prohibited them from assisting in home births.
The measure also failed to address forms of unlicensed midwifery in the state. This allowed less-educated midwives to assist in home births until two years ago, when the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that all midwives must hold a license to practice.
In 2024, about five planned home births occurred in Nebraska per 1,000 live births, according to the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services. That number had slowly increased over the previous decade.
Nurse midwives have been practicing in Nebraska hospitals, birth centers and clinics for more than 40 years — under the supervision of a physician.
Beyond their specialization in primary, sexual and reproductive care, nurse midwives can conduct exams, order tests, prescribe medications, do procedures such as pap smears and address gynecological concerns.
license nurse midwives in the
state but she regrets that the law doesn’t allow them to assist in home births. Courtesy photo
Ann Seacrest, who moved to Nebraska in 1981 while pregnant, led the movement to license nurse midwives after realizing there was no systematic way to receive midwifery care in the state. She began working on what became the 1984 law soon after delivering her baby.
While physician supervision agreements were standard at the time, Seacrest said the midwife legislation didn’t originally include the home birth restriction until the Nebraska Medical Association requested that such a provision be added. Wanting the measure to pass, Seacrest and other supporters agreed to the addition.
“I have huge remorse every time I get asked about home birth,” Seacrest said of the wording that prohibits nurse midwives from assisting in home births. “… I would do anything I could to undo it, because it shouldn’t be there. Particularly now, it shouldn’t be there.”
Although some efforts have been made over the years to reverse the restrictions, the Nebraska Medical Association and the Nebraska Hospital Association have begun to talk with the state’s nurse midwife group and expressed openness to supporting and advancing the profession with certain guardrails.
“(Nebraska) families have strong feelings about home birth,” said Robert Wergin, president of the medical association. “… If they should occur, it should be with a highly trained person in a low-risk identified patient with collaborative arrangements made.”
A 2024 analysis from the Journal of Clinical Medicine found that midwife care often reduces medical interventions during childbirth with favorable maternal and neonatal outcomes in most cases. Additionally, a researcher at the Boston University School of Public Health found that states with larger proportions of their births attended by midwives tend to have lower infant and pregnancy-related mortality rates.
Elizabeth Mollard, president of the Nebraska affiliate of the American College of Nurse Midwives, said the state’s regulations have made it difficult for nurse midwives to function “from the get-go.”
Under the 1984 law, nurse midwives must practice under a licensed physician who is readily available for consultation.
Mollard said many midwives have struggled to find physicians willing to sign a supervisory agreement because of possible liability risks. This has caused some nurse midwives to switch to non-birth-related roles or to leave the state altogether.
As of June, 113 people had active nurse midwife licenses in Nebraska. Approximately 87 were practicing in some capacity, while only 44 were providing birth services.
The supervision requirement has also been the “primary barrier” to opening and sustaining freestanding birth centers in Nebraska, Mollard said. Such centers in other states are run by midwives, exist separately from hospitals and handle low-risk pregnancies.
Nebraska has seen three separate freestanding birth centers fail over the years, with the latest closing in Lincoln in 2024. Although multiple factors led to their demise, Mollard said the underlying issue was unreliable physician collaborations.
Nurse midwives are a “highly trained workforce” that could help fill the gap in the state’s maternity care shortage, she said.
“It’s just silly when we see these statistics about maternal care deserts and that there’s no obstetric care provider in that community, and it’s like, ‘Oh, wait, actually there is,’” Mollard said, referring to nurse midwives. “It’s just our laws don’t allow them to actually care for patients.”
In late April, a nurse midwife legally assisted with a home birth in Hastings after a pregnant mother named Hope Lindstrom sued the state. The state settled and allowed the birth to proceed in the home. Lindstrom had argued that the home birth ban on nurse midwives violated her 14th Amendment rights and religious freedom.
Heather Swanson, a nurse midwife in the state since 2002, attended Lindstrom’s birth along with two registered nurses. Before the birth, Swanson said she conducted a risk assessment to ensure Lindstrom was fit for out-of-hospital care. She also met with the city’s emergency medical services team to discuss a transfer in case of complications.
Lindstrom’s home birth gave Swanson and nurse midwives across the state hope for change.
“I feel like there’s enough evidence to say planned home birth attended by a licensed provider is where we see the safest outcomes, if risks are appropriately assessed and attended to,” Swanson said.
On the other hand, Mollard said the current system of home birth in the state “is the most dangerous system of home birth.”
Mollard said home births have been handled “underground” by individuals with varying levels of experience. If something were to go wrong, there is little to no communication with healthcare authorities upon transfer to a hospital.
“Right now, we have a really ugly system where you have a choice of a hospital or giving birth alone or giving birth with somebody who is practicing illegally,” Mollard said. “If, for whatever reason, a hospital is not acceptable to you, then your two options that are left are not great options.”
Because of the 1984 nurse midwifery law, nurse midwives are the only type of midwife recognized under Nebraska statute. That lone recognition created an avenue for the less-educated midwives in the state, including certified professional midwives and traditional midwives, to practice unregulated.
Alternative birth care providers in Nebraska
Certified Nurse Midwives (CNMs)
Nurse midwives are able to practice in healthcare facilities, physicians’ offices and organized public health agencies, but home birth deliveries are prohibited. Nurse midwives are advanced practice registered nurses who have completed undergraduate nursing education, graduate clinical education in nurse midwifery, national certification administered by the American Midwifery Certification Board and continuing competency requirements.
Certified Professional Midwives (CPMs)
Professional midwives are not licensed in Nebraska. They focus on care in out-of-hospital settings. There are two routes to becoming a professional midwife. One involves graduating from a formal midwifery school whose curriculum is accredited by the Midwifery Education Accreditation Council. The other involves the documentation of midwifery training under the supervision of a registered preceptor. Both require the completion of a two-year apprenticeship with a preceptor. Students then must pass the North American Registry of Midwives exam to prove competency.
Traditional Midwives
Traditional midwives are not licensed in Nebraska. They focus on care in out-of-hospital settings. There are no formal education requirements to become a traditional midwife, and many learn the trade through apprenticeships or hands-on experience.
Doulas
Doulas are not licensed or regulated in Nebraska. Doulas assist with hospital and home birth care in the state, guiding mothers emotionally and physically rather than offering medical support. Many practicing doulas choose to gain certification in skills such as labor support and lactation, though no formal education is required.
The loophole was addressed by the Nebraska Supreme Court in 2024 after it ruled that the state’s Uniform Credentialing Act restricts unlicensed persons from presenting themselves to the public as individuals qualified to treat any physical condition.
The cases that triggered the Supreme Court decision involve a now 78-year-old professional midwife named Judy Jones. She had attended home births in 2021 and 2022 in Madison and Douglas counties. In the Douglas County case, the baby died because the umbilical cord wrapped around her neck.
Judy Jones is charged with unlawfully practicing as a nurse midwife after receiving a cease-and-desist order, a felony punishable by up to four years in prison.
The cases are moving through the courts in both counties. Trial dates have been set for this summer.
The regulations on midwives and home birth have left mothers in search of alternative birth services with one remaining option — unassisted birth.
Madison Jones, a mother of four who lives in Hay Springs, is an advocate for midwifery care, but after moving to rural Nebraska in 2022, she found she had no midwife option. When it came time to deliver her fourth child last year, she decided to do it unassisted.
Madison Jones has worked as a labor and delivery nurse in Chadron and Alliance and as a certified doula. Her experience in maternity care made her feel more prepared to handle her own unassisted birth. She also lives within 25 miles of a hospital and said she could have gotten there quickly if complications had arisen.
Both nurse midwives and professional midwives are now engaged in separate legislative efforts trying to remove barriers to their work.
Nurse midwives want to receive full practice authority and be authorized to assist with home births. Professional midwives want to gain licensure from the state to legally do the same.
Two midwifery bills — one addressing nurse midwives and the other addressing professional midwives — were introduced in the 2025 legislative session by State Sen. Ben Hansen of Blair but failed to advance.
Both midwife groups plan to continue their efforts in the 2027 legislative session.
Mollard emphasized that the primary goal of the nurse midwife legislation is not to move births out of hospitals. Instead, she said, it’s to make use of a workforce ready to provide women’s healthcare in “the communities that need it most.”
“We have licensed nurse midwives living in Nebraska who would like to be caring for women and families,” Mollard said.
Abigail Cada, a representative for the Nebraska Certified Professional Midwives Alliance, said acquiring state licensure would allow professional midwives to serve clients at home without legal uncertainty.
Wergin, president of the Nebraska Medical Association, said nurse midwives could be important collaborators in both urban and rural communities. But the medical association, he said, does not believe professional midwives are equipped to “ensure patient safety” during home births.
“They don’t really have the formal medical training that a certified nurse midwife has, and their standards fall far short of what we felt was a safe maternity situation, especially in obstetrical emergencies,” Wergin said.
Margaret Woeppel, the chief nursing and informatics officer with the Nebraska Hospital Association, said the association is open to nurse midwives practicing to the full extent of their training with proper safeguards and coordination of care.
The medical and hospital associations produced a set of guidelines for home birth care that they say are needed to gain their approval in future legislation. The guidelines include the early recognition of high-risk pregnancies that shouldn’t be handled outside of a hospital and a written plan for transfer if a birth becomes complicated.
Mollard said nurse midwives are accepting of the guidelines to allow them to practice without physician supervision and assist in home births. She’s hopeful that, by this time next year, Nebraska will join the majority of states providing access to alternate forms of birth care.
“I think a lot of people misunderstand moms and babies who are pushing for midwifery care, thinking that the safety of our babies and ourselves aren’t our No. 1 priority,” Madison Jones said. “Women are still having unattended home births, and the bad outcomes that come from those things could be prevented by better midwifery care access.”
17 Comments
Hello Flatwater Editor Matthew Hansen,
I am the internet user whom you have accused of using an “avalanche” of “false identities” to “discredit” your newspaper. I continue to disagree with your assessment, and today I will demonstrate another reason why I disagree with your assessment. I do not exclusively criticize your newspaper, I also praise your newspaper when I feel praise is warranted. My goal is not to “discredit” you at all, but hopefully remind you of your own mission statement to conduct “investigations” that “matter.”
And this article does indeed deserve praise, as you have provided coverage of a topic of significant public interest. As you (I presume) already know, an effort is made nearly every legislative session to have this particularly strange and cruel Nebraska law changed, and those efforts typically result in standing room only hearings with lines of people out the door and down the hallway to try to get a word in with the legislators about this matter. Something which is that important to that many people is undeniably a topic your newspaper should be talking about, and this time you did not disappoint.
That said, my praise is going to be paired with some constructive criticism. Again, the point of constructive criticism is not to “discredit” you by hurling accusations of unfixable problems at you, but rather to suggest improvements by pointing out a few small things that could be better.
Firstly, please stop opening every Flatwater article with a long anecdote about a particular person. At best this is distracting, as the reader must slog through this narrative before arriving at the actual facts of the story. At worst, this could be implied as a form of bias, as it appears to manipulate the emotions of the reader before they have had a chance to hear the facts. And in this particular case, it also muddied the waters and distracted from the real issue at hand.
Secondly… Judy Jones, Merv Riepe, legislative hearings, court cases, hospital associations, birth centers, etc… there is a whole list of things that were only briefly mentioned here that deserve a much deeper analysis and investigation. But underlying all of those issues is the fact that hospitals see birth centers, midwives and home birth as a form of competition. People who don’t have their babies in the hospital don’t produce a profit for the hospital or it’s doctors. And that fact is one of the main reasons why Nebraska has handed a power to hospitals that they don’t have in 49 other states. This article really should have dug a lot deeper into this important element of the story.
Which brings me to my final point. The real issue at hand here isn’t just that Nebraska has ignorantly claimed that an activity which is regularly practiced everywhere else on earth is somehow too dangerous to take place in our state. The real point is that the government and it’s “law” in this case aren’t even remotely appropriate, constitutional or enforceable. Hope Lindstrom had to sue the government and settle with them to force them to respect her rights. But the fact remains that if what they did to her violated her rights, then it also violated the rights we all are entitled to.
This wasn’t a story about rural healthcare, this was a story about the government behaving in an authoritarian manner that exceeded any lawful or moral authority it actually has. You should have simply said that, because when the government behaves in an unethical manner, it is our responsibility as Americans to hold them to account. I hold my government to account when they violate my rights, and I hope you intend to do the same.
Never the less, please keep writing articles like this one. Articles about stories that matter!
It seems you have anonymously commented to complain on nearly every story that FFP posts.
If you have concerns, take it up directly with FFP leadership. Trolling in the comments solves nothing.
And, if you really are the journalistic dynamo you are presenting yourself as, I encourage you to own it. Put your name on these posts, apply for an editorial position at a publication, and/or start your own publication.
But this? This is embarrassing.
Blake, did you even read what I wrote? I didn’t “complain” about this article, I actually said I liked it! And I encouraged Flatwater to write more articles like this one!
And as I have repeatedly pointed out, all comments on this site are anonymous, as there is no login mechanism, the user enters a different name every time they post and nothing exists to verify the accuracy of those names. Your post is also anonymous, because we have no way of knowing if the name you used was real or if that name actually belongs to you. And really, what do you expect Flatwater to do about this? Start checking driver’s licenses before every comment?
Isn’t it weird that my legitimate feedback on articles never receives a direct response (such as anyone noticing I actually liked this article), but instead I am always personally attacked? And Matthew Hansen claimed personal attacks were against the rules of this site… Yet the comments containing personal attacks are allowed anyway! Weird!
Be better Blake.
Either address False Identity’s (aka Kofi) plaudits and criticisms, or the article itself, or … just … stop the attacks on other posters. Just stop. Please.
Your attack is a CLEAR violation of FFP’s commenting rules, but FFP has chosen to selectively enforce them, which is FFP’s prerogative I suppose.
FI’s lengthy comment on this article are well organized, well thought out, and well written, as is typical. I do not agree with his view that allowing midwives to practice in NE is unwarranted. In my view, it is a proper function of state governments to regulate public health; to not promote the BEST health care for pregnant women seems to be an abdication of the state’s duties.
[see how easy it is to be relevant and insightful without attacking the commenter?]
Meanwhile Bake, just … be …better.
Well said, Mr. Gross. It’s actually ironic isn’t it? You and I can respectfully disagree with each other, and we can also intelligently defend our own position without having to resort to personal attacks on the other person. And that was actually what Matthew Hansen said he wanted this comment section to achieve! Although he blames me, it is actually people who are rushing to defend his work who are resorting to internet trolling by hurling baseless insults around.
Perhaps we have to show everyone how a civil debate works? I can definitely understand your viewpoint that the government should work to uphold the safety of the general public, but I also respectfully disagree that this is a scenario where the government either has the authority to do that or is actually doing it in an effective way. Let me politely explain several reasons why I feel that way, and everyone here can take note that none of my provided reasons will involve attacking you personally.
Firstly, I do not see giving birth as a medical emergency. It is actually a natural bodily function that billions upon billions of mammals perform on a regular basis without being rushed to a hospital. That being the case, I challenge the underlying assumption that a pregnant woman needs to receive the same sort of reaction from a doctor as a person who is dying from cancer. Birth is a new life, not death or disease.
Secondly, even if we say that giving birth is a medical scenario, does the government have any legitimate authority to regulate it? Keeping people safe with what the government asserted was the best practice was the same justification we were given for COVID lockdowns, mask mandates and forced vaccinations. But the government was objectively wrong about the effectiveness of those approaches and in many cases courts ruled they violated the rights of citizens to make their own medical decisions. How do we know in this case that herding pregnant women to the hospital is actually what is best, and why is the government allowed to override their own right to make medical decisions for themselves?
Lastly, do we even really trust the government to make these kinds of decisions? Isn’t this the same government that people on the right side of the political spectrum say is overrun by a secretive deep state? And the same government that people on the left say is systemically racist, homophobic, etc? Why if we say that the government is evil, would we then turn around and say we want the evil government to make our medical decisions for us?
That’s just a handful of reasons I can put forward, but I will leave it at that. As everyone can see, I can say these things without attacking anyone or suggesting that another anonymous user of this website is somehow a bad person just for having a different viewpoint.
“Ad hominem for me, but not for thee!” – J. Gross and Logic Haver lol
Flatwater loves to write articles that reveal the obvious… So I suppose the next big Flatwater article will be about the Pot Calling the Kettle Black.
So women are having more and more homebirths in Nebraska. The CNMs want to help at these homebirths. The hospitals and the doctors are supporting the CNMs. Tell me again why this legislation did not pass last session?
Good question Mary. This is actually important information the author of the article neglected to include (even though Flatwater fanboys will fly into a rage over me pointing that out).
I was at the hearing for the legislation you are talking about. The hospital associations and various doctors were all there to testify AGAINST the legislation, because they do not want it to pass. They do not want to lose their monopoly on where people are able to give birth. And some of them even said the quiet part out loud by admitting that if their maternity ward doesn’t turn enough of a profit for the hospital, they might just shut it down and leave everyone without any place to give birth at all.
Now, considering the hearing was literally standing room only and packed to the walls with people who were there to support the legislation, one would think that our elected representatives would understand their obligation to listen to the voters who elected them rather than faceless corporate minions. But clearly that did not happen. Instead Merv Riepe argued with and attacked every supporter in response to their statements and the legislation never left committee.
And yes, it seems noteworthy to me that Flatwater left this essential information out of an otherwise pretty good article. Flatwater fans are going to hate on me for pointing it out, but the fact remains that this happened and the records of that hearing are public, so there isn’t any real excuse for why it was left out of the article.
On June 30th, the Nebraska Examiner published another article on this topic, both pointing out additional lawsuits which are pending to put a stop to the unfair ban on home births, as well as providing additional details on the legislative hearing for LB 374 where the medical groups and doctors rallied to block the bill.
The Nebraska Examiner contacted and spoke with Senator Ben Hansen who sponsored LB 374 and got his side of the story: “Maybe the hospitals and the Nebraska Medical Association and the OBGYNs wanted to keep childbirth in Nebraska to themselves,” Hansen said.
So I’m not the only person talking about this. The hospitals have something to gain by ensuring the law keeps out any competition to their bottom line. Why is Nebraska Examiner honest enough to at least quote an elected representative who is willing to go on the record saying that, but Flatwater Free Press didn’t even mention this legislation or the outcome of the hearing?
We don’t have enough doctors but one of the best ways to remedy that is with medical personnel educated to a level a little lower than doctor but refuse to do so. My endo is a PA and has been for a long time. I assume she is under the direction of a doctor, but I really don’t care. She takes very good of me and is always spot on. I see more PAs and Nurse practitioners than doctors. And that is fine. The next time I hear about the heavy work loads that doctors have, I’ll remind them that their own profession supports the rules against solutions to that issue.
This is flawed journalism. There is not a single mention of the downside of home birth. Kaitlyn is an amateur who decided to pitch a position that is unequivocally one-sided. “Home birth is good and I’m here to tell you why.” I’m a licensed physician (Georgetown Medical School, 1979) and served as Nebraska State Epidemiologist for 31 years. My wife nearly died during the delivery of our son at an Omaha hospital. Had she not been at the hospital, she would have died. My newborn son delivered perfectly, but the umbilical cord separated from the placenta, which was retained. She immediately began hemorrhaging, a known problem with retained placenta. She took 9 units of blood and multiple IVs with other fluids until an OB-GYN resident with a small hand got up into the uterus to remove the placenta. Without the acute care hospital support she would have exsanguinated. There is a romantic naiveté surrounding home birth. The risk is small but very real. I’m not debating who does the delivery or hospitals profiting from a statutory mandate. I’m OK with “drive-by” deliveries where the mom has the hospital support mechanisms for a brief time before and after delivery. I’m strongly in favor of mandated hospital delivery to avoid maternal mortality. Do an AI search on the causes of obstetric hemorrhage, and you’ll agree. Mothers and their chosen birthing professional are playing Russian roulette with home birth, gambling that they will dodge the bullet of obstetric hemorrhage.
from Open Evidence:
Obstetric hemorrhage encompasses both antepartum and postpartum bleeding, with postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) being the most common form. The global prevalence of primary PPH is approximately 6% of all births, and it remains the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide, accounting for roughly one-quarter of all maternal deaths. [1-2]
Causes of Obstetric Hemorrhage
The causes of PPH are commonly organized using the “4 Ts” mnemonic: [3-4]
Tone (uterine atony) — the most common cause, responsible for approximately 70–80% of PPH cases. The uterus fails to contract adequately after delivery, leading to uncontrolled bleeding from the placental implantation site. [3-5]
Trauma — genital tract lacerations (cervical, vaginal, perineal), uterine rupture, or expanding hematomas, accounting for approximately 10–20% of cases. [4-5]
Tissue — retained placental tissue or blood clots, and placenta accreta spectrum disorders, responsible for approximately 10–15% of cases. [4-5]
Thrombin — coagulation defects (inherited or acquired, including DIC, von Willebrand disease, amniotic fluid embolism), accounting for 1000 mL) occurs in approximately 0.4–3 per 1000 births. [7-8] In the United States, hemorrhage causes approximately 11% of maternal deaths and is the leading cause of death occurring on the day of birth. [9] The pregnancy-related mortality ratio for hemorrhage overall is approximately 1.94 per 100,000 live births. [10]
Risk Factors
Key risk factors include chorioamnionitis, prolonged or augmented labor, uterine overdistention (multiple gestation, macrosomia, polyhydramnios), operative vaginal delivery, cesarean section, placenta previa/abruption, maternal obesity, and maternal anemia. [1][4][11] Notably, PPH often occurs unpredictably in women without identifiable risk factors, underscoring the importance of universal preventive measures for all deliveries. [2][11]
From 1990 to 2021, the global age-standardized incidence rate of maternal hemorrhage decreased by 27.7%, yet significant regional disparities persist, with low-resource settings bearing a disproportionately high burden.
Isn’t it interesting how all of the people against home birth are doctors (or claim to be, anyway)?
The alleged “downside” of home birth completely misses the point. And the point is that it’s none of your business where people choose to give birth or whom they choose to assist them with their birth.
Doctors that want to force their opinions on other people seem to have not learned their lesson during COVID. Telling us that we had to wear masks and stay home while you made Tik Tok videos of yourself dancing in empty hospitals destroyed any credibility the medical profession ever had. And nobody is ever going to let either the government or “the experts” make their medical decisions for them again.
I’m very glad your wife was in the right place to receive the care she needed. Obstetric hemorrhage is one of the most serious emergencies in maternity care, and no responsible birth professional would argue otherwise.
The question is not whether hemorrhage happens. It does, sometimes without warning. The question is how we create the safest system possible for the families who will choose home birth regardless.
The article was about regulation of Certified Nurse-Midwives, not whether every pregnancy belongs at home. Regulated home birth includes careful risk screening, informed consent, emergency planning, required consultation and transfer when indicated, and integration with the healthcare system. Those safeguards are fundamentally different from unregulated birth.
I also don’t think it is accurate to characterize regulated home birth as “Russian roulette.” The evidence consistently shows that for appropriately screened, low risk pregnancies attended by qualified, regulated providers practicing within an integrated system, severe maternal complications remain uncommon. That does not mean the risk is zero, just as hospital birth is not risk free.
If the concern is preventing maternal deaths, then I think we should all agree that regulated care is preferable to unregulated care. Right now homebirth is like a back alley abortion with untrained people profiting off of the desires of families to stay home for birth like they do in every other state. Driving qualified providers out of the system does not eliminate home birth. It simply makes it less safe for the families who choose it.
But Jane, take the next step in your own argument.
Marijuana is illegal. So people buy it illegally.
The reasoning then goes that the government should regulate legal marijuana so that people will stop buying it illegally.
But then the hypothetically “legal” marijuana is constantly pushing the limits of what is allowed (such as we see here in Nebraska currently, where a small minority of low potency products are legal under federal law, but there are shops regularly selling items that exceed this potency). And people continue to traffic the illegal products anyway. A patchwork of conflicting laws makes the system confusing for people trying to navigate it and the simplest solution is to just go ask the shady guy down at the mall if he’s holding.
So as you see, government regulation doesn’t solve problems, it just redirects those problems in new ways. Either birth is controlled by hospitals, or it happens “illegally” or it happens in a confusing patchwork of regulations that people end up bypassing anyway. People still have kids either way, it’s just a question of how hard the government makes it and if they accidentally break some law while doing it.
Why not consider having the government get out of the way entirely? End all regulation and let people do what they will, suffering whatever consequences (positive or negative) they get as a result? Its simply none of our business where people choose to give birth. It’s their life and their kid.
We do need to have our hospital maternity wards, but let’s face it…the decrease in Medicaid funding will have a deleterious effect on rural hospitals. I don’t know how many have closed, but it would seem to me that women deserve pre-natal care. A 4 hour round trip doesn’t seem like a good alternative particularly with gas prices what they are. The needs and preferences of the patients should be considered. I also wonder about the infant death cited in the story. The US isn’t leading the pack in maternal mortality. Comparing rates of infant and maternal deaths would clarify relative safety.
I was around when the 1984 nurse midwifery law passed, and I paid close attention because I was having my own babies during those years. Even after that law passed, Nebraska didn’t see nurse midwives practicing in hospitals for at least another decade. Change has always come slowly here and I was never able to use a midwife.
Now here we are, more than forty years later. My own children are finished having children, and I find it disheartening that every discussion about nurse midwives somehow turns into a debate about entirely different types of midwives. These are not the same issues.
It is long past time for Nebraska to update its laws for CNMs. At this point, no one is standing in the way except people who insist that any standards or regulations should not apply to them. That is their fight, not the CNMs.
Let the CNMs have the changes they have worked for. Stop changing the conversation. We have waited long enough.