HORRIFIC legislation - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 77 Old 02-03-2007, 01:16 PM - Thread Starter
 
eminencejae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UT
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I just found out about this from being a member of the yahoo group UTFriendsofMidwifes. It would make nearly everyone inelligable for a home birth if passed. It also says that they would be looking at the legislation in other states, so it kind of is a nationwide issue I think, that one state could spoil the whole bunch which is why I'm not only posting it in the tribal area of UT.
Check it out and find a way to stop this. I think it's really very scary.


http://le.utah.gov/~2007/bills/sbillint/sb0243.htm

mom to boy 14, boy 5, angel.gif  11 week loss, 2ndtri.gif  Expecting a surprise in December! lactivist.gifintactivist.gifhomeschool.gifnovaxnoIRC.gifrocks.jpguc.jpg

eminencejae is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 77 Old 02-03-2007, 01:46 PM
 
samuel1:8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 64
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yikes
samuel1:8 is offline  
#3 of 77 Old 02-03-2007, 01:51 PM
 
TurboClaudia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: in a yellow house
Posts: 7,321
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
hmm... i'm particularly perturbed at the phrase "known or suspected group b strep"... grrr...

is this a proposed bill? or one already in effect?
TurboClaudia is offline  
#4 of 77 Old 02-03-2007, 01:57 PM
 
barefoot mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Wow. That's extremely scary and Big Brother-ish. According to those guidelines, I know of no one that would be eligible for home birth. It just blows my mind that people think this way.
barefoot mama is offline  
#5 of 77 Old 02-03-2007, 04:01 PM
 
inkedmamajama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 1,295
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
multiple gestations???!!!! thats so f'ed up.

Heavily tattooed and Dready Mama to my girls. YES we are STILL NURSING! love to and
inkedmamajama is offline  
#6 of 77 Old 02-03-2007, 04:48 PM
 
mykidsmom776's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Medford, OR
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Honestly, this would inspire some homebirthers that would normally have a midwife to UC instead. How arrogant of the government to feel that it has the right to dictate something as natural as giving birth! I almost wished I lived there just so I could fight it. I will definitely have to keep an eye out for my state. Fortunately I live in a state that is much, much more hb friendly.

Hmmmm... I wonder who is behind the lobbying of this bill? Hospitals and OBGYNs???

This makes me quite angry and disturbed.
mykidsmom776 is offline  
#7 of 77 Old 02-03-2007, 05:20 PM
 
Kidzaplenty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Writing my Happily Ever After
Posts: 15,078
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Sounds just like what any doctor would want. They believe that no baby can be born without their help so they would try to force that help on everyone whether or not they want it.

Leaving our only option UC. Good for me, not so great for someone who doesn't feel comfortable UCing.

Any misspellings or grammatical errors in the above statement are intentional;
they are placed there for the amusement of those who like to point them out.
Kidzaplenty is offline  
#8 of 77 Old 02-03-2007, 05:21 PM
 
Sea_Gal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle's Eastside
Posts: 220
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
OH MY GOSH!!!!!!
eminencejae I am so glad you told us about this.
Here I thought Utah had made some good progress about mw & hb.
Stupid, Stupid Utah!
Oh this is way too much power for them to have.
And who is going to enforce this?
And how? *Shudder*
Oh so many letters that need to be written.

Me , married to , with one . I'm a birth doula. We believe in
Sea_Gal is offline  
#9 of 77 Old 02-03-2007, 05:22 PM
 
christyc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NC
Posts: 1,496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
What a load of crap!!

So, the question is... What can we do about it?

Wife of one and mom of five, including my HBAC twins!
christyc is offline  
#10 of 77 Old 02-03-2007, 06:51 PM
 
onlyboys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: FL
Posts: 3,578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ummm, wow.

Okay, a couple of things. It sounds pretty much like FL's laws and rules, which also limit the scope of midwives. A whole list of things require CONSULT with a physician, or an okay from a physician that says they are okay to birth with a MW.

The only reason I can think that GBS mamas are risked out is that UT midwives are not allowed to administer prophylactic ABX. Is this true? If they could test and treat GBS positive mamas, then they could stay in their care.

It seems like they anticipate a fight, because they put into place a study group at the bottom--two DEMs, two physicians RECOMMENDED by the UT medical association (duh), and two CNMs. I think that the consumers of UT should also be represented.

It looks to me like the UT medical association is running scared. That means that MWs in UT are doing something right! Keep those cards and letters coming in, folks!
onlyboys is offline  
#11 of 77 Old 02-03-2007, 09:19 PM
 
Full Heart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Surronded by Dairy Farms AZ
Posts: 3,603
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Alot of those look just like the laws that have been in force here in AZ for awhile. http://www.azsos.gov/public_services...9-16.htm#pgfid

Utahs rule about transfering if membranes have ruptured for longer than 18 hours? Thats just silly. What gets me is are they gonna start making rules about hospital birth? They gonna make a rule that I have to go to the hospital within 18 hours of having ROM if I am already planning a hospital birth? And no one says you have to have an IV during a hospital birth (well except those court ordered rare ones) so what does it matter? They are assuming those that hospital birth are compliant birthers and those hbers are just radical birthers who don't know right from wrong : .

Expecting #9.  Always busy hsing.
Full Heart is offline  
#12 of 77 Old 02-03-2007, 09:53 PM
 
homebirthing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,663
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
excludes from the practice of Direct-entry midwifery a pregnancy that involves an infant below 2,500 (5.5 lbs) grams or above 4,000 grams (8.8 lbs)

ARE. YOU. FREAKING. KIDDING. ME?

a prior myomectomy, hysterotomy, or c-section


And further down for CNM's:

failure to deliver after three hours of pushing means transport

breech or other inappropriate fetal presence

jaundice within 30 hours of birth

wife - mother - midwife

CIRCUMCISION

The more you know, the worse it gets.

homebirthing is offline  
#13 of 77 Old 02-03-2007, 10:02 PM
 
Arwyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twitter, RMB, PDX
Posts: 16,566
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Lemme see, hypothyroid is an endocrine disease, migraines and bipolar disorder are neurological diseases, EVERYONE is suspected of having GBS colonization (and about 40% of the population has it)... Yup, I'm risked out.

Because I'm a mod and supposed to be a good example I shall refrain from saying what else I think about this... this.
Arwyn is offline  
#14 of 77 Old 02-03-2007, 10:30 PM
 
Stacymom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,853
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So does anyone know more details? Is there going to be some action at the capitol on Monday? I fought so hard to get my dh to agree to homebirth, and I am NOT NOT NOT going to stand by and let this go through, because like everyone else, I would risk out!

Ugh. Please someone, update us so we can get working!

Violin teaching, doula-ing Mom to Abby, (8) Ashlynn, (6) : and Max (11/13/08) Diagnosed with Metopic Craniosynostosis. First surgery 5/1/09, Second surgery March 2010.
Stacymom is offline  
#15 of 77 Old 02-03-2007, 10:46 PM
 
kJad29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 1,011
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
WTF?! That would totally risk out every and anybody who wanted to hb! I would be risked out because I had a fibroid and a myomectomy which was done through my cervix! I had NO cutting into my uterus and I would be risked out of a hb because of a technicality?! I'm outraged! I'm so happy that I live in a VERY hb friendly state and if any such measure were to pass during the time I'm having children, DH and I WILL be going UC. Fight on mamas!!!

Kemi wifedreads.gif to Jeffdh_malesling.GIF mommy to Rohan h20homebirth.gifROTFLMAO.gif 1/3/09 and Narenhomebirth.jpg(transfer to hospital) blahblah.gif  10/22/10. Pregnant with stork-girl.gif

****5****10****15****20****25****30****353rdtri.gif***40 (Hospital BC w/CNMs due to GD)

kJad29 is offline  
#16 of 77 Old 02-03-2007, 10:48 PM
 
Carolinamidwife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 7,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
The only reason I can think that GBS mamas are risked out is that UT midwives are not allowed to administer prophylactic ABX. Is this true? If they could test and treat GBS positive mamas, then they could stay in their care.
I don't know. In texas GBS pos moms can be attended by CPMs but CPMs cannot administer ABX.

These laws scare me.

Amy: Certified Professional Midwife and mom to Max (11) and Stella (6).
Carolinamidwife is offline  
#17 of 77 Old 02-03-2007, 11:30 PM
 
onlyboys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: FL
Posts: 3,578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Amy, for a mom who wishes to have abx, how do they get them? They don't have to be risked out, right?

For the baby size, midwives can't determine the weight of a baby! Are they going to require an ultrasound?

This seems like a perfect example of people writing laws from a very myopic and ignorant view of prenatal and intrapartum care. I saw this type of thing all the time as a teacher--principals who had not been the classroom for 30 years telling me how my class should be run.
onlyboys is offline  
#18 of 77 Old 02-03-2007, 11:34 PM
 
Carolinamidwife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 7,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Well, where there is a will there's a way, KWIM? Moms do not have to go outside their midwife's care for ABX. I don't know of a single midwife who would risk someone out based on GBS status.

Amy: Certified Professional Midwife and mom to Max (11) and Stella (6).
Carolinamidwife is offline  
#19 of 77 Old 02-03-2007, 11:41 PM
 
onlyboys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: FL
Posts: 3,578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Righto!

I knew there must be a way to do that!
onlyboys is offline  
#20 of 77 Old 02-03-2007, 11:49 PM
 
mamimapster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Shy-Town Square!
Posts: 1,842
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Ha wahhhht? No mothers under the age of 16 or over the age of 35??? My mother had homebirths at 36,40,43!
mamimapster is offline  
#21 of 77 Old 02-03-2007, 11:51 PM
 
Carolinamidwife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 7,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
This seems like a perfect example of people writing laws from a very myopic and ignorant view of prenatal and intrapartum care.
Yes. It is writing laws based on a industrial standard of care, not an individualized one. When a hospital has 50 women in labor no one can take the time to give them individualized care. The medical model cannot understand a world where parameters can change based on the individual woman's needs.

Amy: Certified Professional Midwife and mom to Max (11) and Stella (6).
Carolinamidwife is offline  
#22 of 77 Old 02-03-2007, 11:51 PM
 
Carolinamidwife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 7,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
WTF???? 35?????????

What what what?

That is insanity.

Are they using a medical text from 1920?

Amy: Certified Professional Midwife and mom to Max (11) and Stella (6).
Carolinamidwife is offline  
#23 of 77 Old 02-04-2007, 12:44 AM
 
linguistmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Happy Valley
Posts: 1,123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacymom View Post
So does anyone know more details? Is there going to be some action at the capitol on Monday? I fought so hard to get my dh to agree to homebirth, and I am NOT NOT NOT going to stand by and let this go through, because like everyone else, I would risk out!

Ugh. Please someone, update us so we can get working!
If you join the yahoo group they are talking about plans. They are writing a letter this weekend for everyone to use if they want to send to representatives. I am planning to go on Monday, just waiting to see where and when. I hope I will be able to convince my dh like you did yours. That is part of what makes me so mad. I may get him convinced just in time to have to deal with this!

:::
linguistmama is offline  
#24 of 77 Old 02-04-2007, 12:59 AM
 
ckhagen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 826
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
That wright requirement makes me want to go ape in them...
Well, all of it does, but that's just the stupidest thing ever.
ckhagen is offline  
#25 of 77 Old 02-04-2007, 05:48 AM
 
janellesmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I am very healthy, so I thought for sure I would still be eligible for a direct entry midwife in Utah, according to that proposed legislation. However, upon reading it, I discovered I'd be risked out since my last baby was over 8 pounds, 13 ounces. Also, anyone over 35 at the time of conception would be risked out. Also, anyone with an abnormal pap smear during the current pregnancy would be risked out. That would have applied to me in my last pregnancy. The rate of false positives in paps during pregnancy is very high!

So, here I am, in perfect health, having the perfect pregnancy, and even I wouldn't qualify.
janellesmommy is offline  
#26 of 77 Old 02-04-2007, 01:46 PM
 
ColoradoMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: mooning TAO
Posts: 9,587
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoulaSarah View Post
excludes from the practice of Direct-entry midwifery a pregnancy that involves an infant below 2,500 (5.5 lbs) grams or above 4,000 grams (8.8 lbs)
Good grief. My easiest - best birth was my 8 pound 11 ounce baby.
ColoradoMama is offline  
#27 of 77 Old 02-04-2007, 02:48 PM
 
janellesmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoradoMama View Post
Good grief. My easiest - best birth was my 8 pound 11 ounce baby.
You wouldn't be risked out for that. The cutoff is 8 pounds 13 ounces.
janellesmommy is offline  
#28 of 77 Old 02-04-2007, 03:32 PM
 
sapphire_chan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 27,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Stupid question here, I thought hysterectomies made pregnancy impossible. How on earth would anyone be giving care to a woman with a prior hysterectomy? part (H)
sapphire_chan is offline  
#29 of 77 Old 02-04-2007, 04:56 PM
 
skyblufig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: on the shores of Lake Michigan
Posts: 413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlyboys View Post
For the baby size, midwives can't determine the weight of a baby! Are they going to require an ultrasound?
ITA! And even if they did require an u/s, it's not like they're even in the vicinity of 100% accurate when it comes to guesstimating weight. And what next? Are they going to start physically rounding up all us prego's against our will and trucking us down to the nearest baby factory? Yikes indeed!

It's so sad and terribly frustrating. It's just going to drive midwifery and UC further underground. Don't OBs make enough money and have enough of a monopoly on the birth industry?! OK *deep breath* I'm off my soapbox. Apologies... grrr

Jfly-by-nursing1.gif, partner-in-crime to Dfamilybed2.gif, mama to run.gif4, including our brand new rainbow1284.gifbaby.gifmissing my 7-wk-er

skyblufig is offline  
#30 of 77 Old 02-04-2007, 05:13 PM
 
kprown@mac.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
My understanding is that the medical lobby assumed they'd be able to impose these restrictions during the rule-making process, with the obvious goal being to end OOH birth attended by licensed midwives. They lost that battle, though, and so they're going back to the legislature to refight the battle that they lost there in the first place.

Thankfully, the Utah folks are highly organized and very savvy--I'm sure, as someone else here said, they've got the medical lobby on edge. But if you live there, do take the time to send emails to your legislators.

Katie Prown
Legislative Chair
Wisconsin Guild of Midwives
kprown@mac.com is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off