Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Please help us in the fight to preserve women's rights to choose home birth! Senator Dayton and the Utah Medical Association are at it once again (some of you may remember my rant on this subject last year). SB93 is seeking to "regulate" the scope of practice of licensed direct-entry midwives here in Utah. The problem with the "regulation" is that it is so restrictive, it would essentially prevent 90% of the women who currently seek care by a licensed direct-entry midwife from doing so in the future. The definitions of "normal birth" in this bill are very broad, and just about anything short of the baby falling out of mom could mandate transfer of care. I'm not kidding, it's that extreme. Furthermore, the Utah Medical Association was supposed to meet with the midwives to draft a compromise bill after the original version passed the first committee in Senate. Meetings did take place, and compromises were reached. However, the UMA decided to go behind the midwives' backs by drafting a version of the compromise and rushing it through Senate that was, in fact, NOT the compromise reached between the two parties. Let me also mention at this point that there is a separate rules committee in place, through the Department of Professional Licensing, which handles decisions regarding the scope of practice of midwives. Regulations should be made through this committee, NOT by putting them in statute. As a matter of fact, when midwives in UT were first licensed (3 years ago), the UMA had a chance to send a representative to the meetings to help determine rules and regulations. This representative NEVER showed up to the meetings! Now they're trying to push their agenda through legislation. While I can understand that some people believe there should be regulation, going this route is NOT the way to do it. The midwives have shown that they are willing to negotiate and compromise, but apparently, that is not enough for the UMA. So, even if you wouldn't choose home birth for yourself, please consider the implications the passing of this bill would have for women in this State. If you feel so inclined, please email your House Representative and ask him/her to oppose SB93S1. See below the letter I wrote to my own Rep (the bill has, by now, passed through Senate, and is in the House). You can find your Rep by going to Votesmart and entering your ZIP. :o)
You may be aware already that SB93S1 may move from the Senate to the House soon. As one of your constituents, I would ask you to please OPPOSE SB93S1. When SB93 was first introduced in Senate this session, it was passed through the first committee with the stipulation that the Utah Medical Association and the Licensed Direct-Entry Midwives get together to work out a compromise bill. SB93S1 is this supposed compromise bill. Sadly, the UMA set up the bill in a way that does NOT reflect the compromises that were made with the LDEMs during meetings. Instead, it puts further restrictions on not just licensed midwives, but unlicensed midwives, as well (who were supposed to be left out of the original SB93). If you’d like to know the exact points why SB93S1 does NOT reflect the compromise worked out between the midwives and the UMA, I have listed them below.
Let me close by saying that SB93S1, as it stands now, would severely limit my choices in healthcare providers. I am a mother of soon-to-be four. I have a college degree; my husband is going to graduate from USU with a PhD this May. We are educated people, and we care intensely about our children. I have done extensive research on childbirth, its history, and the history of obstetrics. I have also done extensive research on the safety of home birth. While my first three children were born at the hospital, my husband and I have chosen home birth for our newest addition. We have only done so after lots of prayerful consideration. I have read the outcome reports for LDEMs in Utah for the last two years, and am satisfied that these midwives are well aware of their scope of practice. They know which clients they can and can’t safely care for, as well as when to transfer care to a physician. I would like to retain my freedom to choose the healthcare provider I feel can provide the best care for me and my baby. I do NOT need the UMA or the State of Utah to make these decisions for me. Again, I ask that you please OPPOSE SB93S1, as it currently stands. Thank you for your time.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
I also had an appointment with one of my midwives on my birthday. The other one sent me a birthday email. How nice. :o) Anyway, everything looks great, baby is growing well. She's currently posterior (or at least was a week ago), which explains the lower back pain I have from time to time. It also explains why I can feel her move around so much, her legs are kicking me right out front. I've thought about catching my alien tummy on video, but maybe that would be too weird, hehe. It really is quite interesting to watch those little bumps moving across my belly, under my skin. Sometimes I visualize a little baby inside of me, and I get strangely weirded out. It just seems so unreal, I don't know. Now I'm rambling... :p
I've also been doing more research on the Houston area, and am getting a pretty good idea of where I think I'm going to want to live, and what I want my house to look like, etc. It's been fun looking at houses online and figuring out what all I want and don't want. Dave is likely going down for a site visit the first weekend in March, and he may take some time to look around the area and such. I half wish I could go, but alas, probably wouldn't be a good idea at this point in time. :p We're hoping to have a decision made by mid-March, keep your fingers crossed that by then, we'll have some definite answers for the other job option we're waiting on...