Maternal mortality is on the rise in the US. What can we do about it?

April 12, 2011

My latest article is up at Colorlines, about the issue of maternal mortality in the United States, particularly for women of color.

The United States spending more money per capita than any other country in the world on health care, but we rank behind 40 other countries when it comes to maternal mortality. Ina May Gaskin, in her new book (review to come!) says that women today are two times more likely to die from childbirth than their mothers were.

A report recently released by the New York City Department of Health examining maternal mortality in the city between 2001 and 2005 found striking disparities for women like Eady: black, non-Hispanic women were more than seven times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than white, non-Hispanic women. Such disparities recur nationally. In a March 2010 report entitled “Deadly Deliveries,” Amnesty International explained, “African-American women are nearly four times more likely to die of pregnancy-related complications than white women. These rates and disparities have not improved in more than 20 years.”

But as Rita Henley Jensen explains, the New York report also points to something more than the usual indicators for maternal mortality—poverty, lack of prenatal care and preexisting conditions. Maternal mortality is not just restricted to women of color; we’re actually seeing a rise in maternal and fetal mortality rates overall. California has reported a near tripling of their maternal mortality rate in just the 10 years between 1996 and 2006. The U.S. ranks behind 40 other countries in terms of maternal mortality rates, despite spending the most money per capita on health care.

So how have we created the world’s most expensive maternity care system while still putting women and babies at risk? The answer lies in two of our culture’s biggest influences: money and technology. And now, even as Republican legislators aim to gut the Medicaid program that millions of women depend upon, a movement is growing to make maternity care both cheaper and safer by giving poor women greater access to home births.

I have to say I didn’t like the title of the piece (determined by the editors) because it isn’t just about home birth–it’s about normalizing midwifery care, and particularly expanding access to out of hospital birth, which includes birth centers as well as hospitals. It also includes midwife-provided prenatal care, even if women eventually birth in hospitals.

Home birth is still a dirty word in this country. It’s considered backwards, it’s considered unsafe, it’s considered what someone does when they have no option. This ideology is part of a calculated campaign on behalf of doctors to convince women to give birth with them in the hospital, something that actually killed more women than home births in the initial decades of hospital birth.

Home birth isn’t the problem, and never has been. The problem is making sure all women have access to skilled attendants who know how to care for pregnant women, know how to detect problems, know when to transport to a hospital or when someone might need an obstetrician–someone who is trained specifically to deal with the minority of cases that need specialized medical attention.

Women in the United States are dying in spite of having access to hospital-based maternity care (98%).

That means that women in the US are dying because of hospital-based maternity care.

Either that care is inadequate (like Akira Eady, who I wrote about in the piece, who died from a complication after being released from the hospital postpartum ), or it’s simply too reliant on interventions and surgeries that are harmful. A 33% c-section rate is simply too high. Mothers are dying because they are getting too many surgeries, too many interventions, too many inductions.

We know clearly what isn’t working. The status quo. The 98% hospital birth, the only 9% midwifery care. My article tries to explain how we got here, and what might just help us go in a different direction–back toward patient-centered care that minimizes the use of technology rather than emphasizing it. That only employs tools like c-section when they are really necessary, not just when they are convenient or used to preemptively prevent litigation.

I can’t say definitively that a move back to midwifery care (or home birth) would eliminate disparities. It probably wouldn’t–because racism and classism still exist and still effect our health outcomes. But out-of-hospital midwifery care has some pretty amazing successes both in the US and abroad in terms of reducing maternal mortality. Let’s give it a shot–see if we might not be able to improve these statistics instead of seeing them get worse and worse and worse.


Midwifery under attack in North Carolina and other big birth news

March 23, 2011

There has been a lot going on these past few weeks in the birth world that I have been watching, but not had the chance to blog about. Here are a few of the highlights and things you can do to be involved with promoting access to midwifery nationwide.

North Carolina:

A midwife in North Carolina (my home state!) was arrested in February. Via Birth and Bloom and North Carolina Friends of Midwives:

On February 19, a Certified Professional Midwife who would be licensed and regulated in neighboring states was arrested for performing the duties for which she is trained. Charged with practicing midwifery without a license, her practice is in jeopardy. Should it close, dozens of pregnant women will face a crisis of care. “Our focus is on the mothers,” says a fellow Certified Professional Midwife. “This is an unfortunate day for mothers in North Carolina.” It is also an unfortunate day for the taxpayers of North Carolina, as they face the potential for a huge bill as the case winds its way through the criminal courts.

At the root of this case is the struggle to further legalize and license Certified Professional Midwives across the country. I’ve written about this struggle before, and how the opposition to the practice of CPMs (who are trained, although not as nurses, to practice primarily home birth) is mostly a fight about who gets to provide birth care. While those in opposition tout all sorts of research about why they think home birth is unsafe, what’s really at stake is the desire for doctors and the American Medical Association to keep tight their monopoly on birth care.

Twenty six states have successfully fought the medical lobby to legalize the practice of CPMs, a hugely important step toward expanding access to a wide variety of birth care both in and out of the hospital. North Carolina is not one of them, which is why this midwife was subjected to arrest and possibly prosecution.

For more information about the situation in North Carolina and how to get involved, go here. There is also a petition you can sign here.

CPM legislation introduced in Congress:

Congresswoman Chellie Pingree, a Democrat from Maine has introduced legislation into the House of Representatives that would allow women in Medicaid access to coverage for CPM birth care. The bill, Access to Certified Professional Midwives Act of 2011, and has two other co-sponsors.

While the battle to get this kind of legislation through Congress will be a serious one (that’s going to take years of advocacy) it’s a really important first step. I’m also glad to see that the focus of the legislation is access to midwifery care for low-income women. I have a feeling this would also impact the ability of CPMs to practice even in states where it isn’t specifically allowed, but I need to corroborate that. If you know more, leave details in comments!

 


Proof that anti-abortion laws hurt ALL pregnant women

March 7, 2011

We’re only just starting to see the impacts of new extreme anti-abortion legislation that has been passed around the country.

As I argue in this post, these laws also restrict the choices of women who want to parent. I’m going to try to keep an eye on the stories that highlight these connections because I think it busts open the myth that anti-choice activists are only focused on restricting abortion. They’re actually focused on restricting women’s autonomy in a myriad of ways related to pregnancy.

From Nebraska State Paper:

Nebraska’s new abortion law forced Danielle Deaver to live through ten excruciating days, waiting to give birth to a baby that she and her doctors knew would die minutes later, fighting for breath that would not come.

And that’s what happened. The one-pound, ten-ounce girl, Elizabeth, was born December 8th. Deaver and husband Robb watched, held and comforted the baby as it gasped for air, hoping she was not suffering. She died 15 minutes later.

The sponsor of the controversial Nebraska statute, Sen. Mike Flood of Norfolk, told the Des Moines Register that the law worked as it was intended in the Deavers’ case.

“Even in these situations where the baby has a terminal condition or there’s not much chance of surviving outside of the womb, my point has been and remains that is still a life,” Flood said in an interview with the Iowa newspaper.

The law, the only one of its kind in America, prohibits abortions after the 20th week. It is based on the disputed argument that a fetus may feel pain at that stage. It took effect last October.

These situations, while rare, do happen. Not all women, when faced with a fetus that is known not to be viable, would choose to terminate early. Some would want to carry the fetus to term, and spend that time in whatever way they choose.

The point is: she should have a choice. No one should be forced to carry an unviable fetus to term. No one should have lawmakers interfering with a medical decision that should be kept between the family and the medical providers.

“Our hands were tied,” Danielle Deaver of Grand Island told The Register in a story published Sunday.  “The outcome of my pregnancy, that choice was made by God. I feel like how to handle the end of my pregnancy, that choice should have been mine, and it wasn’t because of a law.”

Also, what kind of BS argument is that about fetal pain? For one thing, the research behind the idea of fetal pain is super sketchy. And for another, what about the suffering of this newborn as it died?

I’ll keep saying it over and over: anti-abortion laws don’t just hurt women who want to terminate their pregnancies. They also hurt women who want to parent.

h/t Mary M.


Why birth activists should care about anti-abortion laws

February 17, 2011

The reproductive rights community has been in an uproar about recent attempts at restricting abortion nationally. It seems to be priority number one for the GOP nationally–despite the fact that these types of laws are symbolic nods to the Christian Right at best, and horrific violations of pregnant women’s bodily autonomy at worst.

All of the typical players are up in arms at the new legislative attempts, which are covered pretty extensively here.

But I realize that folks who read this blog may think that the reason I care about this legislation is because I work with women having abortions. What we often don’t talk about is how legislation that attempts to restrict abortion by emphasizing the “rights” of the fetus (or, as Lynn Paltrow want us to call it, fetal separatism) have big impacts on the rights of pregnant women who actually carry their pregnancies to term.

That’s right: anti-choice laws don’t just impact women seeking abortions, they impact birthing women as well.

How so?

Here is a post I wrote for Feministing about the proposed South Dakota law that would possibly allow for the murder of abortion providers (which has now been shelved):

From Mother Jones:

A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of “justifiable homicide” to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus—a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. The Republican-backed legislation, House Bill 1171, has passed out of committee on a nine-to-three party-line vote, and is expected to face a floor vote in the state’s GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon.

It’s clear this bill likely has the goal of inciting violence–murder–of abortion providers. But I think this logic can actually be taken a step further, to include the murder of a pregnant woman herself.

Often one connection between anti-choice legislation that isn’t talked about is how it affects the rights of pregnant women who do want to parent. I’m talking about the rights of pregnant women to decide what kind of medical treatment they will seek–and not necessarily abortion.

There is an incredible battle going on around the country about the rights of pregnant women to refuse certain types of medical care (as the rest of us are legally entitled to do). In numerous cases, women have been forced against their will to have c-sections or other medical procedures in the name of the protecting the fetus.

This proposed legislation takes that logic to it’s extreme–not only is it okay to super-cede the autonomy and rights of pregnant women in the name of the fetus–you could actually justifiably murder her in pursuit of this as well. In addition, of course, to doctors performing perfectly legal and constitutionally protected abortions.

Can we agree to stop calling them pro-life now?

The laws that interfere with a woman’s ability to make decisions about terminating her pregnancy also interfere with a woman’s ability to make decisions about what medical care to seek for her birth.

These laws allow providers and lawmakers to force women into c-sections they don’t want, force them into mandatory bed rest, all sorts of other interventions, in the name of protecting the fetus.

This isn’t hypothetical folks. It’s happening around the country.

As birth activists, we know that often the medical claims behind these kinds of decisions to force women into c-sections are bogus. They’re based on shaky science and a medicine that disregards the desires of a pregnant women.

It’s not just pro-choice advocates who need lawmakers out of our wombs. It’s parenting moms too, who want to be trusted to make the medical decisions that are best for them–without fear of state or court intervention.

These battles cannot be seen as distinct. If women aren’t trusted and allowed to make decisions about their medical care for abortions, they won’t be trusted to make decisions about their medical care for pregnancy and birth either.

This is why we need movements where we work together, across issues and across communities. We’re fighting the same fights, with common enemies and common goals.

Let’s work together.


The film that turned me into a birth activist

January 10, 2011

I often get asked how I got into doula work. This is the answer:

Screen shot of film, Born in the USA

It’s kind of cliche. I was always interested in women’s health. Had aspirations of being an ob/gyn. Then I went to college and took organic chemistry. It was a bad scene, and I promptly said goodbye to the idea of medical school.

Then I took a class called The Anthropology of Reproduction at a nearby women’s college. We watched this video, and I walked out of class knowing my life had just changed forever.

I was so fired up by the film, Born in the USA, and the screwed-up culture of birth it documented. It became my big issue. I was only a sophomore in college, but I talked to everyone I could about how wrong we were about birth, and how badly we were treating mothers and babies in hospitals. Within a year I had become a doula. I wrote my thesis on my time spent in as a volunteer doula in a public maternity ward in North Carolina.

I was obsessed. Seriously.

Ask my college roommate.

The rest is history, as they say.

I think Ricki Lake’s film The Business of Being Born serves a similar role to the film I saw and it’s much more widely available.


Birth work and disability justice

September 13, 2010

Disability and disability justice, as it intersects with broader social justice movements and particularly birth work, is something I have been thinking about for a while now, inspired by some amazing disability justice activists that I have come across. (h/t Mia Mingus, for example).

For those of us in the birthwork world (or reproductive justice more broadly) it’s extremely important to keep issues of disability in mind and as part of our practice as doulas. There are many types of disabilities which might impact what kind of birth a person has access to. For example I received an email not too long ago from a person with a mental health issue that required a type of medication.

Because of that mental health issue (and resultant medication) she was finding that she couldn’t go to the local birth center, because simply taking that medication to deal with her mental health issues ruled her out.

One could think of similar issues around access to certain types of birth settings (and even types of birth) for those who have physical disabilities that restrict their movement, or simply just make midwives or birth centers too afraid to provide care for them (because of liability, or ableism, or whatever the reason might be).

We all know that a fundamental problem with birth care today is that only the person with the “healthiest” most “ideal” pregnancy can have access to alternative birth settings and providers.

Read the rest of this entry »


Midwifery Modernization Act signed by NY Governor

August 2, 2010

Final piece of good news for midwives in New York State. Governor Patterson on Saturday signed the Midwifery Modernization Act, which will mean a vast improvement in access to midwifery services in NY State. The legislation was pushed through by the amazing organizing and activism that rallied after the closing of St. Vincent’s almost put home birth midwives out of business.


Guest post: Tantric Birth

July 14, 2010

So I connected with Nekole after seeing a tweet about her workshop at this year’s Sex 2.0 conference where she presented about TantricBirth. Sounded pretty interesting to me! I invited Nekole to write this post about how she defines TantricBirth. Learn more at her website.

Nekole Shapiro synthesizes a lifetime of experience as a body worker and Tantric practitioner, her birthing experiences as a mother and doula and her profound love of science into TantricBirth, a holistic approach to the birthing experience. The TantricBirth system uses interviews, presentations, classes and direct family planning and birth support to enable families to have an empowered birth experience. Nekole is an LMP and holds a BA in Asian Studies and a Premedical certificate from Columbia University.

An Introduction to TantricBirth

Our human experience is deliciously deep.  It is impossible to affect one aspect of ourselves without affecting another.  Our parts are woven together like a tapestry.  When I hold my baby and feel love, my body undergoes a change, my spirit is affected and my mind is altered.  When I am embodied, I am aware of all of this as it happens and can feel it in every cell of my being.  When I am embodied, I feel my power.

Other than during her own birth or death, a birthing woman enters the most altered physiological state of her life.   Because we are an interconnected weave of human experience and expression, this altered physiological state is also an altered emotional, mental and spiritual state.  All of who we are is changing at a rapid pace as we labor and birth our babies, and again as our bodies get used to no longer housing a baby.  In this way, if I can embody the birthing experience, I can access a power greater than any I have felt before.

Read the rest of this entry »


Experimental drug being used to “fix” intersex genitals

July 13, 2010

This is a post that I wrote for Feministing a few weeks ago. I wanted to cross-post it here because this issue, of kids born with intersex conditions, definitely comes up for birth workers. While you may not have had this experience yet, it’s possible that one day you will be with a family when their child is born with an intersex condition. This could lead to all sorts of responses from the midwives or doctors you are working with–including the decision to perform surgeries on the infant.

It’s a huge issue, and one that is difficult to tackle in a blog post. But it’s one that I would like to keep writing about. Just as I talk about gender and the ways folks identify outside of the binary of male and female, there is also the biological fact of gender diversity, exemplified by folks who are born with intersex conditions.

At the moment of birth, when the doctor/midwife/practitioner wants to issue the hallmark phrase–”It’s a boy/girl!” if there is any confusion around this, it becomes a huge issue.

Maybe it shouldn’t be–and maybe one day we’ll move away from such a strong propensity toward gender categorization. In the meantime, we’re dealing with doctors who would rather employ experimental hormonal treatments in utero and perform radical medically unnecessary surgeries on infants than deal with gender ambiguity.

Obviously I have a strong opinion on the matter. The post below has more info, if you’re confused about what I’m saying.

Read the rest of this entry »


Big victory for midwifery in New York State

July 1, 2010

Baby smiling with words "a midwife helped me out"I have been writing about the dire situation for home birth midwives in New York City, prompted by the closing of St. Vincent’s Hospital, one of the only midwife and birth friendly hospitals in NYC.

Because of a piece of NY State law that required all home birth midwives to have the signature of an OB at a hospital in order to practice, when St. Vincent’s closed due to debt problems, the midwives were out of luck. This move pretty much eliminated home birth as an option in New York City, and the law had made it hard for midwives around the state to practice.

Well, we finally won one! It’s incredible and in many ways unexpected, but a bill was introduced by some amazing and fierce activists in New York State called the Midwifery Modernization Act. This act would remove the requirement for a Written Practice Agreement between midwives in New York State and obstetricians, the contract that was keeping many midwives from practicing because doctors and hospitals did not want to sign them.

Thanks to some amazing lobbying on behalf of birth activists and advocates (and an incredible number of phone calls from folks like YOU) the MMA has passed both the NY State Assembly and Senate.

Hopefully within a short time (as long as Governor Patterson signs the bill) this will mean that midwives across New York State can practice without being beholden to the signature of one OB or hospital.

This doesn’t mean that the midwives won’t be using hospitals to transfer when necessary, but this one signature won’t be the determining factor for their practice.

Congrats to everyone who worked on this important legislation!

More information at Free Our Midwives.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 699 other followers