Belly Tales

The AMA has recently issued a resolution supporting ACOG’s Statement on Homebirth which agrees that the safest place to have a baby is the hospital, of course, where obstetricians work and get paid.  What’s really awful is that they’re using Ricki Lake’s movie, The Business of Being Born, as a tool to try to pass laws that would mandate that all births occur in hospitals, since hospitals are the “safest” place to give birth.  Nevermind that in this country (at least for now) all women have the right to make their own choices about their bodies and the health care they receive, or the fact that the U.S. has one of the worst rates of neonatal and maternal mortality among developed countries and that (wow, what a surprise) 90% of all our birth occur in hospitals, or that other countries with much better mortality rates wholeheartedly support and embrace homebirth and that there is strong evidence-based research which backs this up.  Nevermind all that.  In this country, it’s money that does the talking, and money which sets the agenda and passes laws….and now, the AMA, with all its money, has unsurprisingly agreed with ACOG’s ridiculous statement.

The Huffington Post has an article up detailing all of the furor, along with a raging debate in the comments section.  Please, if you care about this even a little bit, visit the article and post a comment.  The more comments the Huffington Post receives, the higher the likelihood that they’ll move the article to their “favorites” section, which will keep the article up on their website for days.  The more comments and press this topic gest in the blogosphere and in the media, the more women will hear this message, and the more this subject will become part of our national debate.  Every comment counts!  Here’s the link again: Docs to women: Pay no attention to Ricki Lake’s homebirth

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recently issued a Statement on Homebirth which condemns homebirth and all those who are willing to attend homebirth (aka midwives), concluding that only “…the safest setting for labor, delivery, and the immediate postpartum period is in the hospital, or a birthing center within a hospital complex, that meets the standards jointly outlined by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and ACOG, or in a freestanding birthing center that meets the standards of the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care, The Joint Commission, or the American Association of Birth Centers.”

Many other websites have covered this topic in exhaustive detail, so I’ll refer you to them in just a moment, but first a few comments of my own. As Rixa rightly pointed out on her blog The True Face of Birth, ACOG’s sudden acceptance of out-of-hospital birth facilities (i.e. freestanding birth centers) flies directly in the face of their earlier November, 2006 Statement on the subject, where they were adamant that the hospital “is the safest setting for labor, delivery, and the immediate postpartum period,” and that “ACOG strongly opposes out-of-hospital births.” I wonder what caused the sudden change of heart? If you recall, during the time, ACOG and the American Association of Birth Centers (AABC) were not on such buddy-buddy terms. In fact, the AACB wrote a scathing denouncement of ACOG’s statement. Opposing out of hospital birth included births that occurred in freestanding birth centers as well as in homes. I guess in deciding to attack homebirth directly, maybe ACOG decided that it would be better off having the AACB as an ally rather than an enemy, and included freestanding birth centers in its list of “acceptable birthing places” this time around. Who knows. There has got to be so much back-room wheeling and dealing and politics involved in all of this that one can only wonder at the motives. But crucially, why must support of freestanding birth centers be at the expense of homebirth?

It’s also interesting to note that the ACNM has yet to issue a response to this. Is that because they’re partly mollified by ACOG’s acceptance of certified nurse-midwives to the exclusion of all other midwives? From the ACOG statement: “For women who choose a midwife to help deliver their baby, it is critical that they choose only ACNM-certified or AMCB-certified midwives that collaborate with a physician to deliver their baby in a hospital, hospital-based birthing center, or properly accredited freestanding birth center.” Making distinctions like that among midwives in our country (CNMs v. CPMs) only hurts our profession as a whole and is going to get the overall profession of midwifery absolutely no where, but I’ve already written about this ad nauseum. And what about the hundreds of Certified-Nurse Midwives/ Certified Midwives who attend homebirths? Dear ACNM: Just because the majority fo CNMs/CMs work in hospitals doesn’t mean that those who work in homes don’t need a response statement from you. You’re still the professional organization for ALL Certified Nurse Midwives and Certified Midwives—even those who perform homebirth. If you won’t stand up for a woman’s right to give birth in a home, at least stand up for the midwives you represent who deliver in homes….even if it means butting heads with your beloved ACOG.

As Rixa conjectured, maybe all of this is indeed in response to Ricki Lake and Abby Epstein’s documentary The Business of Being Born, which has done a terrific job of raising awareness regarding homebirth. The real question we need to continue to ask ourselves is this: Why is it that America, with all of it’s insistence on hospital birth and safety, still has one of the highest rates of neonatal and maternal mortality among developed countries? That question lies at the heart of The Business of Being Born, and clearly, the American way of doing birth, for all its emphasis on hospitals and safety, has not adequately addressed this. What we need is a statement from ACOG more along the lines of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) and the Royal College of Midwives (RCM), which both jointly support homebirth, in sharp contrast to what ACOG has churned out (kudos to Rixa for finding and posting this in its entirety). Just read the first few lines of the document:

The Royal College of Midwives (RCM) and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) support home birth for women with uncomplicated pregnancies. There is no reason why home birth should not be offered to women at low risk of complications and it may confer considerable benefits for them and their families. There is ample evidence showing that labouring at home increases a woman’s likelihood of a birth that is both satisfying and safe, with implications for her health and that of her baby.^1–3

What a refreshingly different point of view. Surely American women aren’t that different from British women? Surely our healthcare systems are not that different? Why can homebirth be safe on one side of the pond, and unsafe on the other? Yeah, you guessed it: one side is actually basing its policy on research and fact, while the other is pandering in fear, uncertainty and doubt. And don’t forget the economics at work here. ACOG is a professional organization supporting and marketing the services of its members: obstetricians. In other words, a lobby. Again as the Business of Being Born points out, the bottom line is always the bottom line. If we had a national healthcare system like the NHS, where homebirth actually translates to increased savings, rather than a competitive profit-driven healthcare system and a surplus of obstetricians, we’d probably be seeing a lot more governtment-funded support for homebirth.

This is the line that really sticks in my craw: “The main goal should be a healthy and safe outcome for both mother and baby. Choosing to deliver a baby at home, however, is to place the process of giving birth over the goal of having a healthy baby.” You selfish, selfish mothers, trying to enjoy your relaxing, all-natural births at the expense of your babies! The mother and the baby have become hopelessly estranged in the minds of American medicine, and the emphasis (and increasingly, the legal rights) of the baby are always seen as more important than those of the mother. Rather than motherbaby, where the two are linked and the health and wellbeing (physical, mental and emotional) of one is dependent on the other, we have fetal rights outstripping maternal rights, in courts as well as in hospitals. Why can’t modern medicine seem to get it through its skull: what’s good for the mother is ALSO GOOD FOR THE BABY. The two are not diametrically opposed. When a woman feels safe, supported and relaxed, she’s able to sink into her labor and allow her birth to unfold in the manner that’s best for the baby, without all of the stress hormones and cortisol, without all of the fear….and more often than not, with stunningly good outcomes.

In any case, you should go read the rest of Rixa’s post on The True Face of Birth ASAP: 10 Responses to ACOG’s statement on homebirth, as well as the other responses cropping up around the blogosphere.

I’ve sort of fallen off of the blogging bandwagon, but what’s the point of a blog if you can’t be political with it? So, with that in mind, we now take a break from our regularly scheduled midwifery for this brief political message:

I’m voting for Barack Obama

I like the fact that he’s run a very clean campaign and refused corporate lobby money. I like the fact that he’s an idealist—people try so hard to call him naive and inexperienced because he’s idealistic and hopeful—but why should we vote for our fears rather than our hope? How deliciously refreshing to be voting for a candidate that you actually like: someone who inspires you and makes you hopeful, rather than voting for the candidate that you dislike the least! There’s an excitement and an energy in his grassroots movement which is sweeping the country right now that’s really got me excited, so much so that I’ve actually given money to his campaign. My donation was then matched by another Obama supporter in California, and we’ve since gotten into an e-mail correspondence. I like the sense that his campaign is driven by hundreds of thousands of little guys like me, and that our combined small-fry donations are actually adding up to a lot.

I think this country needs a radical change in leadership, and while I really like Hillary (I’ve voted for her twice as a Senator), she and her husband have been the darlings of the Democratic party for over 20 years now. Clinton ran on an anti-establishment platform of change in 1992, but now he and Hillary have become the establishment. It’s time for some new blood. It’s Obama, not Hillary, who’s most successfully running on Clinton’s legacy of change.

Some of our greatest presidents have had very little Washington experience. Abraham Lincoln served only one undistinguished term in the House before becoming president. “Looking at the 19 presidents since 1900, three of the greatest were among those with the fewest years in electoral politics.Teddy Roosevelt had been a governor for two years and vice president for six months; Woodrow Wilson, a governor for just two years; and Franklin Roosevelt, a governor for four years. None ever served in Congress.” [1] Even Clinton himself came in with gubernatorial experience, but not a whiff of congressional first-hand know-how.

I’m impressed by Obama’s history of being able to unite both sides of the aisle and craft true bipartisan legislation. I like his constancy and his character; when you actually look at his record (short though it might be), you quickly realize that he’s someone who sticks to his guns. I like the fact that he’s been opposed to war in Iraq from the start. I’d much rather vote for someone with good judgement and little experience than someone with lots of experience but judgement calls which they’ve since regretted. “Obama is an inner-directed man in a profession filled with insecure outer-directed ones. He was forged by the process of discovering his own identity from the scattered facts of his childhood, a process that is described in finely observed detail in “Dreams From My Father.” Once he completed that process, he has been astonishingly constant.” [2]

I think Barack Obama is more electable than Hillary Clinton. This is partly because I know many people—Republicans, Independents, and even some Democrats—who don’t just dislike Hillary….they DESPISE her. I don’t know why, I don’t understand it, but I know that it’s a very personal, deep-seated hatred, and that many people feel this way about her. My number one goal is to get a Democrat in office as the president, and I feel that a Hillary nomination will be a blessing in disguise for the Republican party. They’ll sling mud, they’ll get dirty, they’ll draw upon that strange RABID Hillary hatred, and maybe they’ll win because of it. I don’t want to give them that chance. I think that Obama has the potential to reach out and win the vote of not only Democrats, but Independents and *even* some moderate Republicans. He’s running a campaign that’s trying to beat the Red State/ Blue State mentality, which isn’t something that Hillary (who’s too firmly entrenched as a Democratic bastion) can transcend. As for the question of whether or not he can withstand the Republican mud-slinging machine….well, Hillary hasn’t exactly been kind to him, but she hasn’t been able to dig up anything on him yet. Maybe because there ISN’T anything to dig up.

Finally, I don’t think it’s possible for America to fall much lower in the esteem of the international community. We need a new face, a new message to be sending to the world to redeem our great country from the ravages and stupidity of the Bush years. I feel that Obama, as a relative unknown, is best poised to start with a clean slate in the opinion of the world. Barrack HUSSEIN Obama—fathered by a Kenyan, growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia, attending a Muslim high school—offers an opportunity to rebrand the face of America in the eyes of the world which Hillary just can’t match. [3]

I like Hillary. When this election started last year, I was pretty certain I was going to be a staunch Hillary supporter to the end. The fact that I’m voting for someone else instead really surprises me. I’m a strong feminist, and I do think the time is ripe for a female president. However, I don’t think she’s the right candidate. I think she’s more divisive than unifying in this current climate, and I think the Republicans will have a field day with her record and her history (anyone in the mood for an ugly recap of the Monica Lewinsky affair or WhiteWater? I’m certainly not!! ). I think Obama offers a new start and a new opportunity to actually get beyond the partisan divide which has been the crux of Baby Boomer politics. If Hillary ends up winning, I’d be happy to vote for her in the general election, but I think Obama is the better choice.

So there you go: that basically sums up why I’m voting for Barack Obama. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this!! Who are you voting for, and why? And if anything I’ve said helped tip your hat into the Obama ring, go give him $20 at www.barackobama.com and join his grassroots movement—you too can have your donation matched by someone in another state who is believing, just like you.

[1] NY Times Op-Ed 1/20/08

[2] NY Times Op-Ed 12/18/07

[3] The Atlantic: Goodbye To All That

The other day I discovered a postcard at my local yoga center urging women to participate in a birth survey, which instantly piqued my interest; apparently this survey has already been going on for some time, although I have only now heard about it. A little research has revealed that the Coalition for Improving Maternity Services (CIMS) has launched a new program entitled The Transparency in Maternity Care Project, which is intended to research and explore maternity care in this country, with an emphasis on improving the transparency of maternity care. Unlike other areas of medicine, hospitals and maternity care providers are still pretty cagey when it comes to being open with their numbers. What is the c-section rate for specific doctors or hospitals? What is the VBAC rate? How many providers perform episiotomies? How many elective cesareans or inductions occur annually? Hard numbers like this are always notoriously hard to come by. And of coruse, beyond the actual numbers themselves, women’s experiences with maternity care providers and services and overall satisfaction is often something which is overlooked. It seems like The Transparency in Maternity Care Project is trying to fix all of that, and is acting as a follow-up to the Listening to Mothers surveys which occurred in 2002 and 2006. Like Listening to Mothers I and II, a survey lies at the heart of The Transparency in Maternity Care Project, which can be found at the following website: www.TheBirthSurvey.com. The pilot survey is occurring in New York City right now, between July 2007 and July 2008.

There were many reasons to choose New York City as our pilot site.

First: New York is a large, high profile city offering a wide variety of birth options.

It is a densely populated and well-networked urban center. There is easy access to multiple press/media outlets. Approximately 125,000 births occur in NYC per year. Forty-four hospitals provide maternity care services. The majority of the country’s obstetricians are trained in NYC. Two Free-standing Birth Centers are in operation. An established homebirth community thrives. Nearly 10% of births in NY are attended by midwives.

Second: The Grassroots Advocates Committee will be piloting the project in partnership with Choices in Childbirth (CIC), an active grassroots organization based in NYC.

CIC is well connected with the NYC birth community. CIC publishes The New York Guide to a Healthy Birth – in 2007, 20,000 copies advertising The Birth Survey will be distributed free to the public. A member of the GAC and CIC is based in NYC and will be engaged in the day-to-day oversight of the pilot.

Third: New York State is one of only two states with a Maternity Information Act.

The MIA provides the public with legal access to intervention rates at the facility level. Choices in Childbirth is connected with the NYS Department of Health and has already collected the intervention rates for all New York hospitals.

So, if you live in NYC and have given birth in NYC, here’s your chance to discuss your experience and provide valuable information and feedback about birth in our country. Please participate in the birth survey ASAP. As for the rest of the country, the project plans to unveil a national survey next summer, but if you’re super motivated, you can provide feedback about your birth experience at www.drscore.com.

I got an e-mail the other day from a colleague at work who was passing on to a whole bunch of us a forwarded e-mail that she had received. Here’s the content of what the e-mail said. It was entitled “Urine Dip”:

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work - they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I DO have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who DON’T have to pass a urine test. Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I DO, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ASS, doing drugs, while I work. Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don’t. Hope you all will pass it along, though. Something has to change in this country — and soon!

My colleague hadn’t written this e-mail. It was a forwarded chain letter, and all she was doing was forwarding it to the rest of us. She did ask us what we thought about it, though. My initial desire was to dash of an immediate (and very heated) response to everyone on the recipient list. Cooler heads prevailed, however (I am still a very new employee, and I’m not sure how I feel about making enemies this early in the game), but I did want the opportunity to air my thouughts on this. So hello my delicious little annonymouse blog, aka venting-opportunity-extraordinaire.

What do I think about this? Well, I think it’s a very condescending, priviledged and uneducated point of view. It’s an excuse that people make for not having to care as much about “those people who do drugs” or “those people on welfare” or “those people who sit around on their asses doing drugs while I’m working”. While there are always a few people who are bound to take advantage of a system like welfare or medicaid, I don’t think the majority fall into this group. Ask yourself how you would feel if you were receiving welfare–would you be sitting back on your ass, taking advantage of it, and doing drugs? I think many people are embarrassed and ashamed to be on welfare, but unfortunately, the system focuses on the hand-out aspect of it, rather than on teaching and educating and empowering and giving people the tools and resources they need to get off of welfare. I think it creates a system of dependency and complacency, and I think THAT’S what needs to change.

Those of us with good jobs are privileged in so many ways we may not even recognize. How did we get those jobs? Because we have an education. How did we get that education? Because we were blessed with an attitude or an upbringing or a teacher or a mentor or a relative or a friend who believed in us and taught us that education is important, and that it matters. How did we pay for that education? Because we were blessed with scholarships or grants or friends or relatives who could help us out, or banks that had enough faith in our future potential that they were willing to loan us money, and because we were blessed with enough cultural capital to know how to ask a bank for money in the first place. Or because we were blessed with the knowledge that education is worth it, even if it takes you 7 years to pay for every cent of it yourself from your hard-earned paycheck at MacDonalds. How did we get into college? Because we were blessed enough to finish high school; because many of us we weren’t growing up with violence or drug abuse in the home, because most of us had a stable life and a roof over our heads and food to eat and time in the evenings to do homework and someone there who was going to make sure we DID our homework. Of course we had to work for it, and want it, and put in lots of our own hard-earned blood, sweat and tears, but the desire to get where we are right now is something we shouldn’t take for granted, and not something that everyone is lucky enough to have. The “well, why don’t they just get a job?” attitude is a blanket statement of privilege, which fails to acknowledge how difficult it is to obtain a good job, and all the ways that getting an education and therefore getting a good job is a learned behavior, and a cultural gift, and that not everyone is lucky enough to have that passed on to them and instilled in them, especially at a young age.

The other fallacy in this is the fact that drug use is an ADDICTION. What makes people take drugs in the first place? Depression, loneliness, feelings of helplessness and despair? A sense that they’re trapped, that there’s no way out, that life is shit and there’s nothing to do but try to enjoy what little time you’ve got on this earth in any way you can? Trying to belong to a particular group, trying to fit in, trying to feel like you’ve got a community or a family or friends? Whatever the reasons, the decision to habitually use drugs rarely stems from carefree flower-child experimentation or laziness. People who start to use drugs are driven to it because something is pretty damn bad in their life in the first place, and then, once they’ve started….they can’t stop. Hence the ADDICTION part of it.

To make it sound so easy and so simple–I have a job, I don’t use drugs, I take a urine test, so why can’t “those people” do the same?–is a very narrow-minded point of view, and fails to address any of the larger issues; it’s patronising, simplistic and judgemental, at its very core, and because we all know that the majority of people on welfare are certainly not white, it’s also racist at its core. Cutting people off from the help they need by forcing them to take a urine test before receiving public assistance will probably only make things worse, not better, and only addresses the symptom, rather than the root of the problem. The root of the problem is: what is it in this person’s life which drove them to take drugs in the first place, and how can we address that and help that? I don’t believe in free hand-outs either, but drug addiction is not something that people can just stop overnight, no matter how much they might want to (and usually if they’re deep in addiction, they don’t want to anyway), and it’s not something that people can usually do on their own. It’s so easy for the non-addicted to say to someone who’s addicted…well, just stop using, get off your lazy ass and quit doing drugs…but has that person ever stopped to consider just how HARD that is? Have you actually put yourself in the other person’s shoes, and tried to walk a mile in them? Help, compassion, non-judgement and true understanding would go a lot further, in my very humble opinion, than the “get off your lazy ass and quit abusing the government dole” attitude. Respect for “those people” would make a huge difference, too, but if you see “those people” as lazy (and if you see them as “those people” in the first place)…you’re never going to be able to respect them enough to make any kind of positive change.

Where does the midwifery come into all of this? LISTEN TO WOMEN and DON’T JUDGE. Those two lessons, all over again. The respect and the need to be able to put yourself in someone else’s shoes is inherent in that.

Now, the next question is…should I go ahead and send this back to everyone on the e-mail list? What’s it worth? Making a good impression at my new job and not pissing people off right off the bat…or speaking my mind and being upfront and honest about my beliefs, even at the expense of creating work conflict? Aargh, really tough call.

A few weeks ago, Dark Daughta over at One Tenacious Baby Mama asked me for a contribution to her new weekly series entitled Reloaded, which happens every Sunday and features old posts that are worth posting and reading a second time (oldies but goodies, as she calls them). She wanted posts that I was particularly proud of, “something that really kicks ass analytically, politically” etc., and I quickly discovered when I was combing through my old posts that I don’t really have much in the analytical/ political/ highly opinionated/ kick-ass vein. It seems that my blogging style overall tends to be of the objective-news-reporting variety, or at best the highly-researched highly-factual variety; in other words, the variety that is so factual and evidence-based that no one can really argue or disagree with what you’re saying; in other words, the risk-free variety. Which is good to know about yourself, I guess, because it then prompts a bunch of really good questions, like: WHY AREN’T YOU TAKING MORE RISKS? Why aren’t there more highly opinionated, highly political, highly analytical, highly kick-ass posts on your blog? What are you scared of? Pissing someone off? Causing controversy? But really…is there any other point to a blog than opinion? If all we’re after is the news, we’ll read newpapers and news sources, thank you very much. Blogs are supposed to comment on things. So, good to know. Note to self: enough with the reporting on things. Get commenting instead. Go out on that limb. It’s about time, don’t you think?

Anyway, I sent Dark Daughta a few posts. One on the Keeper (still one of my proudest feminist and environmentalist statements), one on the UK’s new birth agenda (Maternity Matters), and two on female circumcision (Circumcision or Mutiliation? and Further Thoughts on FGM).

I was curious to see what Dark Daughta would think of them. Leave it to Dark Daughta to not only think about them, but to write an explosive 1000 word treatise as well. She picked my posts on female circumcision, of course, and then ran with them. Ran is a polite word for what she did. More like smacked the posts upside down, flipped them inside out, and then shook all of the loose change out of their pockets. She took everything I had thought after my first encounter with a circumcised woman, and all of the conclusions I had come to at that time (and this had involved a lot of thinking back then, trust me), and managed to turn all of those thoughts, all of those culminations of thought, absolutely, irrevocably, upside down. In the space of just one post. Leave it to Dark Daughta to challenge the hell out of you.

Just a few highlights, here:

Dear Student Midwife:I’m glad that you’re asking yourself questions about how best to proceed. …Maybe examining the culturally based and biased and ofttimes downright racist, response of many privileged feminists who were not born into cultures where genital circumcision is practiced might offer some much needed space inside which there might be less emotionally and politically charged room for a true examination of the issues.There is a power relation here. Are parents in western societies hunted down and denied access to safe male circumcision? Why is the WHO advocating for this procedure when there is a fast growing segment of the male population that is crying out against it?

When male circumcision of babies who can’t make the choice for themselves is enshrined as a part of at least major world religion, are health care practitioners strategizing about how best to stigmatize grown men who present penises that are mutilated? Are feminists of conscience refusing to sleep with men who are circumcized? Are we looking on them with pity and defining them as mutilated? Are we strategizing about how best to divest them of custodianship of their sons so that we can keep them safe from circumcision? Is anyone noticing that the actual side effects of male circumcision…besides those that go horribly wrong…are minimal because these surgeries are done by skilled practitioners in sterile settings?

I don’t agree with either kind of circumcision. But I can’t fail to notice that one is filled with shame and stigma heaped on those who experience it, while the other is thought of as a throwback that should be done away with but is still tolerated and executed in hospitals.

Being useful is definitely not going to include making any circumcized wimmin feel uncomfortable and on the spot about the decisions of their parents. So, labeling a woman’s cuts “mutilations” without checking to see what if anything she says about her own genitalia will go a long way to making a practitioner seem like a judge and not as someone a woman can potentially confide in or turn to.

Because really, the shock and the unfamiliarity with the view below is ours, not theirs. If we’re gonna pay lipservice to accepting the anatomy of the vulva, we’re going to need to work at really understanding and respecting that wimmin come in all sorts of configurations for all sorts of reasons.

This “who is civilized” and “who is babaric and uncivilized” binary split that serves the west/the north, giving our cultures a much needed oppressive ego boost needs to GO!

Yowsa. And those are just the highlights. I’d highly reccommend that you go and read the rest of the post, because she writes with so much passion and conviction, and has this incredible way of phrasing things in ways that I would never, ever think of.

Now, how do you respond to a post like that? I didn’t even know where to start. First I had to do a lot more thinking on the subject, which I’ve been doing for the past several days and nights. I wrote an e-mail response to her, which she published in last Sunday’s Reloaded V which started to flesh out some of my thoughts. And now I find myself here again, having done yet another 180 on the subject (my apologies for repeating some parts of my e-mail, but this is pretty much where my thinking is at right now).

I think Dark Daughta is right on a lot of counts. There is indeed an inherent racism/ oppression in a viewpoint which has decided to call one form of ritual cutting “mutilation” while at the same time leting so many other types of cutting fall under the category of “circumcision” or some other word, and therefore under the umbrella of cultural acceptability (male circumcision, labioplasty, clitoral hood piercing, episiotomy etc.). I can see how that is indeed our culture (and by that I mean western culture) taking its own viewpoint on what constitutes a healthy vulva and setting it forth as “right” and “correct” and that anyone else who does anything different to their vulva (especially something brutal or harmful and something we as a culture don’t fully understand) is therefore wrong and backwards and oppressed and brutalized by their own culture…and that this “mutilation” is therefore a form of violence against women. This viewpoint then lays the groundwork for our invasion of their culture; in other words, this viewpoint basically gives us permission to enter their culture and tell them what’s right and wrong, and that they have to stop this cultural practice. And many huge, big name organizations like UNICEF, the World Health Organization, the US Dept. of State, Amnesty International, USAID etc. etc. have all issued policies and statements which call for an end to this practice, and have programs or policies in place which exist to help educate and save these women from their fate.

Calling something “mutilation” implies, by its very nature, that those who are “mutilated” need to be saved. That makes sense, and I see that now, but I had never before thought of it in those terms. So further thinking on this is prompting me to start to refer to this ritual as “circumcision” again rather than “mutilation”. I do appreciate that my view of what constitutes a healthy vulva is certainly not everyone’s view, and who am I (or who are we?) to decide what is or is not the right kind of vulva? Why is labioplasty or clitoral hood piercing okay, while female circumcision is not? And what would happen if circumcision was done well, by medically-trained people using sterile instruments, sharp instruments, making clean, hygienic cuts? So many of the problems inherent in this practice comes from the scarring and infection which is secondary to the cuts themselves. If there was no scarring, if there was no infection, would the damage be less? As Dark Daughta pointed out, female sexuality stems from a lot more than the tiny nub of flesh which is the clitoris. If the clitoris is removed, but in a clean and precise manner, using sharp, sterilized instruments (rather than a rusty tin can or a piece of glass etc.), would women be able to retain a higher level of sexual functioning? I never, ever would have thought that an underground feminist movement to provide clean, hygienic, medically-trained female circumcisions is not that far off from what feminists were doing in the 70s with their underground abortion clinics to provide clean, hygienic, medically-trained abortions, but yeah, I do see the similarity.

I wrote in a comment on my first post that “I undrstand that there are a lot of cultural and personal reasons involved in choosing [male] circumcision, and I don’t feel like it’s my place to say.” So if I can so graciously back out of the debate when it comes to males, why can’t I do the same with females? To say that these girls aren’t educated about the pros and cons of the procedure, that they’re forced into it by their parents and their culture at a young and vulnerable age (usually at puberty), and that they therefore aren’t making informed consent doesn’t hold up, either, because the same can be said of male circumcision. Baby boys are absolutely, positively NOT making an informed decision when it comes to having their penises cut or not. It’s a decision that their parents are making for them for many different reasons, just as it’s a decision that the culture/ parents are making for the girls who are receiving female circumcision. And I ask again: what right do I have to step in to this decision-making process and tell someone that they’re wrong, or that this decision is wrong? I have no right whatsoever.

Now, before someone comes along and rips into me, let me just make this very very clear: I am not advocating female circumcision, nor am I advocating male circumcision. I am not condoning either practice, nor am I saying that they’re both fine and acceptable, and that they should continue unhindered. All I am saying is that it’s not my place to judge these practices, and it’s not my place to make these decisions. Since I’m not a member of a culture that practices female circumcision, the rich cultural context with which this practice resides is lost on me. The shame or humiliation someone of that culture might feel by not being circumcized and therefore not being a full participant of their culture is something I’m never going to be able to empathize with. And I am questioning whether it is right for our culture (Western culture) to go on huge “Stop Violence Against Women” campaigns in cultures which are not ours, in contexts which we don’t fully understand (and probably can never fully understand).

I do think that these practices need to stop. But I don’t think that the impetus for changing this is going to come from us (from the West), and I don’t think it should. If it’s going to change, it needs to come from within; from women and advocates who are of these cultures, who understand the context, who can see the patriarchy at work in such acts, and who want to rise up against it. And when they do, we as Westerners can and should support them with all of the resources our rich, privileged cultures afford us.

I guess the only sticking point I still have at this point is the following: if you’re a member of a culture, and if it’s all you know, and if you’re never exposed to anything else, you will never have the objectivity necessary to ever question or rise up against these practices that you have seen and been a part of since birth? And maybe that is where an organization can step in and offer education to members of these cultures; ideally, the education should come from members of the culture themselves. I think the folks over at RAINBO are on the right track, and if we as Westerners want to support the education of women (and therefore indirectly the hope that eventually these practices might stop), we can do this by supporting organizations like this.

As far as being a practitioner, the take-home lesson here is once again very simple, and very difficult to fully learn: LISTEN TO WOMEN, and DON’T JUDGE. How is it that I can see this so clearly on issues like abortion, where I absolutely, 100% feel that it is not my place to say, and that since I’m not carrying her baby or walking in her shoes, I have no right to judge at all….and yet issues like female circumcision still bring about huge, heaping amounts of judgement? As a white woman from a privileged background, I’ve been trying for awhile to own my privilege, and see the way that this affects my point of view on everything. This is a difficult, never-ending task, and while I feel that I’ve managed to own this on several more obvious issues, this is an issue I hadn’t even picked up on. I guess the ultimate, life-long goal for every evolving human soul is to continue to move towards a state of less and less judgement. To become as close to non-judgemental as you can possibly be. I say possibly, and “close to” because I think being non-judgemental is an impossible goal. Our psyche, our sense of self, our identities, our culture, our experiences and background and upbringing, everything we use to know ourselves as who we are–all of this is based on judgements which we have formed through living, judgements which we have consciously or unconsciously absorbed, and I think it’s impossible to seperate yourself from them. I am not using this as an excuse. Moving towards a more non-judgemental state requires very close and painful examination of those life experiences and background and upbringing and culture. It requires seeing the ways that your life experiences and culture has potentially prejudiced you, seeing the ways you are privileged, seeing the ways that power affects your identity–power you have, or don’t have, or have in some areas but not others. It requires seeing where you come from, seeing the way that this has formed your world view, and then seeing the way that this outlook affects how you see others. That’s a huge part of becoming less judgemental.

The LISTEN TO WOMEN and DON’T JUDGE take-home message means that all future encounters with women who have been circumcized will involve calling it circumcision, following her cues, and letting her talk or not talk about it, as she desires.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on this subject at this moment in time. Granted, I will continue to think, and I’m sure my thoughts will continue to evolve. I’d be really interested to hear what others think about this as well. It is a very sticky subject, and it’s not about to get any more clear any time soon.

The BBC has put together an amazing series of articles on birth and maternal mortality in developing countries. This year, at the half-way mark towards the Millenium Goals set for 2015, we’re not even close to reaching the desired 75% reduction in maternal mortality. These articles explore the reasons behind these failures: everything from lack of US funding for the United Nations Population fund (ostensibly because the UNFPA doesn’t outlaw abortion) to the low status of women in developing countries, the low priority given to women’s health issues, unsafe drinking water, lack of access to medical facilities and skilled birth attendants, infection, poor nutrition and low birth weight.

“These women are dying not because we don’t have the means to save them, but because we (the world) have not determined whether they are worth saving.”

Why women still die to give birth

Action needed on maternal deaths

“They thought I was cursed” (article on maternal fistulas)

In pictures: fighting maternal mortality

Check out the older articles from 2005 and 2006 as well. Really excellnt, but really sobering reading.

So, I’m back in the blogosphere again, and realizing that I’ve been missing a lot of important news by taking a vacation for a few months. Here’s a quick overview of some of the stories I’ve found most pressing (and/or impressive) lately, even though some of these stories are old news by blog standards, and many other people have already done a much better job at covering them than I have.

First, Verizon Wireless, the cellphone megagiant, has gotten itself into a heap of trouble by initially refusing to allow NARAL Pro-Choice America to host a text messaging service on its network. Verizon initially claimedthat company policy allows it to refuse “highly controversial” and potentially “unsavory” messages from being distributed on its network. NARAL quickly shot back with an action alert and Verizon was flooded with thousands of e-mails and text messages from angry subscribers, and several anti-censorship groups also joined the fray. Quickly realizing it had made a huge mistake (especially when it discovered that other cellphone networks like Sprint and AT&T had approved the NARAL text messaging service without a whiff of protest), Verizon reversed its position, allowing the NARAL text service to go forward, and issued a statement in the press, but NARAL is still hounding Verizon to put its new public policy in writing. Interstingly, since the issue dealt with text messaging and shortcodes, the story was picked up not only by pro-choice and anti-censorship news carriers and blogs, but by sites like Ars Technica and Slashdot.

Sticking to the technology theme, the website Facebook recently started banning pictures of women breastfeeding from user accounts, and in some instances has banned specific users altogether (for example, Karen Speed from Australia, who has chronicled the entire event on her blog, One Small Step for Breastfeeding). Facebook banned certain pictures on account of their “obscene content” and asserted its right to remove pictures as a violation of its terms of use policy, but as the Sydney Morning Herald points out, it’s not exactly clear what constitues an “exposed breast”, which is the specific violation, and Facebook hasn’t provided any further. clarification. Right. So, breastfeeding is obscene, and women aren’t allowed to post their own pictures of themselves breastfeeding on their own facebook accounts. If this bothers you as much as it bothered me, go join the new facebook group entitled Hey, Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene!

In other news, a 43 year old Russian woman has recently given birth to a 17 lb. baby, her 12th baby to date. Wow!!

Finally, this is a quick reminder to local folks that the 5th annual Miles for Midwives will be occurring this weekend, Oct. 6th, at Prospect Park. The 5K run/walk helps to raise awareness for midwifery, as well as raise money for the ACNM local NYC chapter, and Friends of the Birth Center. My beloved boy and I will both be there, of course, running and sweating in the sunshine. Race time is 10:00 am, rain or shine. If you’re interested in joining the race, you can register at Active.com.

Finally, the long-awaited SUNY Downstate Gala will be occurring this coming weekend, celebrating 75 years of continuous midwifery education. SUNY Downstate is actually the oldest and longest running midwifery program in the country, and is commerorating the event by a day-long educational symposium featuring speakers such as well-known author Barbara Katz Rothman and keynote speaker Joyce Thompson, CNM, followed by a dinner-dance. Sounds amazing! Go Downstate!

Guess today is Catch-up From Chicago day. In addition to the very long post on the ACNM, MANA and CMs which I just posted below, I also wanted to “unofficially” post the 2007 ACNM Student Report, which I helped to draft at the annual meeting this year with approximately 20 other student representatives from around the country. This report is drafted annually by the student reps to summarize and present student concerns to the ACNM as a whole, and is published every year in the Quickening, the ACNM newsletter. As you might surmise from my post below, the issue I was most concerned about was the representation of CMs, which translated into joining the committee that was drafting the paragraph on Professional Issues, i.e. the newly proposed DNP and how this will affect midwifery education. I’m putting this behind a cut, because again, it’s a very long document and I’m not sure how many people are really interested in reading this in its entirety, but I have been wanting to post this up here since the convention for posterity, more than anything else. So, here you go: (Read on …)

I never had a chance to post much about my experiences in Chicago at the ACNM Annual Meeting in May, mostly because I was finishing up my semester at school, and graduating, and then studying for my board exams, and blogging was not a high priority. But I’ve been thinking a lot about my time at the convention, and there are still a lot of posts which need to be written about it. This is one of them. Where to even begin? The entire topic is enormous, highly political and daunting.

I get lots of e-mails from people who are very excited about becoming midwives, but aren’t sure how to go about it. They’re not sure which path to midwifery is the right path for them, and they’re confused about all the different options available to them. And rightly so: it’s highly confusing stuff! It took me years to get a basic understanding of all of this, especially many of the smaller nuances which you miss when you’re first learning about your educational options. And if we, the midwives and future midwives of America are confused about this stuff, just imagine how our clients feel, let alone your average American who’s surprised to learn that midwifery still exists as a viable modern profession.

Part of this confusion stems from the fact that in this country right now, there is no one standardized definition of a midwife, nor are there standardized credentials or certification processes. Instead of one standardized educational route for all midwives, there are two main routes you can take, and myriad ways to obtain differing degrees and qualifications. Instead of one professional title to designate you as a midwife, there are three legally recognized titles: CNM, CM and CPM. Instead of one national accrediting body for midwifery educational programs, there are two: ACNM and MEAC. Instead of one national board exam, there are two different exams administered by two different organizations: the AMCB (which administers the board exam to qualify as a CNM/CM) and NARM (which administers the board exam to qualify as a CPM). The acronyms alone are enough to make your head spin.

Just to give a quick overview (because I’m sure there are still many folks who’re confused about all of this), it works like this: the ACNM (American College of Nurse Midwives) is the professional organization of Certified Nurse Midwives (CNMs) and Certified Midwives (CMs). Most of the members of the ACNM are nurses who then go on to obtain advanced degrees in midwifery (either a Masters degree or a certificate….usually a Masters), and are then credentialed through the ACNM. However, there are some members of the ACNM who are direct-entry midwives (i.e. do not have any prior nursing education or experience), who attend ACNM accredited midwifery education programs, and when they graduate are then credentialed through the ACNM and become CMs. In contrast, Certified Professional Midwives (CPMs) obtain certificates through midwifery-education programs which are accredited by the Midwifery Education and Accreditation Council (MEAC), and when they graduate, they are credentialed through the North American Registry of Midwives (NARM) and become CPMs. Like CMs, CPMs are direct-entry students, with no prior nursing education or experience. And because CPMs are not nurses, nor are they credentialed through the ACNM, they aren’t allowed to join the ACNM.

The professional organization which represents the interests of CPMs is the Midwives Alliance of North America (MANA), which seeks to represent the interest of every type of midwife in North America, including CNMs/CMs (even though their interests are already being respresented by the ACNM). While some midwives (well, CNMs/CMs) belong to both organizations, I think the majority of midwives tend to pick one or the other, if they even join at all (and just think how much further the profession as a whole could get if every midwife in the country actually joined their professional organization and paid dues, which could then be applied to projects and lobbying which actually benefits midwives and our profession. Sadly, of course, membership is never even close to 100%, which is just stupid. Membership in the AMA is just about 100%—I have never known a doctor who was not also a member—and just look at what a powerful and influential organization the AMA is—i.e., look what happens when a professional organization actually has money! Ahem.)

Now, there are so many problems with this I don’t even know where to start. Someone looking in from the outside could very sensibly say: well, don’t you think you’d have more power and more political clout and be better understood by the public and by other professions if all of you midwives just got together and decided on ONE standard definition, ONE standard credential and ONE professional organization to represent you? And of course, the answer to that would be a resounding YES! In countries around the world where midwifery has a very strong professional presence, and where midwives are not only highly respected but also deliver the majority of the babies in that country, invariably you will find that there is one unified professional organization for all of the midwives of that country, one standardized educational track and one credential. British midwives who are reading this, please correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that if you’re in England and you say “I’m a midwife”, no one needs to ask if you’re a nurse-midwife or a direct-entry midwife or if you have a Masters Degree or a Certificate. The profession of midwifery there has one standardized definition of what midwifery entails, one qualifying board exam, one credential, one professional organization and one standardized scope of practice. I’m sure this must really simplify things, and allow the profession of midwifery to move beyond issues of sorting out its own mess and instead tackle larger goals and issues and missions which are important to the entire profession, as a whole.

In America, because of all of the different credentials and the differing legal status of midwives from state to state, we’ve got an enormous range in our scope of practice. CPMs most often work in birth centers or homes, while CNMs/CMs can work in hospitals, birthing centers and homes. Depending on what state you live in, a CNM/CM may or may not be able to prescribe drugs, or admit private patients to a hospital. CNMs/CMs are required to work with a collaborating physician in order to practice legally (is this also true for CPMs? To be honest, I’m not sure. CPMs who are reading this, please let me know!). The scope of practice for CNMs/CMs can range from primary care to family planning to birth control to hormone replacement to basic gynecology. To be honest, I’m not sure if CPMs can do all of this as well (CPMs who are reading this, can you? Or is that a state by state thing, too?). In other words, it’s a hodge-podge mess. And maybe that’s just the nature of the game, given that America is a conglomerate of states, and because each state wields so much independent power, laws vary considerably from state to state.

However, the chance of MANA and the ACNM actually getting together and coming up with one unified plan for midwifery in this country seems very, very, very slim. And while there is a MANA/ACNM Bridge Committee that is working to keep a dialogue open between the two organizations, I doubt very seriously that I will see these two groups joining up in my lifetime. Part of the problem is that the interests of these two groups are too distinct and it’s hard to find the common ground, but I also believe that part of the problem is that there’s an undercurrent of disdain between members of both of these two groups, which harms every midwife in the country, collectively. I think that CNMs/CMs have a tendency to look down on CPMs as being under-educated, unacademic, tradition-based rather than evidence-based, and not very clinically well-informed, while CPMs have a tendency to look down on CNMs/CMs as being too interventionist and technocratic, too quick to view pregnancy from an medical/obstetrical lens, too eager to suck up to the AMA and/or the ANA, and having lost touch with the heart and soul of midwifery. The term “med-wife” gets bantered around a lot in reference to midwives who have apparently lost their soul and become too medically-minded, too quick to turn to drugs, induction, or pitocin, too much a part of the system. And of course, since CPMs don’t work in hospitals or have to manage hospital-based deliveries, “med-wife” is most often used to describe CNMs/CMs. There’s really no point in arguing which point of view is right; they’re both flawed, and so long as this continues, the profession of midwifery in America will continue to struggle.

However, this post isn’t really about the differences between MANA and the ACNM, and why the fervent dream of someday having just one professional organization in this country is most likely going to remain nothing but a dream. Instead, since I am a CNM and a member of the ACNM, my chief concern resides with issues within my own professional organization at this time. We’ve got to clean up our own house first before we can even think about moving forward. (Some of you may be wondering why I’m not also a member of MANA, and to be honest…that’s a really good question! I should be. More thought on this to follow).

When I was in Chicago this Spring, I was acting as the student representative from my midwifery program, and I had been charged by the direct-entry students in my program to make sure that the concerns and issues facing CMs were given a voice. I took this duty seriously, and when we were brainstorming ideas for topics to include in our student statement, I proposed that we ask the ACNM to make the recruiting of direct-entry students a bigger priority, and to encourage the development of more direct-entry educational tracks in existing ACNM accredited midwifery programs. This was met with a lot of resistence from the other students, and ultimately, this was dropped from our list of proposed topics (granted, there were more than 20 items on our brainstorming list, and many of them were dropped). Because there are so few CMs within the ACNM (at the moment, there are only a little over 50 CMs in the entire U.S.), the other student representatives felt that the student statement needed to focus on the issues of the majority. The consensus seemed to be that since CMs could only practice legally in three states (NY, NJ and RI), what was the point in encouraging more direct-entry educational options, especially in states where CMs aren’t legally recognized in the first place? To that I can only say: which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Legislative change is very slow, and it requires large numbers of people pushing for something in order to make it a reality. Until we educate and graduate more CMs, we will never have the numbers needed to actually demand that the CM be recognized in more states.

I was really surprised to learn that I was the only student there who came from a midwifery program which had direct-entry students, and which graduated CMs in addition to CNMs. Only a few of the other students even knew what a CM was, or were aware of the fact that there were ACNM-credentialed midwives who weren’t also nurses. There are only a handful of midwifery education programs in the country which are housed under a department other than nursing, such as a college of health-related professions or a department of allied health professions, and in these programs, since there is no need for a nursing prerequisite, direct-entry education is an option. Every other student in that room came from a midwifery program that graduated CNMs only, and most of these midwifery programs were housed within the school of nursing or were a part of the nursing department. And for the most part, these students didn’t see any problem with this. After all, they were all nurses, and were now going on to become certified nurse midwives. Why should it bother them if their midwifery program exists as part of the school of nursing? What’s the big deal? And why do we need more direct-entry routes of education anyway? If a direct-entry student wants to be a midwife so badly, why can’t s/he just go to nursing school and then on to midwifery school, just like they did? If you’re already a nurse, with boundless midwifery education options open to you, it just doesn’t seem that important.

This raises a lot of other issues as well. So long as midwifery programs are housed under the umbrella of nursing in this country, direct-entry educational tracks will not be widely accessible. But the larger issue is more of a philosophical one: if you’re a nurse who then goes on to become a nurse-midwife, what is your core identity? That of a midwife, or that of a nurse? How can midwifery fall under the jurisdiction of nursing, when as a midwife you are in a much different role from that of a nurse—the midwife diagnoses and makes management decisions and writes orders, which are then carried out by the nurse. How can nursing supercede midwifery? Is the profession of midwifery seperate and disctinct from that of nursing, with its own philosophy and culture and educational tenets? I would say, unequivocally, YES. And if that’s the case, is it possible to be a midwife without first being a nurse? Again, unquestionably, YES. While midwifery utilizes skills which are also used by nurses, the profession of midwifery predates the profession of nursing. When you look at other countries with a large and successful midwifery profession, you will see that there is either a direct-entry route which doesn’t first require a nursing degree, or else midwifery education is entirely seperate from nursing education, and you go to school to either become a nurse, or a midwife, but not both—and one is not a prerequisite for the other.

At the ACNM meeting this year, one of the very first suggestions made on the floor during the business meeting (i.e. the really big annual meeting where hundreds of members get together and vote on the really important stuff) was to change the name of the ACNM from the American College of Nuse-Midwives to the American College of Midwifery. This motion was tabled, but only after 10 minutes of pretty heated and strenuous debate (you could tell it would be a powder keg, if it was actually put forth as a motion), and this is not the first time that members of the ACNM have tried to change the name in such a way. It just goes to show that even within the ACNM itself there is a huge debate and very mixed views on this issue. Personally, I would be very happy with the credential of CM, instead of CNM. I wonder what would happen if more CNMs simply changed our credential to CM? After all, we are certified midwives, even if we are also nurses. Why should the nursing come before the midwifery?

The issue is coming to a head at the moment due to a new proposal made by the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN), which has suggested the Doctorate of Nursing Practice (DNP) as the new entry to practice for advanced practice nursing by the year 2015. In other words, starting in 2015, if you want to be an advanced practice nurse (i.e. nurse-practitioner, nurse-anesthestist, and yes, nurse-midwife), you’ll have to obtain a Doctorate in Nursing Practice, rather than simply getting your Masters. As a student, this raises untold concerns, but from a professional point of view, it’s just as tricky. Since nurse-midwives are advanced practice nurses, will all CNMs starting in 2015 have to get a DNP? What if you’re a midwife, but you don’t want a doctorate in nursing practice? What if you’d prefer to get your doctorate in research, or international relations, or health policy? And where will that leave direct-entry CMs, who can’t obtain a DNP since they’re not nurses in the first place? What about the profession of midwifery itself, which is trying to move away from the shadow of nursing?

Requiring all future midwives to get a doctorate in nursing doesn’t seem to be the right way to go about this. Instead, I believe that the answer lies in midwifery education which is seperate and distinct from nursing education. The degree I obtained was a Masters in Midwifery, not a Masters in Nursing. I chose this route because I view myself as a midwife, period, not a nurse-midwife (even though yes, I am a nurse). Unfortunately, there are only a handful of midwifery education programs in the country right now which can offer a Masters in Midwifery rather than a Masters in Nursing, but I do think that Midwifery education would really benefit from this approach. Once obtaining a Masters in Midwifery is more widely available, more direct-entry students will be able to become midwives. From a self-preservation standpoint alone, this makes a lot of sense to the future of the ACNM.

Which brings me back to the MANA/ACNM divide. If the ACNM continues to ignore the direct-entry route and doesn’t work harder to provide more direct-entry options for students, where are all of those talented, bright, committed future midwives who aren’t already nurses going to go? Will they take the long way around, and go to nursing school in order to then go to midwifery school, or will they go to midwifery school right off the bat, via the more widely avaiable direct-entry route provided by MANA, and ultimately become CPMs rather than CNMs? There is obviously a large market for direct-entry midwifery, and many interested and talented women who are becoming amazing midwives without bothering to become a nurse first—and why should they? But it means that MANA and the ACNM are going to become even more polarized as the “direct-entry” professional organization versus the “nurse-midwife” professional organization, and so long as we have two seperate professional organizations, the profession of midwifery as a whole won’t get very far in this country. At a time when our country so desperately needs more midwives, period, and the ACNM itself is noting a shortage of qualified candidates for nurse-midwifery education, ignoring direct-entry students and not providing more direct-entry routes of education seems like shooting yourself in the foot. Direct-entry midwifery is the only way to get our profession out from under the foot of nursing, but so long as the ACNM continues to emphasize the nurse in nurse-midwife, our professional organization is never going to grow…and neither will the profession of midwifery in this country.