advertisement

Midwifery law reviewed by state Supreme Court

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 | 12:16 p.m. CST; updated 3:26 p.m. CDT, Monday, July 21, 2008

JEFFERSON CITY — Missouri Supreme Court judges questioned Wednesday whether lawmakers stretched the constitution beyond its bounds by legalizing certified midwives through a health insurance bill.

The state’s highest court heard an appeal of an August ruling striking down the midwives provision, partly on grounds that it was unrelated to the bill’s titled subject of health insurance.

An attorney for midwives supporters argued Wednesday that there was a link and the law should be reinstated. Legalizing trained midwives was a means by which mothers can gain health insurance coverage for home births, said attorney Thomas Rynard, representing the Friends of Missouri Midwives.

But some Supreme Court judges seemed skeptical of that connection.

Judge Stephen Limbaugh Jr. said while questioning Rynard that the bill’s title — “relating to health insurance” — seems “underinclusive.”

“Health insurance doesn’t necessarily cover all health care issues,” Limbaugh said. According to the Missouri Constitution, “the title has to have an umbrella sufficient to cover all of the matters in the bill,” he added.

Following the reasoning of midwives supporters, said Chief Justice Laura Denvir Stith, virtually any topic could have been inserted in the legislation as long as it was insurable.

According to the North American Registry of Midwives, Missouri is one of 10 states and the District of Columbia that prohibit “direct-entry midwives” — those who enter the profession directly without medical or nursing degrees.

Missouri already has a network of unlicensed midwives who deliver babies, despite a law that can subject them to as much as seven years in prison.

Sen. John Loudon, R-Ballwin, used an obscure Greek term and a lengthy numerical reference to federal codes to mask the legalization of certified midwives when he tucked the provision into the health insurance bill near the end of the 2007 legislative session. Only after the Senate and House each passed the bill with little discussion did most lawmakers realize what Loudon had done.

Loudon said after watching Wednesday’s court arguments that he believed the crux of the legislation was about making health care available and affordable to more people.

“If we’re going to establish the narrow view that the title of the bill has to be so strictly connected that every jot and title — every paragraph — has to include the word ‘insurance,’ you’re really going to hamstring the legislature,” Loudon said. “‘Relating to health insurance,’ at its core, was helping people afford health care.”

The midwifery provision was challenged by several physician associations. Their attorney, Robert Hess, argued Wednesday that Loudon had failed to provide a direct link to health insurance in his midwives provision. For example, the bill contained nothing requiring insurers to cover certified midwives as a result of legalizing their services, he said.

“You cannot use indirect, chain reasoning arguments to establish the legal connection necessary,” Hess said.

Limbaugh and Stith pressed attorneys for the state and midwives groups on whether there was any evidence in the court record that trained midwives cannot currently get insurance and would be able to do so as a result of legalizing their services. Although no witnesses testified about that during trial, there is a legal basis to believe the change would allow insurance coverage, said Assistant Attorney General John McManus.

Although not the subject of the Supreme Court arguments, the merits of the midwives provision also have proved contentious.

Doctors groups claim allowing unlicensed midwives to practice medicine could jeopardize patients and put physicians who cooperate with them at risk of professional discipline. Midwives insist their supervised home births can be just as safe as ones in hospitals.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Jennifer Keifer March 5, 2008 | 8:59 p.m.

I am wondering if the court will rule that the physicians' associations have no standing to challenge the bill. Don't they, as plaintiff, have to prove some harm or damage?

Their assertion that they are representing the needs of Missourians is laughable. They present no evidence that midwifery is dangerous, only their head-in-the-sand opinions.

Look at the statistics worldwide. Cultures that depend heavily on midwives for their birthing population, like those throughout Europe, and Japan, have maternal and neonatal outcomes that put the USA to shame. Study after study shows that births with qualified midwives are as safe as, or safer than, hospital births.

(Report Comment)
Jerry Studdard March 5, 2008 | 9:29 p.m.

We support midwives and a family's right to chose the practitioner they most desire. I read a book over 10 years ago on midwives in European countries as they are the norm there. We are watching this debate closely. The Legislature voted, the Governor signed it, why in the world did they not read it?

(Report Comment)
Halley Watson March 5, 2008 | 9:51 p.m.

Research shows that midwives are the optimal provider for low-risk women and their babies. The statistics prove that homebirth is just as safe, and often safer, than hospital birth. Currently midwives are felons in Missouri and families seeking an out-of-hospital birth DO NOT HAVE ACCESS to insurable maternity care. THIS is the outrage, THIS is unconstitutional -- Missouri women are being denied access to childbirth options and have been stripped of their freedom to decide where and with whom they birth their children.

(Report Comment)
Mark Renaud March 7, 2008 | 4:13 p.m.

I was wondering about this topic. Maybe someone can help me.
Why is it that in Missouri a pregant women can get all the help she wants to kill the baby in her womb - even on up to full term - but she is not allowed to use the services of a Certified Professional Midwife to give birth to the same child in the privacy of her own home? The abortionist who kills her baby is legal but the Certified Professional Midwife who helps deliver the baby is a criminal! Can anybody explain to me why this is the case? I would certainly appreciate a sincere, common sense, non-political answer to this question.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements