Cognitive dissonance is very uncomfortable. That’s why when a birth worker’s own child is nearly killed by homebirth, the mother desperately struggles to maintain her belief in the safety of homebirth. It’s hard to acknowledge that you were wrong; it’s so much easier to delude yourself into rationalizing the disaster.

And when it comes to the capacity for self-delusion, homebirth advocates have few rivals.

Consider doula Nacia Walsh’s story of the homebirth of her emaciated, compromised baby, How My Homebirth Saved My Daughter’s Life. Nacia is not merely ignoring the fact that her homebirth midwives nearly killed her baby, but is delusionally praising them for “saving” the baby. Be sure to check out the birth photo of the baby who looks like a 3rd world victim of starvation.

Over the course of the last two months of my pregnancy my midwives noticed my blood pressure was slowly creeping up, but considering I had no other symptoms of preeclampsia (severe headaches, vision changes, retaining water, rapid weight gain) they decided to just keep an eye on things.

But incipient pre-eclampsia was not the only danger that Nacia and her midwives ignored. At 37 weeks:

I was checked for dilation but nothing seemed to be happening except that my abdomen was measuring smaller than the previous week.

This could’ve meant she had “dropped” into my pelvis or that my fluid was low. So they decided it would be best if I had an ultrasound to determine the cause.

To my relief the technician said that the amount of amniotic fluid was well above range, but that the baby was measuring quite small for her gestational age. She predicted she was about 5.1 lbs at 37 weeks 2 days and suffering from IUGR (intrauterine growth restriction).

Intrauterine growth restriction occurs when the placenta begins to fail. The baby no longer is getting enough nutrients or oxygen. The baby stops growing because it is literally starving. Ultimately, the baby will die of suffocation in utero.

In short, the baby she is carrying seems very small to Nacia (her intuition!). The ultrasound shows that the baby is indeed very small, so small that she is suffering from intrauterine growth restriction, which means that the baby is at risk for stillbirth and the risk increases with every passing day. Moreover, Nacia’s blood pressure is increasing, providing the explanation for why the placenta is failing.

In the real world, this would be a reason to induce labor. In the delusional world of homebirth midwives and homebirth advocates:

I was somewhat nervous about her being so small, but figured ultrasounds are notoriously inaccurate so I wasn’t too concerned. Because of my blood pressure and her size, the midwives put me on modified bed-rest that evening so that I could lower it to a normal range and give the baby the time she needed to gain a little more weight.

So Nacia and her midwives ignored not only the objective signs that the baby was profoundly compromised, they ignored Nacia’s own intuition about the baby’s size. Anyone with two functioning brain cells could figure out that a baby who is currently starving to death is not going to gain any weight, especially when the baby is simultaneously being starved for oxygen. Those midwives weren’t waiting for the baby to gain weight; that was never going to happen. They just didn’t want to lose control over Nacia as a patient so they hoped that labor would start before the baby died.

Nacia did go into labor spontaneously, and not surprisingly, since baby Anica was slowly starving and suffocating, she was born seriously compromised.

As I wiped tears from my eyes and I looked down at her in my arms, I realized she was so tiny. Her body had very little fat and she had a blueish tint.

As the midwife swooped around to the front of the tub to check her vitals, the doppler read that her heart rate was only 100 beats per minute, which is a dangerously low two minutes after delivery.

What the midwife did then was only a momentary blur to me, but to my fearful husband must have felt like an eternity. She leaned over to my listless little girl and gave her 4 life-saving breaths. Her lungs inflated and pinkish color slowly began to creep into her doll-like body.

That’s like claiming that you owe your baby’s life to the person who threw her into the lake, watched her founder and sink, pulled her out when she was near death and resuscitated her. Sure pulling her out of the lake saved her life, but not throwing her in in the first place was what put her at risk.

How much did the baby weigh?

Then came the all important weigh-in. The midwife placed her in a sling scale and the number was read. 4.6lbs.

Our hearts sank.

Never would I have guessed my nearly full-term baby would be the size and weight of a preemie.

She didn’t have to guess; she had already been TOLD that her baby was emaciated, but she ignored that.

And how did the homebirth at the hands of the midwives who nearly killed the baby save the baby’s life?

Born in a hospital or birthing center she would have been whisked away to a NICU with limited interaction, skin-to-skin, and breastfeeding until she was at least 5lbs, which would have meant at least two weeks of stressful hell for her and our family.

Really, Nacia? And how exactly does any of that prevent stillbirth? It doesn’t, does it?

And how would any of that have saved Anica’s life if she had been slightly more compromised and required an expert resuscitation with intubation? It wouldn’t have, would it?

You would have buried your baby is a heartbreakingly tiny white box.

This story had a happy ending and everyone got what they wanted. Nacia got her homebirth. Her midwives got to keep her as a patient and pretend that they were heroes. The only one who suffered was the baby and no one cares about her.

Nacia dodged a bullet and not only is she in denial about that, she’s so deluded that she’s praising the very people who fired the gun.

Anti-vax parents, you’re part of a group that has an amazing track record. You’re batting 1000!

In the more than 200 year history of anti-vaccine movements, you’ve never been right even once!

Now, in light of the latest anti-vax fiasco at Disneyland, I have a question for you:

Since you have once again been proven utterly, spectacularly wrong about vaccinations, immunity, measles and everything else, will this cause you to re-evaluate your ability to parse and understand the scientific data about vaccination?

I’m guessing no.

Prove me wrong!

Yesterday I wrote about recent research in midwifery that is either horrifying or horrifyingly stupid. It ranged from a paper on midwives’ clinical reasoning that concluded that a substantial proportion of midwives don’t use clinical reasoning, to a paper on midwives’ self-confidence that showed that it depended on the good opinion of their colleagues, not on objective outcomes, to a napalm grade stupid piece on midwives and knitting.

I noted that the papers cover disparate areas, but were united by the fact that the focus is not on patients and not on outcomes and that they are not quantitative, merely descriptive. Most importantly, they are not based on objective measures, but rather, on the midwives’ feelings about … themselves. In the world of philosophy, midwives would be described as devotees of metaphysical solipsism.

Wikipedia describes metaphysical solipsism as:

“the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.”

In other words, the only thing that matters to many contemporary midwives, particularly midwifery theorists, is what they think and feel. They behave as if mothers and babies don’t have an independent existence. Their only purpose is as props for the midwife’s self-image. There is no objectivity, only the midwife’s subjective experience. To the extent that mothers and babies fail to follow the midwife’s plan to glorify herself or be lauded by her friends (by having a serious complication or dying), it’s always the patient’s fault or “meant to happen.” It is never the midwife’s responsibility since her only responsibility is to feel good about herself.

There is no objective reality, only the midwife’s feelings. Even the mother’s feelings are irrelevant since her mind and feelings don’t actually exist outside of the midwife’s mind. Baby dies? That doesn’t matter; all that matters is what the midwife thinks about the death. If she thinks it isn’t her fault, then it isn’t, because all that matters is what she thinks. Mother is dissatisfied by the midwife’s care? So what? She needs to adjust her thinking to comport with the midwife’s beliefs. There are no safety standards for homebirth midwifery? Who cares? Safety standards are predicated on an objective reality and contemporary midwifery is primarily concerned with the midwife’s subjective experience.

The authors of the paper on midwifery clinical reasoning implicitly acknowledge this focus when they report that their study was conducted using post structural, feminist methodology. What’s that?

Wikipedia comes to our rescue again.

A major theme of post-structuralism is instability in the human sciences, due to the complexity of humans themselves and the impossibility of fully escaping structures in order that we might study them…

The movement is closely related to postmodernism… Some commentators have criticized post-structuralism for being radically relativistic or nihilistic; others have objected to its extremity and linguistic complexity. Others see it as a threat to traditional values or professional scholarly standards.

Feminist post-structuralism:

emphasizes “the contingent and discursive nature of all identities”

Or as MJ Barrett writes:

Poststructural theorizing questions that which is assumed to be normal or common sense. Embedded within discourses of postmodernity, poststructural theorizing helps make visible the constitutive force of discourses and their relations with subjection and desire. It is a “mode of analysis [that] shifts attention from individualism to subjectivity, from text to discursive practices, and from signifier to signifying practices… Discourse and the ways in which it produces subjects, is a central focus of poststructural theorizing, and as such, so is an analysis of power.

What does this have to do with midwives’ clinical reasoning? Nothing, so far as I can tell, but it sounds really cool. Most importantly, it rationalizes turning the focus of midwifery away from what happens to women and babies toward midwives’ feelings. Hence we have midwifery papers like Including the nonrational is sensible midwifery written by one of the authors of the paper on midwifery clinical reasoning:

For example, when a woman and midwife have agreed to use expectant management of third stage, but bleeding begins unexpectedly, the expert midwife will respond with either or both rational and nonrational ways of thinking. Depending upon all the particularities of the situation the midwife may focus on supporting love between the woman and her baby; she may call the woman back to her body; and/or she may change to active management of third stage. It is sensible practice to respond to in-the-moment clinical situations in this way… Imposing a pre-agreed standard care protocol is irrational because protocols do not allow for optimal clinical decision-making which requires that we consider all relevant variables prior to making a decision. In our view all relevant variables include nonrational matters of soul and spirit.

Because it’s all about the midwife’s feelings:

Being open to the nonrational in midwifery practice makes room for midwives to self-reflexively acknowledge aspects of themselves, such as their fears, in a way that does not interfere with their practice. During birth, making room for the nonrational broadens both midwives’ and women’s knowledge about trust, courage and their own intuitive abilities including the changing capabilities of bodies. And by including the nonrational midwives can then most honestly be with the woman’s own fears as she opens her embodied self to her own unique process of childbearing.

What’s the problem with metaphysical solipsism?

It is often considered a bankrupt philosophy, or at best bizarre and unlikely… It also goes against the commonly observed tendency for sane adult humans in the western world to interpret the world as external and existing independently of themselves.

So midwives have adopted a bizarre and unlikely philosophical construct in order to rationalize their relentless insistence that the most important aspect of contemporary midwifery is the midwife’s feelings about herself. Not only are perinatal and maternal outcomes irrelevant, but babies and mothers have no existence independent of what midwives think about them. How very convenient!

Is contemporary midwifery losing touch with reality? It seems that way, especially when it comes to midwifery theory. It might be more accurate to say that contemporary midwifery refuses to acknowledge reality, which is that midwives have a fiduciary obligation to place the wellbeing of babies and mothers above their own interests. Instead they have a adopted a form of metaphysical solipsism, which places the midwives’ feelings and the midwives’ subjective experience, above all else.

Healthy babies and mothers are no longer the objective of many midwives; they’re merely the props in the midwife’s world, which is apparently the only world that counts.

The sad results is that it’s the midwives’ world. Babies and mothers just live (or die) in it.

Recent midwifery research runs the gamut from horrifying to horrifyingly stupid.

Consider:

Midwives’ clinical reasoning during 2nd stage labour: Report on an interpretive study by Jefford and Fahy

Clinical reasoning was once thought to be the exclusive domain of medicine – setting it apart from ‘non-scientific’ occupations like midwifery. Poor assessment, clinical reasoning and decision-making skills are well known contributors to adverse outcomes in maternity care. Midwifery decision-making models share a common deficit: they are insufficiently detailed to guide reasoning processes for midwives in practice. For these reasons we wanted to explore if midwives actively engaged in clinical reasoning processes within their clinical practice and if so to what extent’. The study was conducted using post structural, feminist methodology…

Conclusion

Over half of the participants demonstrated the ability to use clinical reasoning skills. Less than half of the midwives demonstrated clinical reasoning as their way of making decisions. The new model of Midwifery Clinical Reasoning includes ‘intuition’ as a valued way of knowing. Using intuition, however, should not replace clinical reasoning which promotes through decision-making can be made transparent and be consensually validated.

Factors affecting midwives׳ confidence in intrapartum care: A phenomenological study by Bedwell et al.

[M]idwives are frequently the lead providers of care for women throughout labour and birth. In order to perform their role effectively and provide women with the choices they require midwives need to be confident in their practice. This study explores factors which may affect midwives׳ confidence in their practice…

Findings

[T]he principal factor affecting workplace confidence, both positively and negatively, was the influence of colleagues. Perceived autonomy and a sense of familiarity could also enhance confidence. However, conflict in the workplace was a critical factor in reducing midwives׳ confidence. Confidence was an important, but fragile, phenomenon to midwives and they used a variety of coping strategies, emotional intelligence and presentation management to maintain it.

Conclusion and implications

[T]his is the first study to highlight both the factors influencing midwives׳ workplace confidence and the strategies midwives employed to maintain their confidence. Confidence is important in maintaining well-being and workplace culture may play a role in explaining the current low morale within the midwifery workforce. This may have implications for women׳s choices and care. Support, effective leadership and education may help midwives develop and sustain a positive sense of confidence.

Passing yarns forward: unravelling the dimensions of knitting and birth by midwife Sarah Wickham

To the best of my knowledge and that of the MIDIRS Reference Database, it was a male surgeon, Michel Odent (1996, 2004) who first made the very practical art of knitting a topic for debate within the midwifery literature. Perhaps it was such an unremarkable, everyday activity to the midwives who were doing it that it didn’t warrant special mention or consideration…

In this first article, entitled Knitting needles, cameras and electronic fetal monitors, Odent (1996) focused on Gisele’s knowledge of physiology and on the importance of privacy and darkness. In simple terms, a woman may feel less observed by a midwife whose attention appears to be focused on knitting …

Later, Odent (2004) returned to this topic in print and cited further research showing that repetitive tasks are an effective means of reducing tension. He has also proposed that, from the perspective of a birthing woman, the knowledge (which can be gained through the audible clicking of the needles, even if she doesn’t actually watch her midwife) that her midwife is knitting can be reassuring (Odent 2008, personal correspondence). If the midwife is knitting, then she or he cannot be too worried about what is happening. Knitting helps keep midwives’ adrenaline levels low, ensuring a sense of security all round.

These three papers cover disparate areas, but are united by several characteristics that are depressingly common in midwifery research. First, the focus is not on patients and not on outcomes, but on midwives themselves. Second, they are not quantitative, merely descriptive. Finally, their conclusions are alarming. Apparently, a substantial proportion of midwives don’t use, and don’t know how to use, clinical judgment, midwives’ confidence is not based on performance, but rather the opinions of colleagues, and there is no limit to the stupidity of certain practicing midwives.

If this is what passes for research among midwives, and if these are their conclusions, they shouldn’t be allowed to care for houseplants, let alone patients.

Another day, another senseless gun tragedy:

She had just put her 9-month-old down for a nap, turned on cartoons for the older kids and was headed for the dishwasher when she heard a strange “pop” come from the bedroom of the Missouri home.

Alexis Wiederholt, 26, said that as she rushed to investigate the noise, her 5-year-old son appeared and said something that didn’t make any sense to her in the moment.

“I’m sorry, Mom. I shot Corbin.”

Weiderholt ran past to the pack-and-play where Corbin, her always-smiling youngest, should have been resting peacefully.

“I walked in and there was my baby, lying there, bleeding,” the young mother told NBC News, her voice cracking as she described the Monday morning scene.

“I had just hugged him in my arms five minutes before that.”

What had happened?

In what police have said was a tragic accident, the 5-year-old had gotten hold of his grandfather’s .22 caliber Magnum revolver and fired a shot that struck Corbin in the head, mortally wounding him.

As she grieves for her baby and worries about the future of her eldest son, whose name is being withheld by NBC News, Wiederholt said her loss should be a warning to others to protect children from firearms.

How many babies have to die before we stand up to the National Rifle Association, the organization that thinks gun “rights” are more important than whether people, even babies, live or die? The NRA, the premier American lobbying organization, opposes any and all safety standards for guns.

Sound familiar?

It should. It’s a lot like the homebirth midwifery organizations that I write about. What do they have in common:

1. It’s always somebody else fault.

It doesn’t matter who dies, how many die, at whose hands they die, and as a result of which guns they die, the NRA and gun advocates insist that the guns weren’t at fault; the people were. Just like homebirth advocates, who can rationalize death at homebirth by insisting that it wasn’t the fact that the baby was born at home that led to the death, it was a “rare” complication that no one could have foreseen, gun advocates are forever insisting that it wasn’t the guns that killed those innocent people, it was one of those “rare” irresponsible gun owners.

2. Lies about the risks and benefits.

Just as homebirth advocates are forever jabbering that hospital interventions kill as many (or more!) babies as homebirth, gun advocates are forever jabbering that guns save as many (or more!)people from bad guys as innocents who are killed accidentally or on purpose by gun violence. Both groups are lying. While guns may rarely protect someone from the putative bad guy breaking into a home, that those rare instances are is dwarfed by the number of innocents killed is the supreme understatement.

And when was the last time citizen ownership of guns prevented a totalitarian government takeover (ostensibly the purpose of the right to bear arms)? Never.

3. The world’s slipperiest slopes.

Mention safety standards to homebirth advocates, and they reflexively howl that the next step will be banning all homebirths. Mention safety restrictions to gun advocates, and they reflexively howl that the next step will be banning all guns.

4. But, but, but … my rights!!!!!!

Homebirth advocates insist that women have an unrestricted “right” to homebirth. Gun advocates insist they have an unrestricted right to guns. It’s in the Constitution, doncha know? Well the right to free speech is in the Constitution, too, and we put restrictions on that (you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater if there is no fire) SPECIFICALLY to protect innocent people. Political rights aren’t absolute, not for free speech and not for guns.

Curiously, this rights talk never extends to the right of homebirth mothers to receive medical care that isn’t deadly, or the right of innocent children to avoid death from gun violence.

But, but, but … I want it!!!!

Homebirth midwives like practicing without safety restrictions. It’s more fun that way! Gun rights advocates like amassing mini armories. It’s fun!

Guess what? It’s not all about you and what you think is fun. Society owes its protection to the weakest and most vulnerable among us, our children. That means we owe them homebirth safety regulations, and we owe them gun restrictions so that we prevent not only homebirth deaths, but gun tragedies like we have witnessed in the last few weeks (the 5 year old killing his 9 month old brother; the 2 year old shooting his mother to death in the store) and tragedies like we have witnessed in the last few years, including the never ending parade of school slaughters.

How many babies have to die before we stand up to special interest groups like homebirth midwives and the National Rifle Association, which put their “rights” to entertain themselves above the right of children to grow up?

I’ve been writing about homebirth for nearly two decades, so you’d think that I’d be used to not merely the appalling stories of neonatal and maternal death, but also the bizarre behavior of homebirth midwives in response to those deaths. But I still am startled every time I encounter another homebirth midwife (or physician) who, in the wake of a death, exhibits no remorse, views any attempt to hold her accountable as “persecution,” and learns nothing from the experience even if she is condemned, sued or arrested.

I’ve begun to wonder whether homebirth midwifery (particularly as practice in the US) has more than its share of sociopaths.

What is a sociopath?

WikiHow has an illustrated guide to spotting a sociopath. It’s a bit tongue in cheek, but the basic characteristics are all there.

1. Someone is dead or severely injured and the homebirth midwife has no remorse.

Look for a lack of shame. Most sociopaths can commit vile actions and not feel the least bit of remorse… If the person is a true sociopath, then he or she will feel no remorse about hurting others …

Most obstetricians, midwives and obstetric nurses are devastated by an obstetric death. There is tremendous grief, anxiety and soul searching. Could we have saved that baby or mother if we had done something different? Did we make a mistake? Providers may give up obstetrics in the wake of a death. If they feel they are responsible, some will go so far as to commit suicide.

Many homebirth midwives respond in the exact opposite way. They can give a long exposition about their legal woes without once mentioning the fact that a baby is dead, let alone mentioning the name of the baby or the circumstances of the death.

There is no soul-searching, no root-cause analysis. The death is dismissed with a callous, “Some babies are meant to die.” or “Babies die in the hospital, too.”

I’ve never seen a clearer expression of homebirth midwives’ bone chilling lack of concern for dead babies than this quote from Geradine Simkins, former President of the Midwives Alliance of North America (MANA), the organization that represents homebirth midwives, in From Calling to Courtroom; A Survival Guide for Midwives:

You know, babies die; it’s part of life. And only those entrenched in the bio-technical model think that that it doesn’t, or shouldn’t happen. I have traveled extensively in other countries, mostly developing nations, and people understand this reality elsewhere. I once arrived at the house of a midwife in another country the morning a baby had died in a homebirth. I found that the family had embraced the midwife and was so grateful to her—because the mother did not die. They were understandably sad about the baby, but families expect that a baby might die. A mother dying is considered beyond tragic. It’s a matter of perspective.

2. The homebirth midwife refuses to accept any blame and lashes out at any attempt to hold her responsible.

According to WikiHow:

When a sociopath does something wrong, he or she is likely to accept none of the blame and to blame others instead.

Or worse, she is likely to cry “persecution,” setting up Facebook pages and fundraising campaigns to solicit support and money.

Want to get money from other homebirth advocates? Just let a baby die!

A homebirth midwife who is alleged to have presided over the death of a very premature baby after insisting that homebirth would be fine, interfered with an ambulance crew trying to rescue a hemorrhaging mother, lied on medical records, and MAY HAVE MULTIPLE DEAD BABIES BURIED ON HER PROPERTY, is the beneficiary of a fundraising campaign.

An unlicensed homebirth midwife who was arrested for presiding over a homebirth death AND prostitution received enough donations to “free” her that she could make bail, and then violated the terms.

There appears to be no death so appalling and no circumstance so egregious that homebirth advocates will not rally to support the midwife … not the parents.

3. Homebirth midwives do not learn from their mistakes.

According to WikiHow:

Sociopaths do not learn from their mistakes and repeat the same ones again and again.

Homebirth midwives learn nothing from a disaster or death, refuse to accept any blame and lash out at any attempt to hold them responsible. Inevitably, some will go on to preside over additional deaths. The average obstetrician may lose 1 or 2 term babies in a 40 year career encompassing thousands of births. There are quite a few homebirth midwives who have lost 2 or 3 babies in less than a decade, encompassing 100 or 200 births, if that.

Professional homebirth midwifery organizations have LITERALLY no safety standards, so there is no teaching about safety. There’s no reason to have safety standards when safety is not important.

4. Homebirth midwives have no compunction about lying to protect themselves.

From WikiHow:

Sociopaths are perfectly comfortable going through their lives telling a series of lies. In fact, true sociopaths are uncomfortable when they are telling the truth. If they are finally caught in a lie, then they will continue to lie and backpedal to cover up the lies.

Indeed From Calling to Courtroom includes advice on lying in specific situation.

In the future my motto is, “No witnesses”. If I ever have to cut an episiotomy to save a baby’s life, I would ask everyone to turn their backs and turn off all video cameras. I would say to the mother, “I’m sorry, I had to TEAR you to deliver your baby quickly” (ok, so you tore her with scissors). I do not carry Pitocin anymore. For those midwives who do carry Pitocin, I would advise them to never admit it to anyone who has the ability to testify (that is, anyone except your husband). If a midwife ever feels the need to inject Pitocin or administer any kind of drug, such as Methergine, she should refer to such substances as “minerals.”

5. Homebirth midwives are emotionally manipulative.

According to WikiHow:

Sociopaths understand human weakness and exploit it maximally. Once determined, they can manipulate individuals to do just about anything. Sociopaths prey on weak people and often stay away from equally strong people; they look for people who are sad, insecure, or looking for a meaning in life because they know that these people are soft targets.

What tactics do homebirth midwives use to emotionally manipulate clients?

They ignore professional boundaries, encouraging clients to think of them as close personal friend. They encourage distrust of and lying to other medical providers, family and friends. They try to isolate clients from anyone who might question the midwife’s skill, competence or risk taking. They hold clients in psychological thrall having them look to her and only her for praise, affirmation and advice.

There are just the highlights of sociopathy, but even a quick perusal suggests that homebirth midwifery (and doctors who support homebirth midwifery) has more than its share of sociopaths. These are people who preside over deaths and serious injuries of babies and mothers, but express no remorse, refuse to accept any responsibility, consider efforts to hold them accountable to be “persecution,” lie repeatedly to protect themselves, emotionally manipulate clients and refuse to learn from their deadly mistakes.

Many aren’t just medically incompetent; they’re criminally negligent. And until homebirth midwifery organizations institute safety standards and stop pretending that babies who die were “meant to die,” they will continue wreaking havoc, leaving countless tiny bodies and broken, grieving parents in their wake.

The world of natural childbirth is remarkably totalitarian.

It is filled with websites, blogs and Facebook pages that enforce ideological conformity by deleting dissenting comments and banning anyone who does not agree with the claims of natural childbirth advocates. I’ve created a new Facebook group, Deleted from Birth Pages to serve as both a repository and a public forum where those who have been deleted and banned can share screencaps of comments and discussions that have been expunged.

Women who are researching natural childbirth and homebirth are being hoodwinked into thinking that everyone agrees with natural childbirth and homebirth advocates. At Deleted from Birth Pages, they can learn the truth, both about the duplicity of many claims and about the amount of deleting and banning that goes on to prevent them from learning the truth.

It is a public group, so everyone is welcome; anyone can post screencaps or report being banned, and there are no restrictions on comments.

Please share your screencaps!

Don’t forget: when you post a comment that you think will be deleted from a birth page, be sure to screencap it at the time that you post it. Dissenting comments often disappear in the blink of an eye.

In addition, feel free to dig out old screencaps and post them, too. It doesn’t matter so much when they occurred since one of the points we want to illustrate is how very, very often it happens.

When a comment (or entire thread) is deleted from a birth page, post the thread on Deleted from Birth Pages, and we can continue the discussion there. All are encouraged to participate.

My hope is that Deleted from Birth Pages will become an important source of information for women researching the truth about natural childbirth and homebirth.

I’ve written often about the fact that homebirth midwives, CPMs (certified professional midwives), aren’t really midwives, just laypeople who awarded themselves a made up credential because they couldn’t be bothered to get a real midwifery degree. They lack the education and training of ALL other midwives in the industrialized world and would not be eligible for licensure in The Netherlands, the UK, Australia, Canada or anywhere else.

Statistics, datasets and scientific papers confirm that they have appalling rates of perinatal mortality. For example, in the State of Oregon in 2012, LICENSED homebirth midwives attending PLANNED homebirths had a perinatal mortality rate 800% higher than comparable risk hospital birth.

What’s less well known is that homebirth midwives demonstrate an appalling callousness toward the growing pile of tiny dead bodies they have left in their wake. Lest we forget, homebirth midwife Katie Jenkins McCall parachuted in yesterday to vividly demonstrate that callousness.

Who is Katie Jenkins McCall?

She is a homebirth midwife with a felony conviction from the State of California who set up the Facebook page for Sisters-in-Chains.

The Facebook page documents the “persecution” of American homebirth midwives for no better reason than a bunch of dead babies and a few injured mothers.

It does not mention a single dead baby by name; in fact, in the case of many of the deaths, neither the babies, not the fact of their deaths are mentioned at all.

How dare they hold homebirth practitioners accountable over something as trivial as a dead baby, or a mother who was injured … or for anything at all??!!

In June 2014, Katie was “feeling angry.” Why? Because her buddy, self-proclaimed “midwife” Vicki Dawn Sorensen, was arrested just because she allegedly presided over the death of a very premature baby after insisting that homebirth would be fine, interfered with an ambulance crew trying to rescue a hemorrhaging mother, lied on medical records, and may have multiple dead babies buried on her property.

Yesterday, Katie dropped by the comments section:

I took the opportunity to ask her how she sleeps at night knowing she is supporting people who let babies die just to get their birth junkie high (and get paid for it).

I learned a lot.

Katie couldn’t care less about the dead babies. In 133 comments (and counting), McCall has not mentioned a dead baby by name or circumstance, has not expressed grief, regret or anger about these deaths and instead treated us to an exposition of her philosophy, which apparently involves opposition to “statism” among other things. It’s difficult to pin Katie down, but as far as I could determine, she holds two wholly incompatible beliefs.

1. Acknowledging that homebirth professional organizations have no safety standards, she views the courts as the appropriate recourse for women whose babies have been injured and died.

2. She considers government attempts to regulate homebirth midwives and legal efforts (the courts) to hold midwives to those standards as unethical. Of as she so charmingly put it:

Because everyone knows guberment=ethics.

And those who hid Jews from the Nazis should have been cages because it was not “a legal option in (their) country.” *headesk*

I think we’ve come to the heart of the matter. McCall doesn’t want any safety standards at all. She want to leave regulation up to the government and then cry “tyranny” when the government acts on those regulations.

There’s a word for that: it’s hypocrisy.

According to Katie:

I believe organizations and local communities can set standards abs [sic] midwives can voluntarily agree to abide by them. And then ultimately, mothers can decide what kind of support they wish at their birth and choose a midwife according to the standards they prefer. Very simple, Amy.

And that gets to the core problem with homebirth midwifery. McCall and other homebirth midwives don’t want standards because they don’t want to be held accountable. They want to enjoy their birth junkie high, get some cash, and have no responsibility beyond entertaining themselves.

I understand that. That’s what I’ve accused homebirth midwives of doing all along. It’s nice to have Katie confirm it.

Katie Jenkins McCall and her homebirth midwifery colleagues would do well to keep the words of John Gardner in mind:

Self pity is easily the most destructive of the non-pharmaceutical narcotics; it is addictive, gives momentary pleasure and separates the victim from reality.

The new Childbirth Connection report, Hormonal Physiology of Childbearing, like so much that is produced by the natural childbirth industry, is a spectacular scientific flop.

Real science is reviewed, evaluated, discussed and argued about in scientific journals, at scientific conferences, and by professional organizations.

Dr. Sarah (“our culture’s discontent come[s] from the traumatic loss of our first possession: our placenta”) Buckley and The Childbirth Connection, the lobbying organization who hired her to write the report, have breathlessly claimed that they have elucidated how the hormonal physiology of childbirth “works best,” which is rather remarkable, since no one really knows how the hormonal physiology of childbirth actually works.

Many endocrinologists and obstetricians have been working on various aspects of this for the past 100 years. A discovery of the endocrinology of labor, how it begins, what supports it and what interferes with it, and how it goes wrong, would be a scientific discovery of the first order. It would likely be presented at a major national or international conference on endocrinology, obstetrics or both, meant to highlight the publication of the multiple forthcoming scientific papers that would required to fully explain and prove Dr. Buckley’s hypotheses.

Everyone who was anyone in the world of obstetrics and the world of endocrinology would be weighing in on it. Yet no one outside of the natural childbirth industry has paid the least bit of attention to The Childbirth Connection report. There is no scientific conference; there are no scientific papers; there are no endocrinologists publicly supporting it; there are no obstetricians publicly supporting it; there are no professional endocrinology or obstetric societies backing it. It’s a spectacular scientific flop!

Why? Because it’s not science. It’s propaganda meant to fool potential clients into purchasing the services of midwives, doulas and childbirth educators. No one else is paying the least bit of attention.

It’s just like Microbirth, the movie that supposedly explains the all important impact of interventions on the neonatal microbiome. No professional microbiology associations endorsed the movie because it was pure fantasy, reflecting the natural childbirth industry’s reflexive demonization of interventions.

It’s just like The Alpha Parent’s Book, Breast Intentions. Allison Dixley’s book has not been supported by any professional breastfeeding organizations, any lactivism programs, or, any major authors in the field whether they write for lay people or for other professionals. The book is just Dixley’s (rather repulsive) opinion and, therefore, has been ignored.

The Childbirth Connection report is being heavily publicized within the natural childbirth industry and among natural childbirth advocates. Facebook pages and Twitter feeds are buzzing with it, because it confirms everything that natural childbirth advocates want to believe. That’s not surprising; it started from the bedrock natural childbirth axiom that interventions are bad and cherry picked scientific studies to support that conviction.

Natural childbirth advocates should stop navelgazing for a moment and take note of the fact that no one else is paying the least bit of attention. Hormonal Physiology of Childbirth is not science; it’s a glossy brochure designed to be waved about by the natural childbirth industry to improve their employment prospects.

Hormonal Physiology of Childbirth is a scientific flop. Only time will tell if natural childbirth advocates are gullible enough to make it into a marketing success.

Yesterday afternoon, The Childbirth Connection hosted a Twitter conversation with Dr. Sarah Buckley, the author of its new report destined to become a pseudo-knowledge classic, Hormonal Physiology of Childbearing.

I tried to ask Dr. Buckley a question. The hormonal physiology of childbirth has yet to be elucidated. We don’t know why some women go into labor prematurely (and their babies die) or why some women fail to go into labor when pregnancy is threatening their life (pre-eclampsia) or the lives of their babies (postdates stillbirth). So, if no one knows how it works, how can Dr. Buckley be sure that “the hormonal physiology of childbirth nearly always works best when it is left to work at its own speed”?

She can’t, of course, so she deleted my question and blocked me as shown above.

Can you imagine the CDC deleting and banning someone who asked how we know that vaccines work? Me, neither. Legitimate healthcare providers and organizations recognize that they have an obligation to answer questions (even tough questions). But, of course, Sarah Buckley doesn’t provide healthcare; she sells natural childbirth propaganda. And The Childbirth Connection isn’t a healthcare organization; it’s a lobbying firm, always pressing for greater employment for its constituency: midwives, doulas and childbirth educators.

Natural childbirth advocates decide what to believe based on who wrote it. The imprimatur of author Dr. Sarah Buckley signals to them that they can be sure its conclusions are the same as the conclusions of all other pieces of drivel written by natural childbirth advocates: maternity care is “in crisis”; interventions are bad; midwives, doulas and childbirth educators are good; and the process of birth is more important than the outcome.

Those who are slightly less gullible, which is everyone else in the world, might wonder why The Childbirth Connection had to go so far afield to find someone to write their report. It’s ostensibly a report about the hormonal physiology of childbirth and the implications for American maternity care, yet Dr. Buckley is a New Zealand trained, non-practicing family doctor; not an obstetrician, not an endocrinologist, not from the US.

Apparently none of the usual wackaloons were available.

Not Ina May (“Sometimes I see that a husband is afraid to touch his wife’s tits because of the midwife’s presence, so I touch them, get in there and squeeze them, talk about how nice they are, and make him welcome.”) Gaskin.

Nor Michel (“[T]here is little good to come for either sex from having a man at the birth of a child.”) Odent.

No problem. Dr. Buckley is an acolyte of both … and equally wacky.

The testimonial of a midwifery professor that leads her bio inadvertently says it all:

Discovering Sarah Buckley is like being told, authoritatively, that chocolate is not only good for you, but is guaranteed to make you slim. And also beautiful.

In other words, Dr. Buckley tells natural childbirth advocates what they’ve always dreamed of hearing, even though it has no more basis in science than the claim that chocolate is guaranteed to make you slim … or beautiful.

I would have thought that Dr. Buckey’s history of nattering absolute nonsense would have given pause to the folks at The Childbirth Connection. But then I guess beggars can’t be choosers.

Dr. Buckley is best known for being a devotee of lotus birth, and waxing rhapsodic over the placenta.

What’s lotus birth? It’s the wackiest childbirth practice ever. Lotus birth is the decision to leave the placenta attached to the baby for several days until it rots off. It is a bizarre practice with no medical benefit and considerable risk, particularly the risk of massive infection. Dr. Buckley did that with 3 of her homebirth born children.

In an article written for the July/August 2005 issue of (what else?) Mothering Magazine, Buckley explained:

For the next three days we dried and salted Jacob’s placenta every 12 hours or so, then wrapped it carefully in a cloth diaper, and then in the red velvet bag I had sewn. Jacob’s “breaking forth” time—the time between his birth and the separation of his cord—was quiet and still as we honored his original wholeness …

Why did Buckley adopt this ritual which human beings never practiced until is was made up in 1974?

The relationship with the placenta does not end with its disposal, whether by ritual burial or by hospital incineration. Placental symbolism is everywhere in our culture, from the handbags that we carry—holding our money, datebooks, and other items of survival—to the soft toys that we cram into our babies’ cribs. Some believe that much of our culture’s discontent and our urge to accumulate possessions—including all of the aforementioned—come from the traumatic loss of our first possession: our placenta. And each year we honor our placenta by lighting candles on our birthday cake—in Latin, the word placenta means “flat cake.”

Jacob’s placenta has been his conduit, passing life from my body to his. Now this placenta—his womb-twin, his primal anchor—has gone back to the earth. Seven years after his birth, Jacob tells me “your placenta is like your heart;’ and I realize that he received more than physical nourishment through his placenta. Along with the oxygen, nutrients, hormones, and all the other placental gifts, Jacob also received my love, which was equally his sustenance in my womb, transmitted subtly but vitally by this amazing organ—the placenta.

But wait! There’s more in this article, Lotus birth – a Ritual for our Times:

My older children have blessed me with stories of their experiences in pregnancy and birth, and have been unanimously in favour of not cutting the cord, especially Emma who remembered the unpleasant feeling of having her cord cut (after it had stopped pulsating), which she describes as being “painful in my heart”. Zoe, at five years of age, described being attached to a “love-heart thing” in my womb and told me “When I was born, the cord went off the love-heart thing and onto there [her placenta] and then I came out.” Perhaps she remembers her placenta in utero as the source of nourishment and love.

Lotus birth has been, for us, an exquisite ritual that has enhanced the magic of the early post-natal days. I notice an integrity and self-possession with my lotus-born children, and I believe that lovingness, cohesion, attunement to Mother Nature, and trust and respect for the natural order have all been imprinted on our family by our honouring of the placenta, the Tree of Life.

Whom does Dr. Buckley credit with inspiring and influencing her ideas?

Many people inspired this article. Jeannine Parvati Baker contributed some core ideas and phrases; ecstasy in birth, ‘healing the earth, healing birth’: ‘giving birth is women’s spiritual practice’ and ‘the wound reveals the cure’, which is the canon of her Mystery school, Hygieia College. www.birthkeeper.com

Thanks also, for inspiration and ideas, to Leilah McCracken (www.birthlove.com) Michel Odent, and especially to my teacher Shivam Rachana and the women’s circle that we share in the International College of Spiritual Midwifery. www.womenofspirit.asn.au

Those are among the “thinkers” who have shaped the wacky world of Dr. Sarah Buckley.

This is who The Childbirth Connection hired to repackage their lobby campaign in scientific sounding jargon: a woman who thinks that handbags are symbolic placentas and who imputes the ills of the present day to “the traumatic loss of our first possession: our placenta.”

I guess they were desperate.