Katie Jenkins McCall, poster-child for the brutal callousness of homebirth midwives

So What Sticky Note

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:

Katie McCall 1-15-15 small

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.

Self pity

552 Responses to “Katie Jenkins McCall, poster-child for the brutal callousness of homebirth midwives”

  1. sdsures
    January 22, 2015 at 11:10 am #

    I went to McCall’s website, and it advertises her as a CPM. Does that mean that despite the conviction, she’s still plying her trade?

    • StThomas
      January 22, 2015 at 2:04 pm #

      Hence her posts complaining about people interfering with her business, on this thread, I would think.

      • sdsures
        January 22, 2015 at 3:20 pm #

        Wow – complaints about getting traffic. That’s a first. In my line of work, traffic is what you *want*.

  2. StThomas
    January 19, 2015 at 5:06 am #


    I thought I would post this here, for contrast

    • birthbuddy
      January 19, 2015 at 7:52 am #

      Hard to reconcile that with the crazy ranting we have witnessed here.

      • StThomas
        January 19, 2015 at 8:06 am #

        I think she has moved to thh other side of the country, has tried to start over and forget about what has happened, and suffers terrible anxiety when `the walls of her comfort zone are breached, and feels really angry at those who have breached the wall.s I’d have more respect for her if she had admityte wrongdoing and learned from it.

        • yugaya
          January 19, 2015 at 8:18 am #

          So what was the real trigger for this still ongoing little episode?

          • StThomas
            January 19, 2015 at 9:25 am #

            I was going to say, “i’d love to know”, but I’m not sure I do.

          • yugaya
            January 19, 2015 at 9:48 am #

            Yeah, me too. 🙁

        • MLE
          January 19, 2015 at 9:37 am #

          But what makes it especially odd is that no one was talking about her. If she jumped in to defend herself it might make sense, but it all seemed apropos of nothing.

    • Dr Kitty
      January 19, 2015 at 9:25 am #


      Reading the court documents Dr Fischbein was called as a witness for McCall’s defence, and while he was supportive of her actions at the birth in question, he testified that in his opinion Ms McCall had practised medicine without a licence.

      Ms McCall claims to have received supplemental education in “counselling for abuse survivors in the childbearing cycle”. I have to say that her responses to Stacey regarding Stacey’s abusive marriage and her husband’s coercing her into having a homebirth would appear to indicate that this education wasn’t particularly effective, given how rude and dismissive Ms McCall was.

  3. Staceyjw
    January 19, 2015 at 12:36 am #

    I cannot believe Katie is even here, still going on and on, as if her credibility wasn’t already shot. Katie- YOU CHAMPION KILLERS. Even IF you were a skilled MW (which you are not) you would be a menace for supporting and advocating for the seriously dangerous women you call “Sisters in Chains”.

    There are women on there that have killed in such obviously negligent, reckless ways that even a layperson can see what went wrong. HB “MW”s that left kids brain damaged, moms ripped up, kids dead, are the people you believe in promoting? This is really messed up.
    You are a menace to womyn! And an utter disgrace to the tradition of wise womyn, womyn centered care. The MWs of old would turn in their graves if they saw the vile killers you advocate for. For SHAME.

    • MLE
      January 19, 2015 at 12:48 am #

      It’s like she’s orchestrating her own downfall for some reason. To achieve victim status because she’s not the cause célèbre in the home birth world right now?

      • sdsures
        January 19, 2015 at 6:44 am #

        In cases like this, the person is only capable of digging a deeper and deeper hole.

  4. attitude devant
    January 18, 2015 at 9:47 pm #

    OK, so I’ve been a student. For a long time. And here’s the thing that keeps boggling my mind: what kind of person has such hubris that, while in a student role, they go solo when they don’t have to? And when there is a complication, what kind of student, goes even farther, manually extracting a placenta (NOT DONE at home) with no anesthesia and then repairing a complicated laceration? We know she had a phone, so why, each step along the way, did she not call 911? I’ll tell you who that person is: Someone who thinks they’re better than rules. Someone who thinks they have nothing more to learn. And such a person is, ipso facto, incompetent and a menace. This woman has shown no comprehension of the enormity of this, no remorse that she might have (and apparently has) hurt people. THIS is why California went after her: because she doesn’t think the rules apply to her. That’s my humble student’s opinion.

    • Samantha06
      January 18, 2015 at 9:49 pm #

      Sociopath.. very much like Biter, I think..

    • Who?
      January 18, 2015 at 9:53 pm #

      Nailed it.

      I’d be inclined to have her ‘teachers’ share some of the guilt though, if they were unable to give her a sense of how much there was to learn. Would be interesting to know how the rest of that cohort got on, to understand whether Katie is an outlier or pretty typical of a particular culture.

      • KarenJJ
        January 19, 2015 at 12:43 am #

        Hard to imagine that Katie is an outlier when Lisa Barrett is also on the list.

        • Who?
          January 19, 2015 at 12:57 am #

          Miserable and very fair point. Lisa B is in a class of her own.

      • yugaya
        January 19, 2015 at 8:16 am #

        From her current ad: ” She brings with her, not only her own wisdom, but also the wisdom of her mentors.”

        I’d be interested both in hearing the mentors’ opinion on a former student running around claiming to posses the teachers’ fully operational sets of skills, and in the methodology behind knowledge transfer that effective,

        it’s like the Holy Grail of Education. 🙂

    • MLE
      January 18, 2015 at 10:07 pm #

      Reading the mother’s account and the court documents, it appears she never actually intended to have backup in the first place. It was a total fabrication. So you’re dead on.

    • sdsures
      January 19, 2015 at 6:45 am #

      I was about to ask, why did she not call 911?

  5. sdsures
    January 18, 2015 at 5:14 pm #

    If you portray yourself as a professional, and you do not have the training of said professional, does the legal system have the capability to hold you to the standards of that profession?

    1) She was a student.
    2) She was a student…of b****r-all (i.e. of lay midwifery). She might as well have marketed herself as a professional florist. Because that is the amount of professionalism she brought to the situation which resulted in her being convicted of felony criminal negligence.

  6. sdsures
    January 18, 2015 at 4:49 pm #

    My respect for a commenter’s knowledge is inversely correlated with their having a felony conviction.

  7. NH MamaBear
    January 17, 2015 at 6:21 pm #

    Wait. How many dead babies does Katie McCall have under her belt? Oh! Right. Not one. Being an M.D., you probably know a thing or two about HIPAA and understand completely why none of anyone else’s “casualties” could be mentioned by name. You fuckwit. Had you done your homework, you would also know the reason she was charged with a felony (which was later overturned) was that she TOOK A BABY’S BLOOD PRESSURE after it attempted to enter the world via a severe case of shoulder dystocia. Without Katie there, the baby would have DIED. She did everything right except obtain a fucking license prior to taking the newborn’s blood pressure. Fuck. You. I would have a thousand Katie McCalls deliver my babies before I’d let a single M.D. come anywhere near me if they all think anything like you. You and your ilk are precisely the reason why people mistrust the corporate medical industry. I’ve had two babies already and if I have more, I’ll have them at home. With any luck, I’ll give birth to an entire army the likes of which will fight tooth and nail against the close-minded and suffocating ideals of people of your ilk. How many babies have you killed, Amy? Any tiny corpses under your belt, or at the corporate lawyers still telling you to “deny, deny, deny?”

    • birthbuddy
      January 17, 2015 at 6:29 pm #

      Welcome to the discussion.
      Do you have anything sensible to contribute?
      I don’t think so.

      • Amazed
        January 17, 2015 at 6:31 pm #

        I think she’s visited us before. She was Natural Something from NZ then as well.

        If she’s the one I think she is, then no, she doesn’t have anything to contribute.

        • birthbuddy
          January 17, 2015 at 6:34 pm #

          Oh dear, not more NZ woo psychosis.

    • moto_librarian
      January 17, 2015 at 6:41 pm #

      Are you really going to come here and lecture us about HIPAA? That is laughable, given that lay midwives never refer to their clients as “patients,” routinely flount guidelines requiring risk, and proclaim that pregnancy isn’t an illness. They only seem to care about such things when their asses are on the line.

    • MLE
      January 17, 2015 at 6:42 pm #

      Here’s the mother’s story from Katie’s own site. Care to comment?


        • attitude devant
          January 17, 2015 at 11:07 pm #

          You know, Katie, you’re not making things better for yourself here. I’d just kinda slink off if I were you.

          • Who?
            January 17, 2015 at 11:50 pm #

            Couldn’t stick the flounce…

          • sdsures
            January 18, 2015 at 5:03 pm #

            I thought her type loves to flounce.

          • Who?
            January 18, 2015 at 5:25 pm #

            Love it so much they keep coming back to do it again. Though it has to be said she is showing remarkable restraint here at the moment.

            Let’s all hope she’s not busy attending a three day labour of some 40+ week woman who is ‘trusting birth’.

          • attitude devant
            January 18, 2015 at 9:58 pm #

            like a moth to the flame….

          • January 19, 2015 at 7:00 pm #

            Great, now I have Janet Jackson stuck in my head.

          • Poogles
            May 29, 2015 at 6:59 pm #

            REALLY couldn’t stick it, since here she is again 4 months later….

          • DelphiniumFalcon
            May 29, 2015 at 8:20 pm #

            Just needed to try again so she could stick that 10 point landing?

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            May 29, 2015 at 6:39 pm #

            Is that a threat?

          • Poogles
            May 29, 2015 at 7:00 pm #

            “Is that a threat? ”

            Seriously? I’m pretty sure no one else would take that as a threat, but as a suggestion…but we already know the serious problems you have with reading comprehension…

          • Who?
            May 29, 2015 at 7:28 pm #

            More a kindly suggestion that you stop damaging your business-which seems to be your only concern-by being, well, yourself.

        • guest
          January 18, 2015 at 7:53 pm #

          There is no way her lawyer asked her to write that. If he didn’t have her testify in court (which is unverified, I know), there is NO WAY he’d have her write a blog post defending herself. (I’m a lawyer, that would be borderline, if not full on, malpractice to actually advise a client to do that.)

          Further, and more importantly, the vast majority of what she quoted actually SUPPORTS the mom’s statements. (Or, like the part about the placenta – it proved…the mom couldn’t see what was happening, which proves..nothing.) Bizarre.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 18, 2015 at 8:37 pm #

            Why would it? My criminal trial was over. Why could I not quote transcripts to refute the statements in the letter which was posted anonymously to a yahoogroup and I believed to be fabricated? Why would that be legal malpractice? I’m sure my attorney will be interested to hear your answer.

          • Who?
            January 18, 2015 at 8:45 pm #

            Interesting you think they refute the mother’s evidence. I don’t think that means what you think it means.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 18, 2015 at 9:44 pm #

            Her supposed email: she never said transport
            Trial transcript: she said transport
            Her alleged email: she never called a midwife
            Trial transcript: she called several midwives

            Come again?

          • attitude devant
            January 18, 2015 at 9:47 pm #

            cf, Richard Nixon above

          • Who?
            January 18, 2015 at 9:51 pm #

            It’s nothing like as clear as that. And there are more examples of clear disagreement.

            For now I’m going to emulate you and just make a statement with no attempt to back it up. How’s that working for you? Finding it difficult to take me seriously? Welcome to my world when I read your self justifying word vomit.

          • sdsures
            January 19, 2015 at 6:48 am #

            Surprisingly, people who get charged with a crime can and do lie under oath. *sarcasm*

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 19, 2015 at 7:34 am #

            I didn’t know the mother was charged with a crime?

            I did not testify.

          • Dr Kitty
            January 19, 2015 at 11:27 am #

            I find that interesting.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 19, 2015 at 11:34 am #

            Then you haven’t attended very many trials.

          • Dr Kitty
            January 19, 2015 at 12:20 pm #

            No, but I write a fair amount of letters for patients who are on trial.
            Usually, to cite that there is a medical reason why they are unable to testify in their own defence, so that the jury is instructed not to infer negatively from their absence from the witness stand, which I understand they usually do if the defendant doesn’t speak in their own defence.

            But you have a different legal system, so perhaps it isn’t the same.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 19, 2015 at 12:54 pm #

            That is correct. The jury here is instructed to presume innocence.

          • Who?
            January 19, 2015 at 7:27 pm #

            Dr K is in the UK, they invented the presumption of innocence. You choose to not testify for yourself, that is powerful in the minds of juries, which is why people want reasons ie a doctor’s letter, that they can’t. And doctors, being professionals with objective standards and ethics, won’t write a letter unless they believe the contents to be true.

          • sdsures
            January 20, 2015 at 3:19 pm #

            Question: isn’t it illegal to presume guilt if a defendant chooses not to testify? i.e. in the US taking the fifth amendment cannot be construed as evidence of guilt.

          • sdsures
            January 20, 2015 at 3:18 pm #

            You were convicted of a felony.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 21, 2015 at 6:41 pm #

            “Surprisingly, people who get charged with a crime can and do lie under oath. *sarcasm*”

            So, since I did not testify, who is being referred to as lying in the above quote, exactly?

          • sdsures
            January 22, 2015 at 3:18 pm #

            Doesn’t really matter – the point is that you were convicted. People can choose not to testify and still get convicted.

          • Poogles
            January 27, 2015 at 7:36 am #

            “Her supposed email: she never said transport
            Trial transcript: she said transport”
            Her alleged email: she never called a midwife
            Trial transcript: she called several midwives”

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            May 29, 2015 at 6:23 pm #

            So I should have not “threatened” with transport and only sat by, stroking her hair? I’m confused. Do you all think I should have supported her at home or no? Because this sounds like a lot of damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Seriously, what would YOU do?

          • Poogles
            May 29, 2015 at 6:56 pm #

            “So I should have not “threatened” with transport and only sat by, stroking her hair?”

            No, I think it was quite clear from my comment that, IMO, you should have *recommended* transfer; the way things are worded makes a big difference in how people will interpret what you said. Obviously, the way you talked about transfer did not come across as a recommendation, and I can see why.

            “Do you all think I should have supported her at home or no?”

            You should have been very clear that there was no licensed midwife available to attend and then you should have clearly recommended a transfer since you were not qualified to attend a birth by yourself, still being a student (and your actions clearly show you were not experienced/educated enough to handle the birth properly by yourself).

          • momofone
            May 29, 2015 at 8:26 pm #

            I’d personally work within the scope of my training–meaning that if I were a student, I wouldn’t be setting myself up to deliver without backup. But that’s just me.

          • KarenJJ
            January 19, 2015 at 12:49 am #

            So the attorney’s advice is something along the lines of (paraphrasing and imagining how a lawyer might speak) – ‘the trial is over and the findings are published. there is no gag order. you can comment on your case if you need to, although personally I’d advise against it’ – becomes “At the advice of my attorney I am responding to the letter from “J” that is being circulated.”

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 19, 2015 at 7:35 am #

            No. He advised me to respond. I’m still not getting an answer why that is being called legal malpractice here.

          • Business before birth
            January 19, 2015 at 5:31 pm #

            Because you don’t refute the statements. In any way. Except for your supporters(few) and the frighteningly extremist “midwives”-are-never-wrong-even-when-they-are-directly-responsible-for-the-death-of-infants-or-mothers

            Your response to the e-mail only solidifies your proven guilt and casts you in a tantrum-like, uneducated, ego-driven, and completely lacking in remorse and morals light.

            Your “proof”? Semantics!

            “I’m not incompetent because the judgement didn’t use the word incompetent!” When the judgement several times uses the very definition of incompetent through the use of synonyms. Example(since you repeatedly use deliberate “misunderstanding): “I’m not wearing a red shirt, because it’s not called red!” when you are wearing a red shirt but it’s described as “crimson, scarlet….”

            “I was cleared, vacated, of all charges, I’m not guilty see? My charges were dropped!!” Vacated means your charges were reduced because of time served. Not because you were able to actually prove your innocence(since you’re not).

            Your quote: “I believed to be fabricated?” Ahh.. The smoking gun. The shot in the foot. Believing something is fabricated is far, far different than something that actually is fabricated. You can believe in the tooth fairy: The tooth fairy doesn’t exist. You can believe something was “fabricated”. Fine. But your “belief” is completely destroyed by all evidence. I mean, thousands of criminals “believe” they are innocent, that their charges were fabricated… Despite the perponderance of evidince that proves otherwise. Just as in your case.

            So, to prove your “innocence” you rant about semantics, cherry pick and re-word evidence, give your account which completely goes against all evidence and testimony

            You use this as “evidence” the mother knew a midwife wouldn’t be present: When the defendant walked back in and advised you that the midwife was not available, describe the defendant’s actions after advising you that the midwife was not available.” “J”: “She seemed very confident in explaining it to us, and she said, I think, that she would continue trying or that she would reach someone else. The impression was given that she would keep trying to reach one of the midwives.”

            Anyone reading this would side with the mother! Why? Because-as stated in the testimony you claim-you led the mother, and all present in the room that you were going find another midwife. Thus “J’s” “testimony” is glaringly in her favor!

            And again: She seemed very confident in explaining it to us, and she said, I think, that she would continue trying or that she would reach someone else. The impression was given that she would keep trying to reach one of the midwives.”

            Again, you stated that a midwife would be present, when one never was. You couldn’t reach one??? Really? So you just walked off, after promising to find a midwife…led the distraught parents on. Yeahhhhh…that really “proves your innocence” (sarcasim)

            And the most damning(and dense) “proof” of yours: No one witnessed Ms. McCall contacting other preceptors, and there is no evidence that this occurred.”

            IR, page 37, line 8: “J”: “I think my husband remembers that she was actually on the phone like she was — she was actually — she had the phone to her ear. I’m not sure exactly whether she was leaving a message or calling someone else, but after that she told us that she had called the midwife and I’m fairly sure that she said she would be unavailable”

            No one witnessed you contacting preceptors! No one heard you talking to preceptors! You were witnessed with a phone to your ear! A. Phone.To.your. Ear. You could have been faking, could have been doing anything. Why walk off to call a preceptor? Why not call while in the room so-those concerned could actually overhear and actually know and witness you were actually calling preceptors? Because you weren’t. That is what anyone reading your “proof” knows.

            Your response, again, just digs your guilt deeper. Your “proof” completely destroys the innocence you claim. And fully backs the fact that you were rightfully charged, you directly placed a mother and child in danger and you only care about your image.

            (Oh, and before you “threaten” me with…whatever…you made the “transcripts” public and invited people to read them. Which means everyone here can comment on them.)

          • KarenJJ
            January 19, 2015 at 6:31 pm #

            My guess is that she believes she should be innocent because “everyone else does it and gets away with it”. And it’s possibly somewhat true-ish in her circle.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            January 19, 2015 at 6:50 pm #

            My guess is that she believes she should be innocent because “everyone else does it and gets away with it”.

            Shit, SHE had done it on multiple occasions before and gotten away with it.

          • KarenJJ
            January 20, 2015 at 5:18 am #

            Not all men are rapists. The only people that think all men are rapists are convicted rapists, who think that they are the unlucky ones that got caught.

            I’m not sure where I heard that or whether it is entirely true, but I’ve been thinking that idea over for a while now and wonder whether it can explain the lack of remorse some people show after conviction.

          • Business before birth
            January 19, 2015 at 7:28 pm #

            Yes, to a point. She’s so entrenched in her ego and her business that she truly doesn’t ‘believe’ she did anything wrong. She blames everyone else. She casts herself as a victim. She doesn’t show even a speck of respect or remorse for what was done to the mother and child.

            The thing that scares me most, is that she believes she did nothing wrong-a victim. That she is flawless and “saved the mother and child’s lives.”

            She thinks that by moving, she’ll be able to escape the charges, the near killing of mother and child. A simple google search will show how guilty she is.

            What scares me the most is these sadly brainwashed mothers who are used and manipulated. Mothers chosen by “midwives”who know they will buy into the snake-oil and scare tatics, the bashing of who they are. The abuse. That’s what it is: abuse. “You’re not a good mother if___” “you obviously don’t care about the real health of your child if____” “Doctors and pharmacutical companies are created to destroy who you are and will have dangerous effects____” “statistics? Statistics proving that having your child in a hospital leads to dramatically lesser deaths and comications?” “What? All those deaths before modern medical intervention and “midwives” were used? Deaths of mothers and children that was common? Pshaw…it’s all a coverup!” “Don’t you want a peaceful experience, music, oils? An experience tailored for YOU? To make YOU as comfortable as possible? The child is secondary! They know when to come out! They’re always healthy! Modern medical intervention only makes YOUR experience more stressful and painful and all those evil doctors will pressure you to monitor your child. IT’s YOU that counts!”

            The moment a mother and parents start actually asking real questions, the midwives will try and berate them. Shove biased “studies” in their faces. And when they question that-the “midwives” will start screaming and ranting and verbally abusing the mother/parents in a bid to wear them down. If THAT doesn’t work they will tell others about how they encountered someone that was “decieved” by the medical community and how they obviously care nothing about their child.

            Despite the fact that “midwives” have a disturbingly lengthy trail of death and damage in their wake. Sure they’ll counter with the death and damage caused by “evil doctors, etc.” but the number of deaths and damage caused by midwives is dramatically higher than modern medicine. And no, it’s not because of the number of “midwives” in comparison of hospital births.

            Yeah, I’m angry. Yeah, I’ve commented several times. Why? Because Katie is unrepentant. She nearly killed a mother and child, because of her hubris and lies. She’s moved to another state! To continue trying to practice. Placing more mothers and children in direct danger.

            No remorse, and the laughable “I couldn’t find another job.” Really? At all? More like she refused to work at jobs that would have hired her(everything from wlamart to reception, call centers…) but she thought were beneath her. Her felony didn’t prevent her from finding a job. Many workplaces hire felons. Hell, there’s programs for those who have a felony conviction designed to find them jobs! But nope, couldn’t do that. She had to “suffer” (insert eyeroll) cleaning bathrooms and washing cars. Yes, what ~suffering~. Washing cars and bathrooms is SO MUCH WORSE than stepping off and not endangering the lives of people.

          • Samantha06
            January 19, 2015 at 8:03 pm #

            In her eyes I would imagine that those jobs would be “beneath her.” I mean, after all, she was birthing babies! That makes her some kind of angel by association, doesn’t it?? (sarcasm) Except for one teensy problem.. she just happens to be really bad at it and almost killed two people…
            You are so right, though, these midwives are nothing short of abusers, plain and simple.

          • Who?
            January 19, 2015 at 7:23 pm #

            Thanks for doing this. I’m glad I’m far away because the ‘clang’ that will come if Katie ever realises what she has done to herself on this site will be a loud one.

          • Who?
            January 18, 2015 at 8:44 pm #

            Ignoring my better angels-who don’t like giving hits to looneys, I couldn’t resist a look at this.

            I thought the same thing as you-much of what she said didn’t convey the message she seemed to think it conveyed.

            And regardless of the ethics of these kind of ‘tactics’, given that it doesn’t do the intended job ie exonerate her, I find it hard to believe that any lawyer would okay it. Though now I’m wondering if her ‘lawyer’ is a lawyer like she’s a midwife ie self taught and pretty incompetent. And if unlicenced, nothing to lose by this advice.

          • attitude devant
            January 18, 2015 at 9:36 pm #

            It reminded me of Richard Nixon releasing the Oval Office tapes. He seemed to think he was exonerating himself, proving there was no smoking gun, when in reality the kinds of things that he was saying and doing on the transcripts made everyone realize that he was a paranoid sleazeball.

          • attitude devant
            January 18, 2015 at 11:55 pm #

            My personal opinion is that she’s such a thorough narcicisst that she simply couldn’t keep her mouth shut about it.

    • Who?
      January 17, 2015 at 7:17 pm #

      What Katie failed to do right was call for backup when it was clear the midwife supervisor she was required to have wasn’t coming.

      Your foul language really helps to make your point more lucidly and powerfully.

      Why would ‘luck’ be required for all these homebirths you are planning? Are you talking about the good luck of getting pregnant or the luck to be well enough to go into labour and get through it without needing to call for help from some of these people you are planning to send your future children (how brave of you!) to fight?

    • StThomas
      January 17, 2015 at 7:22 pm #

      “McCall was not convicted of a felony for palpating a belly or taking blood pressure. She was convicted for gross negligence, dishonesty, and life-threatening actions at a birth”

    • Emma
      January 17, 2015 at 7:48 pm #

      Wow, that really was uncalled for. If you cannot participate in a debate without resorting to foul language and name calling you haven’t much to contribute. Also what do you mean by “fight tooth and nail against the close-minded and suffocating ideals of people of your ilk”? I am a mother of one, currently 38 weeks pregnant, I am not a doctor, and I am planning a hospital birth. My first daughter was born with interventions that saved her life. Am I not entitled to make that decision for the benefit of my baby and I? I fully agree with Dr Amy’s opinions on homebirth and I don’t feel that there is anything close minded or suffocating about them, they merely dispel the oft propagated myth in the western world that birth is not a very risky business for mother and baby and in the 21st century there is no reason to put your life or your child’s a risk for the sake of the ‘experience’.

      • MLE
        January 17, 2015 at 11:36 pm #

        Hey I’m 38 weeks too! Hope all goes well!

    • Stacy48918
      January 18, 2015 at 7:52 am #

      Way to represent the Free State….

      Honestly, guys, there are non-idiots up here, I swear. Though at times I do think we’re out-numbered.

      • MLE
        January 18, 2015 at 10:09 pm #

        I love NH. It’s gorgeous and we’ve never met anyone but nice and friendly people there.

    • Siri
      January 18, 2015 at 8:13 am #

      Katie never took a baby’s BP; this requires special equipment not carried by midwives anywhere. She also did not save anyone’s life; what she did was place a mother and her baby’s life in danger and charge money for doing so. Katie McCall is an evil, dishonest, incompetent moron who should be in jail. Anyone who defends her is either deluded or as wicked as she is. Shame on you and your filthy mouth.

      • sdsures
        January 18, 2015 at 4:52 pm #

        Lay midwives don’t even carry a BP monitor?!

        • Medwife
          January 18, 2015 at 6:13 pm #

          It’s a very different matter to measure bp of a neonate than of a child or adult. It involves placing an umbilical artery catheter and connecting it to a bp transducer. Evaluating a neonate is by heartrate and O2 sat.

          • sdsures
            January 18, 2015 at 7:42 pm #

            Oh, I didn’t know that. Thanks!

          • Samantha06
            January 18, 2015 at 9:27 pm #

            Actually, you can do a BP, but you use a very small cuff and it’s done on the cardio/resp monitor, either on an arm or leg.

          • sdsures
            January 21, 2015 at 12:52 pm #

            OT: Is the umbilical line the way micropreemies’ BPs are done in the NICU, or can they use the cuff if the baby is big enough?

          • Samantha06
            January 21, 2015 at 1:05 pm #

            I’m not sure. I haven’t worked with micro preemies before, only with ones that are about 32 weeks and older. I’ll ask the NICU girls in Level III next time I work!

          • sdsures
            January 21, 2015 at 1:08 pm #


    • Trixie
      January 18, 2015 at 9:38 am #

      You know what would be a HIPAA violation? Crowd sourcing a life and death medical decision. Luckily no Sisters In Chains would ever….oh wait.

      • sdsures
        January 18, 2015 at 4:50 pm #

        RIP Gavin Michael. #notburiedtwice

    • yentavegan
      January 18, 2015 at 9:15 pm #

      I just finished reading the mothers’ side of what took place, The mother supports homebirth but she feels that Katie McCall did not treat her professionally and that her life was is jeopardy due to this pretend midwife’s actions.

    • Dr Kitty
      January 19, 2015 at 9:41 am #

      No, actually, the jury didn’t give have to cite which particular action of McCall’s they felt was the qualifying as practising medicine without a license, and they didn’t.

      From the legal documents relating to the appeal.


      “The trial court gave a unanimity instruction.[1] The jury
      returned a general guilty verdict. The
      jury was not asked to and did not specify which act or acts constituted the
      violation of law.”

      “[1] The jury was
      instructed: “The defendant is accused of
      having committed the crime of [p]racticing medicine without a license in Count
      1. The prosecution has introduced
      evidence for the purpose of showing that there is more than one act upon which
      a conviction on Count 1 may be based.
      Defendant may be found guilty if the proof shows beyond a reasonable
      doubt that she committed any one or more of the acts. However, in order to return a verdict of
      guilty to Count 1, all jurors must agree that she committed the same act or
      acts. It is not necessary that the
      particular act agreed upon be stated in your verdict.”

      Abdominal palpation,foetal doppler, checking maternal BP, urine dipsticks, shoulder dystocia manoeuvres, repairing a perineal tear, exajmining sutures for healing, injecting pitocin and lidocane- all, in the opinion of the court, could have constituted practising medicine.

      Even MS McCall’s own witness, Dr Fischbein, testified that he felt she had practised medicine without a license while attending the birth.

      • Dr Kitty
        January 19, 2015 at 9:43 am #

        You know, because I actually did my homework…

  8. Amazed
    January 17, 2015 at 3:20 pm #

    OT: Keep your fingers crossed for me. Just today, I did something that might cost me the book I’m translating. I did it because it was the Right Thing To Do. It might have also been a Very Stupid Thing To Do, financiallywise.

    Bloody honesty. I’d hate it if I find myself out of job with this book.

    • yugaya
      January 17, 2015 at 3:41 pm #

      Plagiarism or content related?

      • Amazed
        January 17, 2015 at 3:46 pm #

        Not sure. The thing was translated and uploaded a good few years ago. A very popular reading site that is a great help when I need citations by Shakespeare but threading very close to being illegal when doing something like that. Of course, people are entitled to translate anything they want and in fact, they don’t make money for it, I think. But I believe it harms the author. And now, I told the publisher about it. He might just decide to go with the illegal translation, edited and all, of course, and save money from me. I hope he won’t.

        • Bombshellrisa
          January 17, 2015 at 3:51 pm #

          Oh crap. Ethics hurt. But good for you for wanting to be fair to the author.

          • Amazed
            January 17, 2015 at 3:55 pm #

            And the publisher. I do have a number of books translated that I give only to my family and those closest to me. I wanted to translate them, so I did. But I believe it’s not right to give my translations to just anyone, money or not. Copyright does exist and anyway, it just isn’t right.

            I fervently hope I am not out of job right now. It’ll be only temporary, of course, but it’ll suck.

          • Bombshellrisa
            January 17, 2015 at 4:15 pm #

            When will you know? The waiting must be the worst.

          • Amazed
            January 17, 2015 at 4:21 pm #

            In a day or two. It’ll be Sunday soon and the publisher might not make it to Skype.

        • Who?
          January 17, 2015 at 7:19 pm #

          Horrible situation. Good luck with it.

    • Who?
      January 19, 2015 at 5:23 pm #

      How did this pan out?

      • Amazed
        January 19, 2015 at 6:33 pm #

        For now, no reaction from the other end. I take that to mean, “Keep working”, so I do.

      • Amazed
        January 20, 2015 at 9:26 am #

        In case you’re still interested, the publisher just called me. He wants me to keep working. Wow!

  9. The Bofa on the Sofa
    January 17, 2015 at 1:30 pm #

    Completely off-topic (not even marginally related) but since many here have young kids, I will just ask, “Do you want to build a snowman?”

    • Mac Sherbert
      January 17, 2015 at 1:51 pm #

      If you’ll ship us some snow! Cute snowman and kids. 🙂

      • The Bofa on the Sofa
        January 17, 2015 at 1:53 pm #

        Ours is going away (our Olaf discovered what happens to frozen water when it gets warm…he head fell off)

        • Mac Sherbert
          January 17, 2015 at 2:10 pm #

          Ha! My 2 year old would say summer every time she saw a snowman after watching that movie. For the longest time I thought I would have to explain to any future preschool teachers why she thought snow and summer went together. (Where I live we are lucky to get enough snow once a year to make a snowman…and we generally don’t complain about the lack of snow.)

          • sdsures
            January 18, 2015 at 5:06 pm #

            Guess where snow and summer DO go together?

            The South Pole. 😀

    • Bombshellrisa
      January 17, 2015 at 1:56 pm #

      Yes! I am so jealous you guys got some snow. Looks like you had some fun!

      • The Bofa on the Sofa
        January 17, 2015 at 2:11 pm #

        Actually, the snow has been here for a couple of weeks (since Jan 5). It’s just been too cold for the snow to be sticky enough to roll into a ball. Warm weather today softened it, so we got out in it before too much melted away (which it is doing now)

    • Amazed
      January 17, 2015 at 1:58 pm #

      No since I have some problems with my hands. I don’t even use cold water like, ever.

      But I’ll take your Olaf please. He’s gorgeous. So are they.

    • Samantha06
      January 17, 2015 at 5:09 pm #

      How cute are they?? And they did a good job on the snow man too!

    • KarenJJ
      January 17, 2015 at 7:20 pm #

      I’d LOVE to build a snowman. It was 40 degrees yesterday (celsius).. Gorgeous pic 🙂

      • Who?
        January 17, 2015 at 7:22 pm #

        Just thinking the same thing, so hot and humid here . And barely a breath of wind.

        I swear the plants are growing while we watch at the moment.

        • KarenJJ
          January 18, 2015 at 9:14 pm #

          Our plants are wilting, going brown and crunchy. No rain for months at a time over summer plus water restrictions.

          • Who?
            January 18, 2015 at 9:25 pm #

            What a shame, that was last summer here.

            I watered last night because the day was so hot, this morning I could still see the water marks on the ground. The humidity is insane. My sub-tropical plants are loving it, so, sadly are the weeds, and the grass is just going crazy.

    • Maya Manship
      January 17, 2015 at 11:08 pm #

      Thanks for bringing a smile to my face. My four year old is obsessed with Frozen. Any time I’m in the bathroom she will sing that song from the other side of the door. I, of course, say “Go away Anna” at the appropriate point in the song.

    • araikwao
      January 17, 2015 at 11:33 pm #

      Ha ha, my kids loved the picture! We have been listening to the Frozen soundtrack so much lately, even the 2yo breaks out in the relevant track spontaneously.

    • GiddyUpGo123
      January 18, 2015 at 11:39 am #


    • sdsures
      January 18, 2015 at 5:06 pm #

      I’d love to, but here in Manchester, we’ve only had about an inch, and it melts quickly.

    • MaineJen
      January 20, 2015 at 12:01 am #

      They built Olaf! That rocks.

  10. Amazed
    January 17, 2015 at 12:01 pm #

    OK, I’ve been reading since yesterday (didn’t have the chance to comment) and I have to say… I don’t have anything to say, in fact. What the hell guys? How did you let Katie dominate the discussion with the ever so important topic pertaining her being a felon or her being an ex-felon?

    Fuck the felony thing that did take place, no matter how hard Katie wants to wave it away. Don’t get sucked into the oh so important issue of Katie’s business of Katie begging her bread by the side of the road. The issues are far more serious. As shown by Katie’s own posts, she only cares about finding more victims, er, clients. And that she’ll fight tooth and nail against midwives having standards.

    • January 17, 2015 at 12:27 pm #

      I can’t speak for others here, but after Katie’s atrocious behavior on the Sarah Buckley post made me so angry and disgusted that I wasn’t able/willing to watch her pull the same dishonest bullshit without response. She didn’t dominate it in reality though, she just kept trying to – and was hit left right and center with facts – legal documentation of Katie’s own past, plus demonstration after demonstration of what kind of person Katie is (a bad one). I think it was worth it for anyone googling Katie McCall. And that cannot be considered threatening her business, as by her own admission, she thinks the onus is entirely on the mother to do her research, right? So I’m not wishing her precious, desperately defended busines harm at all, merely agreeing with Katie that it’s very good for mothers to research their prospective midwife before trusting their and their babies to her.

      • Amazed
        January 17, 2015 at 12:33 pm #

        Oh yes, no doubt it would be handy for anyone doing their “research”. I was just surprised that so many people were willing to discuss the felony thing which is exactly what Katie wanted. I imagine that getting all technical would be better for Saint Business than answering questions like, “What’s wrong with having standards?” By dominating the conversation I meant discussing the things Katie wanted people to discuss, no matter how ignorant and obstinate she came across as in the discussion.

        So, Katie, would you tell us what’s wrong with having standards? As in, universal ones and not something each of your precious Sisters in Chains can pull out of her (jailed for regretfully short period of time) ass?

        • Amy Tuteur, MD
          January 17, 2015 at 12:44 pm #

          I suspect that letting Katie babble on and on did more to blacken her reputation than anything that we could say about her.

          We could be accused of misrepresenting her. She obviously isn’t misrepresenting herself. It’s all there for anyone to see: the lack of remorse, the blaming others, the unwillingess to learn from her mistakes, her bizarre relationship with the truth. I could tell you about that, but reading what Katie says exposes the full horror.

          • January 17, 2015 at 12:46 pm #

            Yes! Well stated Dr. Amy!

          • Amazed
            January 17, 2015 at 12:52 pm #

            The problem is, even knowing that it is terrible, it just comes across as ridiculous to me, it’s so bizarre. I cannot get rid of the feeling that she isn’t for real, although rationally I know she is. To my surprise, I found out that I still think better of the humankind. I’d really, really want it all to be a sick joke and I do feel like it is.

            Although I know it isn’t.


          • sdsures
            January 19, 2015 at 6:43 am #

            “We could be accused of misrepresenting her.”

            I’m sure she’ll get around to saying that eventually.

        • Guesteleh
          January 17, 2015 at 12:54 pm #

          I think you’re wrong. The way Katie split hairs on the felony was far more damning than any discussion of standards. Plus it opened the door for people to link to the mother’s story which demonstrates her utter lack of scruples.

          • Amazed
            January 17, 2015 at 12:56 pm #

            I hope you’re right. It does come across as damning. Borderline ridiculous.

    • Mel
      January 17, 2015 at 2:27 pm #

      Honestly, I found it darkly humorous watching her “logic” progress, degress, regress and tie itself in knots.
      Also, her total refusal to use the words “libel” and “slander” in the correct legal sense was….illuminating.
      After a while, it went from feeling like shooting a fish in a barrel to watching a fish in a barrel shoot itself.
      Either way, she left a darn interesting outline of her views on what a felony conviction means, what her views on the legal process was and how those two things don’t mesh with reality in any plane.

      • CrownedMedwife
        January 17, 2015 at 2:47 pm #

        It began as slightly entertaining, then frustrating and then just boring. Slept on it and came to the same realization as you mentioned…left a heck of a trail for herself. She seemed too conniving to have laid it all out there like she did without there being an ulterior motive. Or perhaps she is really just as callous as Dr. Amy said in the original post and then Katie just went on to share her narcissism as well.

        • Samantha06
          January 18, 2015 at 9:44 pm #

          I think she really hung herself and her true colors came out when she repeatedly said, “I was not convicted of a felony”, blah, blah, blah, and never once even mentioned the mother or baby or her actions. I was really humbled at the graciousness of the mom when she said in her statement she felt compassion for Katie, considering what happened. That is a woman of character. Character is a trait Katie can never understand.

    • CrownedMedwife
      January 17, 2015 at 2:35 pm #

      When Katie joined the Sarah Buckley post the other day, it was obvious the next day would follow with a post all of her own. As someone said down thread, should be a good read on a Friday night and called for some popcorn. Yes, Katie did dominate the thread and the repetition quickly became dull. I assumed the post would grow into a discussion of home versus hospital or CPM versus OB/CNM, it was disappointing as the entire thread became solely about Katie.

      Silly little Katie had a platform all to herself and brilliantly displayed her narcissism comment after comment, nary a thought or concern towards maintaining competency, safety or regulation in home birth practice. She carefully tiptoed around any substantial discussions and it was obvious she avoided having to enter a discussion regarding the deplorable outcomes of CPM attended births. The lack of discussion should hardly have been surprising as the only grounds Katie would have to stand on would have consisted of stomping her feet and snarky remarks with little more to substantiate her claims other than “because I said so”. Katie did a lovely job of demonstrating where her morals, or lack thereof, exist in the realm of CPM existence, licensing, outcomes and priorities exist.

      Kudos to you Katie, exemplary demonstration of where the priorities are for yourself and likely your Sisters in Chains, who seemed to be blatantly unaware and absent of any discussions to back up your foolish claims of unjust persecution. Dr. Amy is right. She couldn’t have done a better job of exposing you than you did all by yourself. Now Katie, if you don’t mind, I’d really like to be able to return to the level of discussions inherent to this blog. Obviously, Dr. Amy welcomes everyone to participate, but I do believe it all might be just a touch above the ethical, intellectual and moral abilities you have previously displayed.

      • Samantha06
        January 18, 2015 at 9:38 pm #

        I hope lots of women, especially NH women, read this and are horrified.. I hope they say to themselves, my God, I was actually considering using this woman, thank goodness I read this.. I better let my friends know.. that’s my hope.

    • yugaya
      January 17, 2015 at 3:48 pm #

      I think that that was brute force, not dominating, and her assault on SOB blog backfired monumentally.

    • MLE
      January 17, 2015 at 6:12 pm #

      I think, as others have said, that this was a fantastic and flabbergasting example of the disgraceful priorities of your average CPM. They will go to extremes to take the easiest route in all things, from their avoidance of strenuous and thorough training, to denying culpability or introspection in the inevitable event of a bad outcome. They put themselves before patients in every circumstance, resorting to laughably blatant lies and hedges in an attempt to avoid even the mildest rebukes, or to admit that they could be lacking in any particular. These behaviors are consistently topped off with reflexive and vicious victim blaming. Katie helpfully showed us what is foremost in her mind and the mind of any CPM by doing what comes naturally – focusing on herself.

    • sdsures
      January 18, 2015 at 5:07 pm #

      Is anyone ever an “ex-felon”, or does it really follow a person around to the end of time?

      • Squillo
        January 18, 2015 at 8:28 pm #

        In California, the records may be destroyed after a number of years, depending on the circumstances.

        Which is fairly unhelpful if a case has been publicized in the newspapers and all over the internet.

        • sdsures
          January 19, 2015 at 6:14 am #

          I was just going to ask how the age of Internet affects this.

  11. rational adult
    January 17, 2015 at 11:53 am #

    Mazel tov and welcome new baby girl!

  12. baileylamb
    January 17, 2015 at 10:14 am #

    OT: baby girl born yesterday rcs. 19 1/2 inches. 7 lbs 4oz. Hospital stay is different this time. They aren’t pushy w/ breast feeding. Readily available formula. Although every nurse is more knowledgeable about breast feeding this time around ( gentler as well). Thy did ask if I wanted. My placenta (I politely declined). This hospital still has the well baby nursery, and they are very adament about not sleeping with your baby (last time they weren’t. Obtw, one nuse asked my obgyn what was the csection that affected him the most…. He said the one he had to do with minimal/no pain medicine. That made for interesting conversation (in the middle of my rcs)

    • The Bofa on the Sofa
      January 17, 2015 at 10:16 am #


    • Amazed
      January 17, 2015 at 11:56 am #

      Congrats of the new arrival!

    • Susan
      January 17, 2015 at 12:00 pm #

      Congrats on new baby!

    • attitude devant
      January 17, 2015 at 12:52 pm #


    • Bombshellrisa
      January 17, 2015 at 2:51 pm #

      Congrats!! So happy for you!

    • yugaya
      January 17, 2015 at 5:42 pm #

      Yay congratulations! Wishing you and your baby all the best!

    • Mishimoo
      January 17, 2015 at 5:47 pm #

      Congratulations! Glad you’re having a better time around this time and get to enjoy your lovely new munchkin.

    • Samantha06
      January 17, 2015 at 6:52 pm #


    • SporkParade
      January 18, 2015 at 2:15 am #


    • Montserrat Blanco
      January 18, 2015 at 2:55 am #


    • wookie130
      January 18, 2015 at 1:34 pm #

      Lovely news! Congratulations!

    • Dr Kitty
      January 18, 2015 at 3:00 pm #

      Enjoy the new baby!

  13. January 17, 2015 at 4:20 am #

    Let me get this straight– Ms. McCall is a convicted felon in the state of California, has now moved to New Hampshire, probably to avoid the restrictions the California authorities placed on her to prevent the continuance of her “midwifery”. Am I correct?

    Can anyone tell me what the legal status of CPMs with a criminal record is where she is currently living? if NH does license such midwives is there any sort of background check made regarding an applicant for licensure?

    Just curious.

    • Somewhereinthemiddle
      January 17, 2015 at 8:31 am #

      Not sure about those questions, but I *think* I read correctly on the NH licensure regs that were posted somewhere in the last two days that someone only needs to attend 25 births in order to qualify for licensure. These comments sections have gotten so long that it’ll be time consuming to find it… But really, only 25?

      • Somewhereinthemiddle
        January 17, 2015 at 8:32 am #

        Googled it and found it http://www.collegeofmidwives.org/collegeofmidwives.org/legal_legislative01/NHpracact.htm

        • KarenJJ
          January 17, 2015 at 8:53 am #

          Why do they need to clarify “live” in the “live out-of-hospital births”?

          • KarenJj
            January 17, 2015 at 8:55 am #

            Maybe a Gastroenterologist can qualify after 25 colonoscopies that result in 25 live patients?

          • Somewhereinthemiddle
            January 17, 2015 at 9:10 am #

            Yeah man, if you kill a few patients in the process, try, try again right? You’ll eventually get to 25 even if you lose a few along the way.

          • Sue
            January 17, 2015 at 5:51 pm #

            Or plastic surgeon can qualify with five repairs of lacerations?

          • Elaine
            January 17, 2015 at 6:46 pm #

            I assume to distinguish from treating a patient with a miscarriage, D&C, etc. since those are not the same skills?

          • January 17, 2015 at 7:21 pm #

            I’m sure it couldn’t be that whole bunch of bad outcomes hb midwives have, no sireee.

          • KarenJJ
            January 17, 2015 at 7:26 pm #

            Ah – that makes some sense.

      • January 17, 2015 at 1:28 pm #

        It would seem logical that she would try to find a place with minimal requirements.
        My UK course required 100 [during the year I was in training], 20 of those had to be home births. Of course my midwifery tutor supervised me at every delivery [and, at the time, anyone wanting to become a midwifery tutor had to be able to submit her registers showing she had done at least 3000 deliveries herself]

        That small number of deliveries is bad enough, but what I have trouble getting my head around is that anyone with a police record or conviction could be licensed. Especially if the charges related to the same profession.

  14. Dr Kitty
    January 17, 2015 at 2:31 am #

    I have enjoyed reading this, it took my mind off things (our cat has been diagnosed with a weird cat bone thing, and will probably need expensive surgery).

    As always, the commenters here did not disappoint, and Ms McCall did not fail to disappoint.

    • Mishimoo
      January 17, 2015 at 2:59 am #

      I’m sorry to hear about your cat, let us know how things work out.

      • Dr Kitty
        January 17, 2015 at 4:30 am #

        He’s in surprisingly good form for someone with basically no hip joints.
        Seriously, he’s sitting at the front door begging to go out, and has eaten two bowls of food this morning.

        He went from being a bit stand-offish, to being unable to climb onto his favourite chair over the course of a week, and it turns out he has physeal dysplasia with slipped capital epiphyses and femoral neck resorption.

        We’ll see what the orthopaedic vet says, but it looks like he’ll be an indoor kitty for the foreseeable future.

        • Mishimoo
          January 17, 2015 at 4:37 am #

          Oh wow! So glad that he’s happy despite his hip issues. Does the vet think it’s because he was neutered early, or is it just simply bad luck? Hopefully the orthopaedic vet has good news for you, and thank you for being a good pet ‘mum’.

          • Dr Kitty
            January 17, 2015 at 5:23 am #

            He was neutered at 5 months, which might have contributed, but not neutering was never an option, and he was a BIG kitten, so waiting longer didn’t make sense either. You make the best choices you can, working with the information you have at the time. There really isn’t any way to know whether waiting longer to neuter him would have prevented the bone issues, or just given us a more aggressive cat that sprays…and has the same issues!

            He’s a lovely, chilled out, lazy, friendly sort of character, so hopefully if we manage his pain he’ll take any limitations to his lifestyle in his stride.
            Sorry, I’ll stop with the cat stuff now.

          • Mishimoo
            January 17, 2015 at 5:32 am #

            No, no. You’re absolutely right and I probably would have made the same choice, even though there is that risk.
            I love animals like that – we have weimaraners with the same sort of personalities. They’re chilled out indoor beasties that are good with the kids and make sure no crumbs escape. The only flaw is that one of them likes to lick canetoads and then watch the ceiling fan go around…and they love cats. Unfortunately, the cat did not appreciate being carried around, cuddled, and groomed.

          • DaisyGrrl
            January 17, 2015 at 10:52 am #

            I’ve seen a few videos of dogs after licking cane toads and they are hilarious (although I understand that it can be dangerous for smaller dogs). Much more entertaining than having a dog who has been sprayed by a skunk running inside to rub the stink everywhere…

          • Mishimoo
            January 17, 2015 at 7:54 pm #

            It is pretty funny to watch, and he loves it so much that he ends up ‘high’ after licking geckos and blue tongue lizards (placebo effect). But yes, it can be pretty dangerous even to large dogs so we try to keep him away from them. It seems to vary from dog to dog (and possibly even toad to toad), and if he showed any symptoms other than being high, we’d be going straight to the vets.

            I always wash his mouth out thoroughly for 10-15 minutes, taking care to not let him swallow the water, and keep an eye on him for a while. If I get him quickly enough, he sulks because I “stole” his high.

          • Who?
            January 17, 2015 at 8:25 pm #

            Love the placebo effect!

          • Trixie
            January 17, 2015 at 9:02 am #

            Around here they always recommend to spay or neuter kittens before sexual maturity. We adopted kittens at 10 weeks and they were spayed first. They simply won’t send cats out who could reproduce. Is it typical to do it later there?

          • Dr Kitty
            January 18, 2015 at 2:07 pm #

            Yes, my vet wouldn’t neuter before 4 months.
            I think anaesthetic risks, bone and urinary issues were the reasons given.
            Anyway, we’re responsible pet owners and he only went outside after he was fixed.

          • DaisyGrrl
            January 17, 2015 at 10:53 am #

            Fingers crossed for your kitty! I hope you find the right treatment and that he flourishes despite any limitations that come about.

          • Dr Kitty
            January 19, 2015 at 10:32 am #

            Update from Orthopaedic vet.
            Definitely multi-centre Feline Physeal Dysplasia.
            Not related to when he was neutered, but made worse by his build (big, tall cat).

            The plan is for bilateral femoral head excisions with 4-6 weeks downtime between each surgery.

          • Mishimoo
            January 19, 2015 at 5:16 pm #

            So glad to hear that surgery is an option, I hope that everything goes well and he’s back to his old self soon!

            Thank you again for being a good pet ‘mum’, I hated helping euthanise pets that had a chance if they could have had surgery.

          • Who?
            January 19, 2015 at 5:25 pm #

            Hope it goes well.

        • Who?
          January 17, 2015 at 5:34 am #

          Our dog had hip dysplasia at just over a year, and he had a femoral head osteotomy to make the best of what was there. It was a bit dreary at the time, he spent several weeks in a playpen being carried outside to the toilet, but he recovered really well.

          Ten years on he’s great, full of energy, not the greatest jumper in the world but otherwise very happy. He has shoulder issues now as well, but has a daily medication to manage the pain, and keep him really lean which also seems to help. The pain meds will have some long term consequences but we’re enjoying the good times now.

          So with the right treatment there can be good times ahead.

          • Deborah
            January 17, 2015 at 1:38 pm #

            It is just BIZARRE how in dogs you can just lop off the head of the femur and they make a false joint and do fine. I guess because they’re 4-legged???? Doesn’t work in humans, that’s for sure.

        • Trixie
          January 17, 2015 at 8:33 am #

          Sorry to hear that.

        • Samantha06
          January 17, 2015 at 12:27 pm #

          Poor baby!

    • namaste863
      January 17, 2015 at 3:13 am #

      Prayers for your kitty

    • Bugsy
      January 17, 2015 at 10:25 am #

      Best wishes with your furry family member. They’re such a part of our lives, and it’s sad when they get sick. 🙁

    • anh
      January 17, 2015 at 11:25 am #

      Dr kitty, random question. Can my gp remove my IUD?

      • Medwife
        January 17, 2015 at 12:10 pm #

        I know you didn’t ask me, but if your GP can do a speculum exam, they can remove your IUD. It is extremely easy.

      • fiftyfifty1
        January 17, 2015 at 12:39 pm #


      • Deborah
        January 17, 2015 at 1:37 pm #

        Unless the strings have disappeared up the canal. Then you need to go see someone who owns a pair of “alligators”.

        • yugaya
          January 17, 2015 at 5:45 pm #

          Now THAT was too much info and I’m crossing my legs in horror. :)))

        • Dr Kitty
          January 19, 2015 at 10:27 am #

          No alligators required. I use threads retrieval forceps, and, if I can see the threads in the canal, but can’t reach them, I’ll try a thread retriever. I don’t have an ultrasound scanner in my room, so i don’t chase threads I can’t see.

          When my Mirena got lost, I’m afraid my first response was indeed to get a thread retrieval device and attempt to remove it myself at home. But it was quite obvious that my cervix was not going to play ball and the threads were good and stuck behind some endometriosis.

          Yes, my gynaecologist did tell me off.

      • attitude devant
        January 17, 2015 at 1:52 pm #

        Don’t tell ACOG, but I’ve removed my own IUD. Twice. But maybe that’s TMI.

        • Medwife
          January 17, 2015 at 7:10 pm #

          Oh man me too. I just didn’t want to admit it.

      • Dr Kitty
        January 18, 2015 at 2:04 pm #

        Yes, if they’ve done it before and are happy to. They might not be willing to use you as a guinea pig for their first go!

        I take IUCDS out, but I don’t put them in because I won’t get enough through my patient list to be confident in keeping my skills up.

  15. RKD314
    January 16, 2015 at 9:00 pm #

    So, her suggestion is basically “buyer beware”? I am curious, does she think that this is how *everything* should be handled? I mean, should we abolish standards for food safety, and just all “do our research” and find out which stores or companies we can buy from without getting too much food poisoning? Should we not regulate the use of lead paint, and just have people test every painted surface for themselves?

    I assume (hope) that no one thinks that’s a good idea. So why is it a good idea when it comes to a potentially life-threatening medical procedure?

    • MLE
      January 16, 2015 at 9:17 pm #

      Personal responsibility for all! Except those with the initials KJM.

    • Lauren
      January 16, 2015 at 9:18 pm #

      Well yes… so long as food companies can commit felonies, have them vacated, and then sue anyone who brings it up in conversation.

    • Stacy48918
      January 16, 2015 at 9:28 pm #

      ” I mean, should we abolish standards for food safety, and just all “do
      our research” and find out which stores or companies we can buy from
      without getting too much food poisoning?”

      That’s what my darling ex thinks. He drinks raw milk and gave it to our kids. Thought it was safe and that “statist” restrictions on milk were wrong. Yet….people would figure out which farms were good and which were bad…by the trail of dead children I guess. So which is it? Safe or dangerous enough that people will figure it out? Can’t reason with crazy.

      • guest
        January 17, 2015 at 12:50 am #

        AHHHHHH! That’s exactly right. When anything bad happens, it’s just blame the parent, and maybe blame that one dairy farmer/midwife. Somehow the consumer is supposed to become an expert in dairy production and obstetrics, and therefore able to discern the bad apples.

        • OBPI Mama
          January 17, 2015 at 6:28 am #

          We drink raw milk that we milk from our own cows… I always tell people I would NEVER buy it from anyone. When our cows go dry, I buy storebought milk because I don’t trust anyone else’s “standards” because there are none in our state for raw milk.

          • Trixie
            January 17, 2015 at 8:36 am #

            From what I was reading though, it’s basically impossible to eliminate the new strain of e coli that causes severe illness no matter how clean you are.

          • Siri
            January 18, 2015 at 9:29 am #

            Why give kids raw milk at all? It’s just unnecessary risk and no benefits. Please pasteurise the milk you let your kids drink.

          • Trixie
            January 18, 2015 at 9:44 am #

            I know you’ve come a long way out of the woo, and I salute you for that. I know you’re a dairy farmer and I’m sure you run a great operation.
            But seriously, you cannot know that your raw milk is safe to drink, no matter how clean you are or how much you test. That is a woo belief that is putting your kids’ health at risk. You’re rolling the dice. There are zero health benefits; only added risks.

      • Petanque
        January 17, 2015 at 3:12 am #

        My sister-in-law has the same views about raw milk, doesn’t have much to say about the toddlers who died recently though. She thinks E coli could at worst give you nothing more than some mild gastro.

    • KarenJJ
      January 16, 2015 at 9:47 pm #

      “So, her suggestion is basically “buyer beware”?”

      Well, we can’t deny that her “Sisters in Chains” site is a good start for that. A bunch of midwives and lay people/advocates (eg Janet Fraser) that have been investigated independently after poor outcomes from their care. A great list to start with being “buyer beware”.

    • Poogles
      January 26, 2015 at 8:51 pm #

      “So, her suggestion is basically “buyer beware”? I am curious, does she think that this is how *everything* should be handled?”

      She seems to be quite Libertarian, so my guess would be “yes.”

  16. Laura Thomas
    January 16, 2015 at 7:47 pm #

    Call me naïve, ignorant and foolish, but why is Ms. McCall even on these threads these past two days? Didn’t she know she would be subjected to rigorous scrutiny and meticulous fact-finding? This bunch of regulars here are intelligent, well-written, scrutinizing and intolerant of people who don’t adhere to basic standards of safety and accountability in the childbirth arena. Maybe she finds defending herself here a sport of some kind. Maybe she’s thinking that defending herself will help her career or her reputation or gain her bragging rights: “I held my own with Dr. Amy!” In any case, perhaps she will be helped in some small way to care for pregnant women with more integrity and a commitment to safety first and foremost. One can always hope, right?

    • Elaine
      January 16, 2015 at 8:05 pm #

      I assume she just thinks she’s right and they’re all wrong.

      • Laura Thomas
        January 16, 2015 at 8:06 pm #

        If she thinks she’s right, why is she wasting her time?

        • Business before birth
          January 16, 2015 at 8:41 pm #

          Because she doesn’t see it as ‘wasting her time’ she thinks she will vindicate herself…when all she’s done is have more facts revealed. And her attitude: Childish, foot-stomping and “You’re so mean” “I did not” “You’re all just jealous” “i almost killed someone! Why are you opressing me *sobwhimpersob*??!!” “I can’t do my business because it’s all YOUR fault that I nearly killed a mom and her child! YOUR FAULT!”

          • KarenJJ
            January 16, 2015 at 8:47 pm #

            To be frank, I find it hard to believe that someone is that thick? Baffled.

          • Laura Thomas
            January 16, 2015 at 9:09 pm #

            I agree Karen. Baffling – but then her behavior, as self-reported and court-reported, is baffling, too.

          • Business before birth
            January 17, 2015 at 12:23 am #

            Well, this is a woman who has argued that you can’t call her incompetent; because although the Judgement used the very definition of incompetent it “didn’t call her that” word!

          • attitude devant
            January 17, 2015 at 12:55 am #

            And since the felony was converted to misdemeanor, apparently the finding of negligence was wiped away too?

          • January 17, 2015 at 4:24 am #

            In any case, mustn’t she still have a police record? Has she sued the LA Times for printing its article, if, as she claims, she wasn’t convicted of anything?

    • Sarah
      January 17, 2015 at 3:21 am #

      Shit for brains?

    • Sue
      January 17, 2015 at 5:58 pm #

      This type of hubris and lack of insight is common in the anti-science types – anti- vaxers being a prime example. No amount of professional expertise can compete with their ideology. They blabber on to “educate” us all, oblivious to real education.

  17. GiddyUpGo123
    January 16, 2015 at 7:22 pm #

    Katie, you seem very concerned that all of this might cause you to lose business. Hence all the “I will sue you for telling lies with the intent to harm my business” comments. Has it not occurred to you, though, how all of your different snarky comments and your LMAOs and threats and general nastiness might also affect your ability to obtain clients? Because if I was thinking about hiring a midwife, and I googled your name, and I found this thread and the one from yesterday … I would run the other way. And not just because of the things the other commenters have been saying, but because of the things you’ve been saying.

    I am always telling my son that when people mistreat him, he needs to “be the bigger person.” It hasn’t sunk in yet, because he’s nine. But when someone says things to you that you think aren’t true or treats you in a manner that you don’t like, the best way to deal with that person is not to be snarky and rude and obnoxious in return, *even if you think that person was being snarky and rude and obnoxious to you.* Because people looking in from the outside are not going to be on your side when they see you behaving badly, even if you think in your own head that it’s justified. And it’s sure as hell not going to change the behavior of the people you think are mistreating you.

    This idea works in lots of different areas of life. Let’s say you order a product online, and the store sends you the wrong item. Yes, you have been wronged. But calling them up and screaming about how you’re going to file a complaint with your credit card company and accusing them of trying to steal from you is not going to put them on your side. Being polite and understanding will get you what you want a lot faster.

    Being polite and understanding on this forum probably isn’t going to change any of these commenter’s minds. But it might change the minds of people who were considering hiring you as a midwife. Professionals try to work things out in a professional manner. That’s why they’re called “professionals.”

    On the other hand, don’t change. Keep being snarky and rude. I actually would hate to think that my advice got you any work as a midwife.

    • Business before lives
      January 16, 2015 at 8:27 pm #

      I agree completely(as stated below) Katie is so concerned about her image, about her business, about making sure people are aware her felony charge was ‘vacated’.

      She was convicted because she endangered the life of a mother and child, and tried to prevent EMTs saving the mother & child and getting the vital intervention of doctors and a hospital they needed(and no katie this isn’t a lie or something cooked up, it’s fully documented and avalible to the public).

      You search the internet? Trying to find a midwife? Search her name? All the facts come out.

      What’s so disturbing is that Katie is more concerned that people know her charge was vacated. Vacated means it was reduced because of time passed.

      NOT because katie didn’t nearly kill that mom and her child.

      NOT because she was “wrongly convicted”.

      NOT because she wasn’t a danger.

      She was vacated, again, because of time.


      And katie is so damn concerned about her image. About all the commentors knowing she was ‘vacated’

      She doesn’t apologize or express any concern for nearly killing a mother and child because of her lack of knowledge(can’t use incompetence…even though that is exactly what it was…because those dang judges didn’t use that word! Cherry picking galore! “Oh! those horrible judges said _____ about me!!! Oh, those wonderful judges said ____this about me!!” “Listen to he Judges!” “NO!!! Don’t listen to the judges!! They don’t know!”). She expresses no sympathy. Everything is about a horrible ~shadow~(fully cast by her own wrongdoing) and how it hurts her

      Who cares about the mother and child? Who cares about future mothers and children? Her business!! Her image!! SHE WAS VACATED DANGIT!!

      • January 16, 2015 at 8:49 pm #

        On this point in particular – imagine how different reactions to her felony conviction and that it was subsequently vacated would be if, instead of screeching and bitching and snarking, she spoke seriously about responsibility, or what she’d learned from this experience. Or in any way even showed a little bit of humility or remorse. She has done the exact opposite. Far from demonstrating that she’s learned or grown, she shows herself to be an immature, vain, selfish and wildly irresponsible excuse for an adult woman who holds babies’ and mothers’ lives in her reprehensible hands.

        • Samantha06
          January 17, 2015 at 12:31 am #

          Sociopath maybe?

          • January 17, 2015 at 12:43 am #

            I posted elsewhere in this thread that I find her comments here to be reminiscent, even indicative of sociopathic narcissism. I’ve see no evidence to the contrary in her behavior over the course of today.

          • Samantha06
            January 17, 2015 at 12:46 am #

            She sounds like a real peach! *snark*.. I’ll be catching up on all this over the weekend.. I haven’t read any of it yet..

          • January 17, 2015 at 12:48 am #

            Have you read the massive thread on the Sarah Buckley post? It’s a good primer for Katie’s charming attitude and penchant for bitchy comments, dodging questions and purposeful misunderstanding/misdirection.

          • Samantha06
            January 17, 2015 at 1:08 am #

            No, I haven’t read any of it yet! Sounds like I’m in for some good entertainment!

          • yugaya
            January 17, 2015 at 6:40 am #

            Read the mother’s story, that was more than enough for me: https://supportmidwifekatiemccall.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/the-gift-i-received-june-1-2012/

          • Karen in SC
            January 17, 2015 at 9:11 am #

            That was horrifying. Lies and lies and more lies in Katie’s testimony. I can’t believe she even had the option of getting the charge reduced after probation.

            Even lying about the payment, how low is that?

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            January 17, 2015 at 9:44 am #

            And then the commenters, who accused the mother of being hateful.

            Oh yeah, let’s support homebirth mothers. Unless they complain, in which case, we turn on them.

          • Samantha06
            January 17, 2015 at 12:48 pm #

            When those commenters are McCall’s next victims, maybe they’ll change their tune.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            January 17, 2015 at 1:09 pm #

            Even if you think that the mother is incorrect about the facts as they occurred, there is still the “the parents were happy with their care” claim. When the mother comes and says, “No, we were not happy with our care” how can you claim she is wrong?

          • Samantha06
            January 17, 2015 at 1:32 pm #

            Exactly! And that seems to be one of their standard defenses along with parents’ supposed distortion of facts. It’s like they are trying to discredit the parents by making it look like they are changing their tune. It’s just slimy.

          • Samantha06
            January 17, 2015 at 12:34 pm #

            Wow. just wow. Unbelievable.

        • Bombshellrisa
          January 19, 2015 at 10:10 pm #

          Last week, a wildly popular British drama on PBS showed a woman uttering words like this : )

          • January 19, 2015 at 10:57 pm #

            If it was Maggie Smith I feel pretty honored.

          • Bombshellrisa
            January 19, 2015 at 11:26 pm #

            Not sure if you follow that series (I still need to catch up on last night’s episode) but there is a servant who had been found guilty of something, served jail time and another servant was the only one her knew her past. He tried to blackmail her and she instead came clean and admitted the details and took full responsibility.
            I love Maggie Smith, she is my favorite!

      • Sue
        January 17, 2015 at 6:02 pm #

        Contrast the typical response from actual health care professionals, who are MORTIFIED if they think they might have harmed someone – criminal conviction doesn’t even come into it. What a contrast!

        • Montserrat Blanco
          January 18, 2015 at 3:03 am #

          The countless nights I have spend awake just imagining I might have hurt someone… Like when you wake up 3 am wondering if you looked at a blood test result or not…

  18. carr528
    January 16, 2015 at 6:04 pm #

    I should have popped some popcorn before I opened this post! Thanks for the entertainment on a Friday evening. 🙂

    • Samantha06
      January 17, 2015 at 12:32 am #

      I’ve been working, so I haven’t read the other thread. Sounds like it will be good weekend reading!

  19. StThomas
    January 16, 2015 at 4:53 pm #

    This purports to be Ms McCall’s old blog, where she seems to be deliberately getting the worst out in the public domain herself. It details her community service she self describes as a felon, and it finishes with the failure of her appeal

    “And we got nothing to be guilty of….”

    • Somewhereinthemiddle
      January 16, 2015 at 5:26 pm #

      Wow, I just read the statement of the mother involved in Katie McCall’s case and I can’t say that I’m surprised.

      • StThomas
        January 16, 2015 at 5:31 pm #

        That was quite moving. Ms McCalls take “I hope that my silence will not cast a shadow on my integrity.” and declining to even attempt to refute it says it all.

      • attitude devant
        January 16, 2015 at 5:44 pm #

        Absolutely despicable. Katie McCall is a lying liar who lies.

        • The Bofa on the Sofa
          January 17, 2015 at 9:17 am #

          Katie was paid in full in advance of the birth, in the amount of $1,500, on the schedule that she had requested. At one point, she claimed that she had accidentally ruined one of the checks in the wash, and asked for a replacement.

          My husband and I verified through our bank that she had already cashed the check, and provided her with the tracking number that proved this. She did not mention it again.

          What total slime.

          I have to say, I can’t understand why someone would have stuck with her at that point. She tried to rip them off, and they busted her!!!!

          She is complete slime.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            January 17, 2015 at 9:26 am #

            These stories are simply too different to be reconciled to each other; one of us is speaking the truth, one is not. One of us gains nothing from lying, has no motivation to do so, and has not sought publicity from the case in any way. The other has everything to lose, and spent the trial and its aftermath scrambling to change the story, to generate support under false pretenses, and to save her license.

            This is a very astute observation, because it describes exactly what we’ve seen from Katie here. Everything Katie says and does is calculated to protect her business. It’s all part of a plan.

          • Samantha06
            January 17, 2015 at 12:49 pm #

            I was wondering that too. Maybe the parents were in denial and didn’t want to heed the warning signs.

          • Bombshellrisa
            January 17, 2015 at 1:15 pm #

            Not to mention that it would be hard to find another care provider that late in the pregnancy.

          • Samantha06
            January 17, 2015 at 1:34 pm #

            Yes, for sure.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            January 17, 2015 at 1:50 pm #

            Especially if they insist on a HB midwife.l

          • January 17, 2015 at 4:00 pm #

            Also might be influenced by the sunk cost fallacy. http://skepdic.com/sunkcost.html

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            January 17, 2015 at 1:18 pm #

            Oh, I’m sure they were trusting her. And they probably assumed that was just an honest mistake, and couldn’t imagine that she was trying to scam them.

            And mistakes happen, but personally, folks trying to rip me off set off alarm bells.

          • Samantha06
            January 17, 2015 at 1:40 pm #

            Yes, me too. And it would be difficult to believe that someone you hired to help you give birth would be trying to rip you off. They trusted her so you’re right, they probably thought is was an honest mistake.

          • attitude devant
            January 17, 2015 at 2:01 pm #

            She’s very money-avid. I’ve read a huge portion of her voluminous cyber record and money issues are much to the forefront. All the time. It’s weird: she also posts in some very fringe-y places (e.g,, nevercopaplea.com) and it’s utterly fascinating how she shades her story for each audience. But money is ever-present.

          • Bombshellrisa
            January 17, 2015 at 2:36 pm #

            She denies that too. She didn’t like my mention of crowd funding, she mentioned that people do it for marathons and small business. Absolutely true. But it’s not usually the first thought for a doctor facing a lawsuit to rally a bunch of supporters and set up a crowd funding page online, where as it seems to be the MO of every “persecuted” midwife to do this.
            She has posted so many times about herself and fellow sisters in chains, yet doesn’t want anyone talking about any of it unless it’s supportive (ha! so NCB). If you don’t want people forming opinions, good lord, keep the details of your situation and the ensuing legal battle to yourself!

          • attitude devant
            January 17, 2015 at 3:10 pm #

            I saw her doxx you, too. Not a nice person.

          • Bombshellrisa
            January 17, 2015 at 3:20 pm #

            It was stupid and mean. But since she said she was doing it to shut me up and intimidate me, it was cyberstalking which, unlike libel or slander, is very easy to prove (especially when you use those exact words, which are in the definition of cyber stalking).

    • MLE
      January 16, 2015 at 6:32 pm #

      Holy Toledo!

    • Lauren
      January 16, 2015 at 7:02 pm #

      Leaving out all of the ‘she’s lying’ and ‘no, she’s lying’ aspects of this….if McCall was really, truly working in these parents’ best interests, and the best interests of the baby, if she had stated that a hospital transfer was needed, why didn’t she just go ahead and make the call? Why didn’t she call for an ambulance transfer, and then have the EMT’s involved help her argue to the parents that transfer occur? Then at least if they still stoutly refused, she would have documented that she had done what she claimed was the best course of action – attempting transfer. The EMT’s would have been witness to the refusal by the parents. McCall could then have stated, “I am not a fully licensed Midwife, and therefore I cannot in good conscience stay here with you” and leave the parents in the care and under the responsibility of the EMT’s?
      If she had as much experience as it is claimed she has, this should have been the obvious answer.

      • Medwife
        January 16, 2015 at 7:37 pm #

        I read through those NH midwifery practice regulations, and they spell out that this is exactly what should be done if transport is indicated intrapartum. State your inability to safely continue at home as the care provider; if they refuse to transfer after hearing that, call EMS and once they arrive, hand off.

        • Lauren
          January 16, 2015 at 7:47 pm #

          With ‘350+’ births behind her, you’d think she would know that, and adhere to it.
          Assuming of course, that her statements regarding informing the parents transfer was necessary and they refused, are true.

          • Medwife
            January 16, 2015 at 7:57 pm #

            Her case happened in California. Not sure how their regs read on the subject.

  20. Dr Kitty
    January 16, 2015 at 4:47 pm #

    Ms McCall, unfortunately, Streisand effect in full force, I now have read the original judgement in your case, your failed appeal judgement, and know a lot more about California penal code 1203.4 than I need to.

    My personal opinion is that you are not someone who should be trusted with the welfare of women and babies, you have a stunning lack of insight into your own shortcomings and you fail to learn from past failures.
    I do not think you are a good person.

    Feel free to sue me.

    • Dr Kitty
      January 16, 2015 at 6:17 pm #

      Oh, if, BTW, you Google “case ba377545” it links you to Ms McCall’s failed appeal judgements, using the case number from the appellate court, and absolutely not to any subsequent judgement upholding her appeal. Which is as one would expect, given that relief was granted under 1203.4, which is not the same as a judge overturning a conviction on appeal, no matter how much Ms McCall would like to believe that it does.

      I did give her the benefit of the doubt and ask for details of her successful appeal and the grounds for the vacation of the conviction, which would have been an ideal opportunity for her to supply them.

      Ms McCall ignored that, so then I had to look up 1203.4 for myself, and discovered that the benefit of the doubt had been over generous.


  21. Amy Tuteur, MD
    January 16, 2015 at 4:45 pm #

    Please do not doxx anyone. Posts that contain doxxing (revealing personal information like address, etc.) will be removed.

    • Somewhereinthemiddle
      January 16, 2015 at 4:49 pm #

      Was someone doing that?

      • attitude devant
        January 16, 2015 at 5:06 pm #


        • Guesteleh
          January 16, 2015 at 5:11 pm #

          Am I a bad person because I regret missing it? 🙂 But I think Amy is 100% right to take it down.

          • ArmyChick
            January 18, 2015 at 1:31 pm #

            It was me who brought up where she lives and how much she paid for her house.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 18, 2015 at 6:02 pm #

            I paid for my house? How much? I’m just wondering.

    • Katie Jenkins McCall
      January 16, 2015 at 5:13 pm #

      Are you going to remove all the personal posts about my life people have been posting too?

      • Guestll
        January 16, 2015 at 5:18 pm #

        Such as the information that is publicly available?

        Such as the fact that you run a B+B — oh wait, you brought that up.

        Such as?

        • Katie Jenkins McCall
          January 16, 2015 at 5:20 pm #

          I didn’t bring up a B&B. That was Stacy.

          • Guestll
            January 16, 2015 at 5:23 pm #

            You’re right, you didn’t. I’m wrong and I apologise.

        • Stacy48918
          January 16, 2015 at 9:30 pm #

          She has a video ON THE B&B PAGE where she talks about being a midwife. Publicly available information. Welcome to the internet age. If you don’t want people to know, don’t put the info out there. It’s not that hard to connect the dots.

      • Business before lives
        January 16, 2015 at 7:02 pm #

        I find it very disheartening that you are obviously more concerned about your image than the damage done to the mother and child.

        Ok, so you were fomaly convicted of a felony. Now, due to time passed, that has been ‘vacated'(as you repeatedly state).

        Here’s the thing though: You can argue, and threaten libel, slander, etc. etc. etc. The truth is that you endangered the life of a mother and child, and instead of learning from that, instead of humbling yourself to your dangerous mistakes…you blame everyone else. You hide the(former)felony charge when you want to and bring it out when you want to.

        Instead of screaming constantly about your image (a rather immature reaction) why don’t you actually prove that you care about the people you harmed? That you actually care about the lives of mothers and children? You’re so determined to hide what happend… To gloss over it, blame others. Take some damn responsiblity! Learn from it! Tell people about your mistakes so that they can make that ‘informed decision’ you are so concerned about.

        Business? That’s all this is to you. You’ve said it over and over in these comments. No mention of the lives of mothers and children. Of safety. Of life. Of health.

        Just business(this is all from what you have written in the comments).

        • Katie Jenkins McCall
          January 17, 2015 at 8:03 am #

          People I’ve harmed? You mean my “victim” that I was ordered to pay restitution to?

          Because that person was listed as “the medical board of CA” not a mother and child.

          • Guestagain
            January 17, 2015 at 8:17 am #

            Again with the deliberate misunderstanding. Charges were brought against you because you behaved inappropriately in your care of a mother and child. You were not qualified to be responsible for their care and because of your hubris they were placed in a dangerous situation. THOSE are the people we are talking about. The VICTIMS who were the ENTIRE BASIS of your legal troubles. You are a snake. The gymnastics you do to avoid responsibility are breath takingly disgusting.

          • January 17, 2015 at 4:04 pm #

            What a horrible person you continually prove yourself to be! Yeah, your victims, no scare quotes needed. The ones your FELONY CONVICTION was about. Regardless if she is the named filer in the suit, you and everyone else know damn well the entire FELONY CONVICTION was for medical negligence/practicing medicine without a license at this birth.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            May 29, 2015 at 6:41 pm #

            Yes? Who was that who I victimized?

            Waiting patiently.

          • Poogles
            May 29, 2015 at 7:05 pm #

            “Yes? Who was that who I victimized?”

            Reading comprehension again…”your victims […] The ones your FELONY CONVICTION was about. ”

            and from another commenter on the topic : “The VICTIMS who were the ENTIRE BASIS of your legal troubles.”

            Do you have other victims we don’t know of and you’re

            having trouble keeping them straight?

      • StThomas
        January 16, 2015 at 7:10 pm #

        I had vaguely heard of you, having lurked here for a couple of years. Since you posted here today , I have learned much more about you, overwhelmingly to your discredit. I looked at your blog and was quite moved by what your patient y said about your conduct during this case where you first got into trouble. I have formed the conclusion that you were convicted of a felony, that you failed to win an appeal against conviction, and that your record was amended after you cooperated with the punishment. Your file that you posted falls far short of demonstrating exoneration. I and others will thnk far less of you after your posts today, especially after your threats of litigation. Why did you think that what you did today was a reasonable strategy? I truly would like to know this.

        • attitude devant
          January 16, 2015 at 9:14 pm #

          WERD. I’d felt bad for her……but now I know better

      • toofargone
        January 16, 2015 at 10:51 pm #

        Are you going to get rid of the Sisters in chains page? Christy Collins was on there long before she crowd sourced a life and death question that as a “professional” should have already known the answer to. She failed to act to a critical situation and that baby died. Just Google Gavin Michael. But ya know, it’s just a witch hunt against midwives . The fact that most of them are incompetent mean nothing. It must just be the mothers responsibility for hiring an idiot. Same goes for all the women out there that have been victims of incompetent or negligent doctors. They just shouldn’t have chosen them.

      • attitude devant
        January 17, 2015 at 3:13 pm #

        Hey don’t be so obviously hypocritical. We all saw you doxx a regular here. You don’t like it? Don’t do it.

        • Katie Jenkins McCall
          May 29, 2015 at 6:41 pm #

          Who did I dox? Where?

  22. Roadstergal
    January 16, 2015 at 3:43 pm #

    So, I’m trying to get all of the facts straight by reading the conversation below.

    Katharine “Katie” Jenkins McCall was convicted of a felony for practicing medicine without a license.

    Katharine “Katie” Jenkins McCall appealed the conviction as far as the CA supreme court, and her felony conviction was upheld.

    The felony conviction of Katharine “Katie” Jenkins McCall might have been reduced to a misdemeanor after she served her probation – this bit is a little unclear.

    In the case of Katharine “Katie” Jenkins McCall, the LA Times has noted: “Medical board investigators found that McCall’s “negligence” during the delivery caused complications and “posed a danger and risk to the consumers of California.””

    Katharine “Katie” Jenkins McCall is very concerned that knowledge of her felony conviction my impact her ability to make money as a midwife in New Hampshire.

    I am just trying to be factually correct, in case anyone might be searching for information on the midwife Katharine “Katie” Jenkins McCall in the state of New Hampshire. M’self, I had never heard of this woman until her comments yesterday.

    • Therese
      January 16, 2015 at 4:09 pm #

      So how much truth is there to the claim that Katie saved the baby’s life and if she had been following the law by not getting involved, the baby would have died?

      • Cobalt
        January 16, 2015 at 4:31 pm #

        Apparently, you are supposed to call for professional help. Good Samaritan only covers until actual help arrives.

        If you see that someone’s house is on fire, you are supposed to call 911, not just run in there and hope that everyone lives.

        • Therese
          January 16, 2015 at 4:32 pm #

          Ah, I see. So the major problem with what happened was that she didn’t call 911?

          • Cobalt
            January 16, 2015 at 4:36 pm #

            That’s the tipping point between Good Samaritan and practicing without a license. You’re only covered if no other help is available. 911 was available, but rejected.

            I’m not an attorney though, this is my layman’s understanding of the law.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            January 16, 2015 at 5:35 pm #

            Shouldn’t she have been calling 911 at the moment she learned that her supervising MW was not going to be there? She was required to have a supervising MW at all times. If she did not have that, she had no business going on alone.

          • Siri
            January 18, 2015 at 9:45 am #

            There never was a preceptor; it was all a bunch of lies. Katie always intended to oversee the birth singlehandedly, which means that Good Samaritan legislation did not apply.

          • Siri
            January 18, 2015 at 9:50 am #

            No, the major problem was that she lied to her clients from the start. There never was a preceptor; Katie always intended to oversee the birth by herself. Good Samaritan doesn’t apply.

        • Siri
          January 18, 2015 at 9:52 am #

          This was no sudden and unexpected event (‘a fire’); Katie planned to deliver the baby by herself. It was never a Good Samaritan scenario.

      • attitude devant
        January 16, 2015 at 6:14 pm #

        Not much. If you follow the link in St Thomas’ post above, the mother says Katie charged her $1500 and never told her that no preceptor was coming

      • GiddyUpGo123
        January 17, 2015 at 4:39 pm #

        If you read the mother’s side of the story, Katie told them she would attend the birth under the supervision of a licensed midwife, since she was not one herself. Katie claims she called the midwife who was supposed to supervise her and she was unable to come because she was attending another birth. The licensed midwife in question, however, said she was never called and had not even been asked beforehand to be the supervising midwife.

        The parents, according to the mother, weren’t given any of this information and Katie never told them they should transfer. In fact the mother was quite adamant that if she’d known there wasn’t going to be a licensed midwife at the birth, she and her husband would have both insisted on a transfer.

        • Bombshellrisa
          January 17, 2015 at 5:36 pm #

          Every side told of this story illustrates why good judgement and set standards trump passion and “other ways of knowing”. Not blaming the parents but interviewing a student to be their midwife just sounds off. There is a program here called OB Speed dating, you get to interview prospective doctors. There might be students or residents at your birth, but they will not be unsupervised and you can’t seek them out independently to be your care provider. The person who filed the report didn’t get to keep their anonymity, which would have been the case if the birth happened in a hospital. I am not sure why the other midwife felt compelled to share the email with Katie and why Katie posted it. It’s just a mess. I can see why she snapped on here, who knows how things are going for her and feeling like history is repeating itself mighty have been the tipping point for her. It doesn’t excuse anything she said. I can understand wanting a fresh start, to leave past mistakes and just be. Especially when said mistake happened as a student. Just don’t adopt a Val El Halta attitude. She is the midwife who said we hands would have to be cut off before she would stop being a midwife, despite the fact that she has had many bad outcomes. This ONE outcome of Katie McCall’s is painfully public and in a large part because she chronicled it and let it be part of the Sisters in Chains page.

  23. Sorry Not Sorry
    January 16, 2015 at 3:19 pm #

    Katie’s threats of libel lawsuits are spurious and intended to intimidate. Libel is EXTREMELY difficult to prove. Also, lawyers do not typically take libel cases on the “no money unless we get money for you” standard often used by malpractice lawyers. So, Katie would have to pay her lawyer an hourly rate to litigate libel cases against each commentator separately…an expensive proposition. The biggest obstacle to Katie winning libel cases against each commentator is the following: She would have to prove that the statements she claims are libelous were “injurious” to her. For example, she would have to have concrete evidence that her business was destroyed….such as being fired from a job wherein her employer specifically stated, in writing or under oath, that she was fired because of the allegedly libelous comments. As her reputation is already poor in the public press, such as the LA Times articles and others referenced here, it would be virtually impossible or her to prove that any claimed injuries she suffered were a result of the comments section of this blog rather than the easily googled articles published in the free press. Also, having a bad opinion of someone, and expressing it publicly, is not considered libel because of our first amendment rights. So any and all commentators on this blog, by virtue of their first amendment rights, are free to think Katie is a dangerous, negligent midwife, based on information she publishes on her blog and articles in the free press, and to express those opinions on this sight, without fear of defamation suits. In all, Katie’s threats and screen captures, etc, are a lot of hot air and, frankly, in my opinion, pretty lame and transparent attempts at intimidation. Which, I might add, no commentators on this site fell for.

    • attitude devant
      January 16, 2015 at 3:21 pm #

      AND anyone who is intimidated should take heart that Katie’s own group, Sisters in Chains has her listed on their website as having a felony conviction. So, are they libelling/slandering her too?

    • KarenJj
      January 16, 2015 at 5:22 pm #

      Sisters in chains trying to put others in chains too?

    • Sarah
      January 17, 2015 at 4:08 am #

      Yep. And you have to have assets to make it worth anyone suing you for libel. I don’t, so…

      • The Bofa on the Sofa
        January 17, 2015 at 8:35 am #

        Actually, now that you mention that, it makes even more sense that she doesn’t own a house, or whatever her nitpick was yesterday. I’m absolutely sure now that what she has done is put the B&B as a separate business, and therefore is not in her name, so when she faces litigation, it is protected from liability. IOW, they can’t sue and take her house. She doesn’t own the house, it is in her B&B business’s name.

        Given her semantic legal games that she is playing with her felony, I have no doubt this is exactly what it is.

        • Karen in SC
          January 17, 2015 at 9:14 am #

          That is pretty much the strategy outlined in that despicable ebook.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            January 17, 2015 at 9:31 am #

            And make no mistake, I don’t blame her. It’s the correct business thing to do. However, it’s more the sleaze of the “I don’t own a house” claim. We don’t give a shit about these silly semantic games. The B&B is her house, whether or not she is listed as the owner on the title or the business, so spare me the semantics.

          • DaisyGrrl
            January 17, 2015 at 11:04 am #

            I read an advice thread a few months back where someone was seeking legal advice online on how to protect their familial assets from liability related to her profession. She got outed as a student midwife. It was very heartening to read all the responses that said a) that sounds like a very unethical profession you’re entering; and b) I’m a litigation lawyer who regularly has these types of shielded assets awarded as part of a settlement. It was a very gratifying read.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            January 17, 2015 at 11:54 am #

            As I said, I don’t actually blame anyone for doing it. My wife has a business, and we make sure we separate business things from personal things.

            Then again, she also carries liability insurance on her business, so if there is an issue, there is recourse.

            Protecting assets is one thing. But protecting assets without providing for liability is a completely separate issue.

  24. January 16, 2015 at 2:20 pm #

    Wondering if you saw this mom’s reflection on her horrific homebirth experience. Homebirth advocates should read it. http://www.popsugar.com/moms/What-Home-Birth-Like-36487613

    • Deborah
      January 16, 2015 at 3:56 pm #

      I was hoping Dr. Amy would be commenting on this article at some point.

      • Guesteleh
        January 16, 2015 at 5:12 pm #

        Amy’s talked about this on Facebook and the mother, Ashley Martin, has commented here as well.

      • Anj Fabian
        January 16, 2015 at 9:39 pm #

        The family will be filing a formal complaint. This is generally not worth much, but with public attention, it might yield better than average results.

        • Bombshellrisa
          January 16, 2015 at 9:50 pm #

          I hope she gets more than an apology letter from the midwife.

  25. attitude devant
    January 16, 2015 at 2:01 pm #

    Here’s a fun fact to know and tell. Katie keeps insisting that she has no felony conviction, even though yesterday she referred to herself as having one. So, just now, I was searching for articles on her (on Bing if you must know) and typed in “Katie Jenkins McCall” and the search engine autosupplied “Katie Jenkins McCall felony” which made me literally laugh out loud.

    • Roadstergal
      January 16, 2015 at 2:11 pm #

      This is all reminding me of that Popehat post about the guy who was defending – who was it, Merola’s shitty films about Burzynski? – and gave us the memorable “Govern yourself accordingly!”

      Which gave us the Popehat taint-snorting invitation, which seems apropos here, too.

    • Oh No! Not a Libel Suit!
      January 16, 2015 at 2:14 pm #

      She literally references her felony conviction on her personal blog.

      The blog is old, but seriously! She says it is a wrongful conviction, she says that she is fighting it, but she doesn’t say that it didn’t happen…
      I mean, I had a brief Kardashian style first marriage the ended two weeks after it began making me feel in my mind that I was never actually married, but if asked I will tell people that I am divorced because that is just the legal reality.
      Just What?

      • Guesteleh
        January 16, 2015 at 2:22 pm #

        I know where the confusion is coming from. She was convicted of the felony but after three years she was eligible to petition the court to have the charge reduced to a misdemeanor. Now whether that ever happened is another story. I worked at a company that did criminal checks on employees and we had several cases where someone put on their application that they hadn’t committed a crime because they assumed that their record would be automatically expunged after a certain period of good behavior. They didn’t realize that even if you meet the criteria for getting the conviction reduced or removed you have to formally petition the court to have the record changed. Given the deep level of ignorance Katie has shown on this thread, wouldn’t surprise me at all if she never bothered to go back to the court to have the felony removed from her record.

      • attitude devant
        January 16, 2015 at 3:00 pm #

        Wow. If she doesn’t want people saying she has a felony, then why doesn’t she update the blog, or take it down?

        • attitude devant
          January 16, 2015 at 3:22 pm #

          By the way, the Sisters in Chains website still has her listed as having a felony conviction.

      • StThomas
        January 16, 2015 at 5:20 pm #

        Oops. missed this, or I would not have posted the link above. Sorry

    • Trixie
      January 16, 2015 at 3:50 pm #

      Haha, yeah, you’re right!

      • Cobalt
        January 16, 2015 at 4:26 pm #

        Who do you sue for that? Google? The general population? I remember a certain senator that had a “Google problem”, and there was no recourse available.

        • January 16, 2015 at 4:42 pm #

          Rick Santorum?

          • attitude devant
            January 16, 2015 at 5:07 pm #

            That sometimes frothy mix…..

        • Trixie
          January 16, 2015 at 8:55 pm #

          It’s a big, frothy mess.

  26. namaste863
    January 16, 2015 at 12:51 pm #

    I have to assume that to these cuckoos, whatever they perceive they got out of home birth is worth their lives and the lives of their children, so they struggle to understand it when others prioritize a live and preferably healthy mom and baby over some magical, mystical “Experience.” Take, for example, the UK MW who presided over the death of Claire Teague. I can’t be the only one struck dumb by her comment about having “A really lovely, spontaneous birth at home” and hoping that her husband would choose to focus on that. I can really only describe this mindset as completely fucked up.

  27. Guestll
    January 16, 2015 at 12:38 pm #

    I’m surprised Katie invested so many hours in responding. Granted, her responses proved little other than that she’s delusional, but surely, all that time on the computer took her away from building roads and shit. Not to mention begging for money: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/support-midwife-katie-mccall https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-katie-mccall-get-back-to-work

  28. January 16, 2015 at 12:26 pm #

    I too read the discussion as it unfolded… until it became so enraging and depressing that I had to stop. Watching Katie dodge questions, deliberately misunderstand statemebts, respond to irrelevant points, and just be an all around cruel, vicious person became actually “triggering” in many ways for me. Reminds me far too much of how my abuser/cult leader used to verbally exhaust and defeat me.

    And that isn’t even counting her complete dismissal of dead and damaged babies, dead and damaged mothers, abuse victims, women in general – really, her behavior in the comments was bordering on sociopathic narcissism. I’ve seen some nasty examples of NCB advocacy both in real life and on this blog, but not many hold a candle to Katie.

  29. Anonymous
    January 16, 2015 at 12:20 pm #

    Can someone link to this chain? I can’t find it in yesterday’s post.

  30. ArmyChick
    January 16, 2015 at 12:15 pm #

    It makes me sad to know that this woman has relocated to my home state of New Hampshire. I will start spreading awareness so that more babies’ lives are not put on the line to her incompetence.

    • PrimaryCareDoc
      January 16, 2015 at 12:26 pm #


    • Katie Jenkins McCall
      January 16, 2015 at 12:28 pm #

      Just what incompetence am I guilty of, ArmyChick? Before you spread things like that, you need to be very careful to make sure what you say is true. I’m telling you right now that I have not even been accused of incompetence. Ever. You have been corrected. If you knowingly tell people that I’m guilty of incompetence, you can be found guilty of criminal slander. If you write it, it is libel.

      • attitude devant
        January 16, 2015 at 1:10 pm #

        Well, gee, Katie. How about negligent? Because that was what the California Board called you. Hardly libelous to repeat it. And apparently they called you negligent because you did a fairly incompetent job repairing that laceration. So, I don’t think you have a case.
        And what the hell were you thinking? You had no standing to be alone delivering that baby. As for your lawyer’s Good Samaritan defense, puh-leeze. Save it for someone more gullible than we are.

        • Roadstergal
          January 16, 2015 at 1:15 pm #

          Her sudden jump in here when she caught a whiff of maybe someone possibly impacting her business is telling. It only continues to reinforce what Dr T said – she doesn’t care about the health or well-being of women and babies. She only cares about her bottom line.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 1:21 pm #

            Yep. I care about lies. And they are rampant on this website. Really tired of it though. So I’m searching IPs and taking down names here and on TWWS. 🙂 It’s about time.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            January 16, 2015 at 1:30 pm #

            So you care about lies, but not about dead babies.

            Searching IP addresses? Katie, I’m shocked that you intend to use the unethical “guberment” to punish those who say things you don’t want to hear.

            Wait! I’ve got an awesome idea! Let’s make the standards for libel totally voluntary and then my commentors and I can voluntarily agree to abide by them!! Of course, we might not voluntarily agree, but hey, isn’t my right to free speech more important than a little collateral damage of reputations?

          • attitude devant
            January 16, 2015 at 1:38 pm #

            Why THAT is a LOVELY idea, Amy! We’ll stand in solidarity with the midwives of the world voluntarily agreeing with all the stuff we want to comply with! It’s a win-win!

          • PrimaryCareDoc
            January 16, 2015 at 2:10 pm #

            What are these super special powers that let a random commenter get IP addresses from Disqus?

          • Lauren
            January 16, 2015 at 9:15 pm #

            Um…how are you searching IPs?
            You realize that’s illegal, right?

          • Young CC Prof
            January 16, 2015 at 9:18 pm #

            Go ahead and find me. I’m not afraid of what fools like you will say or do to me.

          • Bombshellrisa
            January 16, 2015 at 9:34 pm #

            At least she is warning everyone she is cyberstalking them and has been doing it for awhile

          • attitude devant
            January 16, 2015 at 1:41 pm #

            And just think! It’s going to show up on Google now!

        • Katie Jenkins McCall
          January 16, 2015 at 1:19 pm #

          Nope. I was not found negligent. Not even charged with it. Not even any evidence of repairing a laceration. Good job believing gossip. Watch what you say. Screen captures are happening. I’m taking names of those who like to lie when they know better. And now you know better. 🙂

          • Trixie
            January 16, 2015 at 1:30 pm #

            Oooooh a screen shot! I’m sure Dr. Amy is terrified.

          • attitude devant
            January 16, 2015 at 1:33 pm #

            Jeez. Now who am I supposed to believe? You or the LA Times. Sorry, I’m going with the Times. How’s your libel suit against THEM going?

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 2:13 pm #

            Things change over time. Please stop spreading things that aren’t true. Thank you.

          • Mel
            January 16, 2015 at 1:34 pm #

            Your legal knowledge is poorer than your midwifery skills. That’s terrifying.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 1:49 pm #

            Ahh… More ad hominem in the absence of evidence for the lies you spread. I’m glad you stand corrected. Now… please try not to be libelous in the future. I’m sure you have a family of your own, or a job, or pets, or someone in your REAL life that would love you attention rather than obsessing so much about people you’ve never met.

          • LibrarianSarah
            January 16, 2015 at 4:13 pm #

            Still not an ad hominem.

          • Mel
            January 16, 2015 at 4:57 pm #

            Nope. No one in my real life delivers babies without a medical license and therefore doesn’t need attention.

            Plus, this isn’t taking much time at all. I already knew the definitions of libel and slander. And I figure any time you spend arguing with me is time you are away from laboring women so that’s an added bonus to my way of thinking.

          • Elizabeth A
            January 16, 2015 at 1:46 pm #

            Oh, well, I’ll go. I believe that your heavy handed use of ironic emoticons is on par with your professional behavior. The quotes from your conviction as quoted in the LA Times, and never corrected or retracted by the paper, form the basis for my belief in your negligence.

            My personal info isn’t all that hard to come by if you google, so I’m confident your lawyer can figure it out despite the fact that I’m posting as Guest from my phone while sitting at a Starbucks.

          • Dr Kitty
            January 16, 2015 at 2:13 pm #

            ‘Medical board investigators found that McCall’s “negligence” during the delivery caused complications and “posed a danger and risk to the consumers of California.” ‘


            I’m afraid I don’t see a correction, clarification or retraction associated with that piece. I do hope your lawyer is in touch with the paper to correct any inaccuracies in that article.

            If the paper is free to print that without correction, I can’t see why I can’t believe it is true and then copy it here.

            I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t THINK that it is libellous to share information I have no reason to believe is false…

          • just me
            January 16, 2015 at 2:30 pm #

            Found the court of appeal opinion. She was convicted of California Business & Professions Code section 2052(a) practicing medicine without a certification. In her appeal she argued she couldn’t be prosecuted for a felony, only a misdo violation of the Licensed Midwifery Practice Act of 1983 (B&P code 2505 et seq.). Court said no, in the published part of the opinion. She was subject to felony prosecution. Court said she did much more than perform midwife services without the required supervision of a licensed midwife or physician and surgeon. “Her conduct above and beyond the failure to secure supervision constituted, as the jury found, practicing medicine without certification, a felony violation of the general statute.”

            Other choice quotes:

            “Ms. Tienzo was told a licensed midwife would attend the birth.”

            “At no time during the labor and delivery did defendant make any effort to call an emergency operator.”

            Decided March 20, 2013
            214 Cal App 4th 1006 People v. McCall (Cal Supremes denied review)

            Note: it’s a strict liability statute so negligence need not be alleged or proved. It’s also a wobbler– felony or misdo. But she was charged with and convicted of a felony.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 2:43 pm #

            Exactly. THANK YOU. I have been repeating this over and over to each false statement. Hopefully each of you and Dr. Amy herself will stop saying untruths like I was found guilty of negligence or malpractice or whatever else. And hopefully, in light of my repeated statements that I am not a felon will stop spreading lies that I have a felony conviction. All that does is hurt my business with defamation.

          • Guesteleh
            January 16, 2015 at 2:51 pm #

            How is possible you read that and felt vindicated?

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 3:06 pm #

            Because you posted facts, not hearsay. I appreciate it. That’s really refreshing to find on this site.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            January 16, 2015 at 4:21 pm #

            Despite the fact that the supposed “hearsay” is in complete agreement with the “facts.”

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 4:24 pm #

            No. It is not. The facts do not show that I am currently a felon. The facts do not show that I was charged with, convicted of or sentenced for negligence or malpractice. The facts do not show that I appealed my conviction more than once. The facts do not show the my CA midwifery license was ever revoked or that the CA medical board’s court process ever found me to be negligent or guilty of malpractice.

            The hearsay on this page, however, has found all of these things somehow. So thanks for posting something that isn’t a long line of curses and hearsay. It is refreshing! 🙂

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            January 16, 2015 at 5:57 pm #

            the facts show that you were convicted of a felony.

            That makes you a convicted felon.

            Kind of by definition.

          • Sr27
            January 16, 2015 at 4:57 pm #

            You do realize you contradicted yourself here, right? You said “exactly,” meaning you agree with every word of the above comment, which ends with the sentence “But she was charged with and convicted of a felony.” And yet in the same comment where you say you agree with that comment exactly, you restate that you are not a felon and it is a lie that you have a felony conviction.

          • Mel
            January 16, 2015 at 5:03 pm #

            Reading comprehension varies between individuals. If she has poor reading comprehension, Jenkins McCall might have missed the words:

            “”Her conduct above and beyond the failure to secure supervision constituted, as the jury found, practicing medicine without certification, a felony violation of the general statute.”

            Getting an CNM or MD/DO with OB specialization DOES requires a high level of reading comprehension. Perhaps there is a connection to her lack of medical certification and reading skill levels?

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 5:11 pm #

            Actually, student midwives are not supervised by CNMs, MD/DO or OBs. Sorry. Those would not have worked.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 5:10 pm #

            I was convicted. I am no not a felon now. How is that contradictory? Or did you believe once a felon always a felon?

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            January 16, 2015 at 5:46 pm #

            That’s a pretty sharp knife you got there to split those hairs…

            And once convicted of a felony, always convicted of a felony. You want to play silly pedantic games. We care about the fact that you are dangerous hack.

          • Lauren
            January 16, 2015 at 9:13 pm #

            Unfortunately, yes we do.
            As it pertains to the safety of pregnant women, and their right to know the complete history of their Midwife or other medical practitioner.
            Having the felony vacated doesn’t mean it did not happen.
            If you have learned from it, and are improving your skills as a Midwife, why not highlight that instead of splitting hairs about terminology?
            I think the former would help your business more than the latter.

      • oceanlily
        January 16, 2015 at 1:18 pm #


        Right there honey. States that you were convicted of a felony negligence. As a STUDENT no less with no one keeping an eye on you. As you nearly killed a baby and mother. That is the definition of incompetence. So don’t get all whiny about suing people, because no decent lawyer will take your case. They know that any judge would toss your laughable “she’s being MEAN to me!” argument out the window.

        • Katie Jenkins McCall
          January 16, 2015 at 1:23 pm #

          LMAO. I’m going to correct this lie ONE MORE TIME. And the evidence of libel is mounting folks.

          I was NOT convicted of felony negligence. I do not have a felony conviction. Those are facts. Anything else you’ve heard is misinformation or bad reporting. Type it again and I will have evidence you are committing libel.

          • attitude devant
            January 16, 2015 at 1:35 pm #

            But you said yourself that you had a felony conviction! Forgive us if we are confused…..

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 1:47 pm #

            If “we” are confused then “we” (or better yet YOU, because you are responsible for what YOU type and what YOU say, not what other people type or say) should err on the side of NOT spreading lies.

            I wonder, do you (yes YOU) own a copy of even ONE piece of the thousands of court pages about me? If so, please let me know. If not, then you really have no standing as an expert on the subject. KThanksBye.

          • attitude devant
            January 16, 2015 at 1:54 pm #

            Hey, Katie, I’m a regular here. If you can’t stand interacting with us, you can leave. I’m afraid you’re not coming across to your public very well in these conversations. Frankly, you sound slightly touched, KWIM? Bad for business. And I can’t grok your insisting that there was no felony conviction when multiple news outlets say there was (Huffpo, LA Times….) and you referenced it yesterday on the Buckley post.
            Or is one of those Natural Childbirth things where you just repeat something so many times that you hope people will start to believe it? You know, home is as safe as hospital, labor is not painful. Stuff like that.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 2:28 pm #

            I’m telling you that my finding of guilt was vacated. I do not have a felony. If you insist on spreading lies with the intent to hurt my business, that is your choice but I am asking you to stop. Thank you.

          • attitude devant
            January 16, 2015 at 3:10 pm #

            Show me where I said ANYTHING with the intent to hurt your business.

          • Guestll
            January 16, 2015 at 1:36 pm #

            You were convicted of a felony. After 3 years, it was dropped to a misdemeanor.

            But when it suits your pleading for money purposes, you will reference the felony conviction, likely because you feel it makes your victimhood more victim-y. Then again, you did use the drop from felony to misdemeanor to beg as well, so there’s that. https://www.facebook.com/MatthewDRoach/posts/10152280542010685

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 1:45 pm #

            1. Where did I reference a felony conviction after it was gone for money purposes? Link or quit. Because… more lies.

            2. I fail to see how posting someone else’s plea for something is my responsibility? Or, maybe you believe in holding people accountable for other people’s actions. But I sure don’t.

          • Guestll
            January 16, 2015 at 1:55 pm #

            You begged for money or had your friends/roommate beg for it for you. Indiegogo (twice), Facebook. You made a really stupid choice and had to pay the piper and that chaps your ass, doesn’t it? Consequences suck. It’s not about libertarianism or statism or any ism other than narcissism with you.

            YOU reference your felony conviction when it suits you and when it doesn’t, you deny it and back away. You were convicted of a felony. The fact that it was dropped to a misdemeanor doesn’t change that.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 2:24 pm #

            I have not once referenced a felony conviction since my conviction was adjudicated. It was not “dropped” it was vacated.

          • Guestll
            January 16, 2015 at 2:31 pm #

            You did, yesterday.

            Katie Jenkins McCall Stacy48918 a day ago

            Reading comprehension is a very important life skill: “BECAUSE OF MY FELONY, I was unable to find work.”

            Most folks don’t hire felons… I assumed most people are aware of that? Doesn’t matter what field you’re in.

            Man. And we don’t have cake to eat either. >.<

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 2:40 pm #

            Yep. I’m quoting a quote she stated above from a blog post from years ago. Way to take things out of context.

          • Guestll
            January 16, 2015 at 2:57 pm #

            No, the first part you quoted. The second part, “most folks don’t hire felons” etc. are your words from yesterday. You know, when you referred to your own self as a felon.

          • January 16, 2015 at 2:59 pm #

            Post a screencap, that will certainly help clarify since she is so skilled at deliberate misunderstanding.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 3:00 pm #

            Yep, referring to the experience I had when I wrote the original quote she referred to. That was indeed the case. Your point?

          • Guestll
            January 16, 2015 at 3:03 pm #

            My point is that yesterday you referred to your own fucking felony! You claim you haven’t, not once, since your conviction was apparently vacated, but you, yesterday, on this very blog. Jesus wept, Katie. Go argue some other point.

          • Dr Kitty
            January 16, 2015 at 2:31 pm #

            Can you link to a court document, news article or other evidence?

            My google-fu is weak, I simply can’t find anything when I search “McCall felony vacated adjudicated practising medicine without a licence California”.
            Maybe I’m doing it wrong.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 2:39 pm #

            Sure. It’s publicly viewable at all times on my FB page. Anyone can see it. And I’m even on here with my FB account so you can have seen it quite easily. Page two of the minute order: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202858212002435&l=122ae67511

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            January 16, 2015 at 2:55 pm #

            You were convicted of a felony. You twice challenged the conviction in the Appeals Court and twice the felony conviction was upheld. You appealed to the California Supreme Court, which refused your appeal.

            Subsequently, in accordance with the terms of the lower court judgment, as a result of 3 years of compliance with the terms of your probation, your felony conviction was commuted to a misdemeanor. That does not change the fact that you were convicted of a felony and lost 2 appeals on the specific issue of your felony conviction.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 3:05 pm #

            Ummm…. twice challenged in the appeals court? Wow. I didn’t even know that was possible, Amy. Maybe you are thinking of another Katie McCall. And my conviction was not commuted. It was vacated.

            So, another bit of misinformation from Dr. Amy. I’m correcting you once again. Please stop repeating incorrect information in an attempt to ruin my business, doctor. Thank you.

          • just me
            January 16, 2015 at 3:29 pm #

            Well, based on Lexis she appealed her conviction to the court of appeal and lost. She petitioned the court of appeal for a rehearing and lost (although they modified the opinion slightly–nothing pertinent to the discussion here). She then petitioned to the cal supremes for review and was denied.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 3:34 pm #

            Wow… that’s more than I remember doing. Interesting what you learn about yourself from strangers online…

          • Guesteleh
            January 16, 2015 at 5:41 pm #

            Can you make this a featured comment? It’s buried in the thread but it needs to get pulled out so everyone can see how out of touch with reallity she is.

          • Dr Kitty
            January 16, 2015 at 3:40 pm #

            I see.
            Unfortunately all that comes up when I search that case number is a link to the judgement in your unsuccessful appeal of 2013, as I guess it takes more than 3 months to update court documents onto the web.

            I, like most people here, I suspect, don’t use Facebook to get information, so I was unaware of this recent (September 2014) finding in your favour.

            Could you tell us on what grounds your appeal was successfully argued?

          • oceanlily
            January 16, 2015 at 10:28 pm #

            And again, what the hell are you doing to do to me? No lawyer is going to take your worthless case, because they know it will be tossed out. I’m shaking in fear and by fear I mean laughter. My husband is active duty military, I talked to the JAG office for kicks about this so-called suit you might bring against me and they laughed hysterically and said that this was not libel and you were crazy to think you could sue me.

            And because you challenged me: you are incompetent and I am thrilled you are away from my home state of California. We have enough wackos with the anti-vaxxers, we don’t need people who might injure or kill babies and women with no remorse around.

          • Who?
            January 16, 2015 at 11:10 pm #

            Yes even if she could find someone to take on the case-most lawyers are not so generous as to work for free unless they see a big payday at the far end-what exactly would be the point? Will actions be commenced all over the world, or will she have to wait for us to stray into whichever jurisdiction she picks, assuming she wins?

            Her more likely strategy (assuming she has the tech ability and the lack of scruples-oh wait, we could be in trouble with the second) is to rely in some nefarious way on the records of a government she claims to despise to illegally get contact email details, then bombard us and all our contacts with spam. Around here she would be blocked in a flash and thanks to Mr Who? my computer setup is way too sophisticated for anything but a very professional attack, but it might be an irritation for others.

      • Trixie
        January 16, 2015 at 1:29 pm #

        You are, in actual reality, a convicted felon, Katie. Are you not?

        • Katie Jenkins McCall
          January 16, 2015 at 2:14 pm #

          No I am not a felon. This is the last time I will be correcting you. You have been notified that is a false statement. Do not spread it with the intent to damage my business. Thank you.

          • StThomas
            January 16, 2015 at 2:18 pm #

            ” Defendant may have committed a misdemeanor violation of the Midwifery
            Act by performing midwife services without the required supervision of a
            licensed midwife or a physician and surgeon.   But she did a great deal
            more than that.   Her conduct above and beyond the failure to secure
            supervision constituted, as the jury found, practicing medicine without
            certification, a felony violation of the general statute.”


          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 2:49 pm #

            Well another judge disagreed with them on that after they said it.

          • StThomas
            January 16, 2015 at 2:49 pm #

            Got a link ?

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 2:51 pm #

            Already posted it below. It’s public. On my FB page and accessible to anyone. But folks here apparently prefer to only take what Dr. Amy says as gospel and not do their own research.


          • StThomas
            January 16, 2015 at 2:56 pm #

            At the risk of sounding cynical, do you have a link to the info somewhere which is obviously not as under your control as your FB page

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 3:01 pm #

            If you’d like to pay for server costs or suggest a free site I might upload the scan, I’ll gladly do so.

          • StThomas
            January 16, 2015 at 3:15 pm #

            I meant a link to the court server; if the image appears on your site and nowhere else then that may undermine you a wee bit.

          • just me
            January 16, 2015 at 3:16 pm #

            Unfortch most california courts don’t offer free access to docs online.

          • StThomas
            January 16, 2015 at 3:30 pm #

            Fair enough, probably not where I live either. A successful appeal _would_ probably be on line though. This whole thing looks as if she was convicted , failed to win her appeal, then the offence became spent (o the Californian equivalent) , and she has posted the record of it

          • just me
            January 16, 2015 at 3:31 pm #

            Yes, a published decision would be.

          • not a lawyer
            January 16, 2015 at 3:09 pm #

            So, I’m not a lawyer, so (a lawyer) please correct me if I got this wrong.
            This appears to refer to section 1203.4 which is expungement of criminal records in California. You can apply for that after successfully completing all terms of your probation. It allows you to state that you do not have a criminal record, be a member of professional organizations etc. and is meant to help with future employment. However, it does apparently not “overturn” or “vacate” the original conviction, and for example won’t restore your gun ownership rights, and your expunged conviction will still count against you in the case of sentencing for future offenses.



          • just me
            January 16, 2015 at 3:12 pm #

            It only works for misdos or wobblers. For a wobbler, you first have to petition to get your felony reduced to a misdo under PC 17(b). Then you can try to get the resulting misdo expunged.

          • Sr27
            January 16, 2015 at 3:31 pm #

            In addition to not restoring rights and counting against her in the future, the statute under which her charges have been supposedly dismissed states

            “The order shall state, and the probationer shall be informed, that the order does not relieve him or her of the obligation to disclose the conviction in response to any direct question contained in any questionnaire or application for public office, for licensure by any state or local agency, or for contracting with the California State Lottery Commission.”

            So she still HAS to disclose is as a felony conviction in regards to licensing and practicing midwifery, no matter what she chooses to call it in other areas of her life.

          • Lauren
            January 16, 2015 at 8:45 pm #

            Yes, we understand that the felony charge was vacated.

            I think you misunderstand what ‘vacated’ means.
            It is not synonymous with ‘pardoned’ or ‘exonerated’.
            The crime was still committed, it happened.
            The purpose of the vacation of a felony is to give the person found guilty a chance to live life with a ‘clean slate’ and have more equitable opportunity for employment.

            I believe – please correct me if I am wrong – that you Ms McCall wish to have that opportunity for your future practice – to have a ‘clean slate’ as it were.
            Any reference to this past felony conviction is seen by you as directly flying in the face of that opportunity.

            Unfortunately, it is not libel or slander to refer to your past.
            You could split hairs about the exact wording – ‘McCall was convicted of a felony but has had it vacated from her record’ is likely the most appropriate – but arguing constantly about you not being a felon or a criminal is, in this forum at least, a waste of time and frankly should be beneath you professionally.

            I understand that you want to leave your felony charge in the past and move forward, however I staunchly believe that every woman has an inalienable right to know the COMPLETE history of her health practitioners, as it pertains to that health practice.
            No one needs to know your personal life, your personal history (unless you choose to share it) in order to have full informed consent to you being their Midwife, but they are absolutely entitled to know about your past conduct as a Midwife.

          • just me
            January 16, 2015 at 3:07 pm #

            Not seeing it…unanimous opinion. As were the opinion denying your petition for rehearing and the cal supreme court’s denial of review. I even checked cites to your case and didn’t find any judicial disagreement.

          • Dr Kitty
            January 16, 2015 at 2:21 pm #

            Currently you are not a convicted felon.
            You have a conviction for a misdemeanour, which was downgraded from your initial felony conviction after meeting court imposed conditions.

            However, you have, in the past, been convicted of a felony, and therefore you were a convicted felon.

            Or have I misunderstood?

            We don’t have misdemeanours and felonies here, crimes are crimes and almost any criminal conviction would be enough to get a MW or Dr struck off or severely sanctioned for bringing the profession into disrepute.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 2:48 pm #

            You have misunderstood. My conviction was vacated. Not changed at a later date.

          • just me
            January 16, 2015 at 2:56 pm #

            Was it reduced to a misdemeanor under PC 17(b)? That is not “vacated”.

          • Dr Kitty
            January 16, 2015 at 4:12 pm #


            My understanding is that you applied for, and received, relief under penal code 1203.4, which as the page I have linked to, is not a true expungement.

            “However, a 1203.4 dismissal does not erase a conviction as if it never occurred and calling a 1203.4 dismissal an expungement can create unnecessary confusion as well as additional problems. The bottom line is that 1203.4 is relief from certain “penalties and disabilities” but not all of them. If your arrest or conviction made the news, you can be assured that an employer will find it. Further, anyone can check the court records online. Penal Code section 1203.4 relief does not erase any court records. Your record simply shows that at its conclusion you obtained 1203.4 relief. So you should be aware that many companies will check online to see if you show up. Here is a list of some of the more important issues to watch out for:

            1203.4 does not change your ability to possess guns.
            Or drive a vehicle.
            A prosecutor can still consider of a conviction dismissed pursuant to section 1203.4 in a subsequent prosecution.
            Section 1203.4 does not change the requirement to register as a sex offender.
            The federal government has no obligation to recognize a 1203.4 dismissal.
            And you must still disclose the conviction when running for public office, or seeking a license from state and local agencies.
            If you are applying for a professional license that last part cannot be ignored. Section 1203.4 will not prevent a State Licensing agency from considering a conviction when completing an application for, among other things, a teaching credential, a nursing license, a contractor’s license or a pharmacist’s license. California State licensing agencies will require you to disclose a conviction even if it has been dismissed pursuant to section 1203.4. This applies to individuals applying to a licensing board for the first time and any person renewing a license.

            Getting a 1203.4 dismissal before you complete an application will not allow you to avoid disclosing the conviction. For license holders it is likely that the licensing board either received automatic notice of your booking and arrest from the Department of Justice or required you to disclose the case. Many boards have reporting requirements for professionals facing criminal prosecution. A “no” response to a CA State license application question (or a failure to make a timely report to a board) about a conviction risks an automatic denial of an application and years of litigation. If you are going to apply for any state license or if you are renewing a license and you have a conviction that has been dismissed pursuant to section 1203.4, it is always a good idea to have a lawyer assist you with the application and any explanation. An experienced criminal defense lawyer can help you present the history in the most persuasive way possible to that particular state agency.”

          • Poogles
            January 16, 2015 at 7:04 pm #

            “My conviction was vacated. Not changed at a later date.”

            Eh, that seems like the same thing from this desription of “vacate”:

            “Vacating a conviction is a remedy that is available to people who have been found guilty of a crime, but have served their sentences and have lived without further convictions for a specified period of time. […] a person may choose to vacate the conviction. This means that a person can petition the court to have the finding of “guilty” removed from his record, whether it was the result of a guilty plea or a guilty verdict. If the petition is successful, the judge will state that the has removed the finding of guilty or the plea of guilty and has, instead, entered a finding of not guilty and has dismissed the case. Once this takes place, the petitioner can legally say that he was never convicted of the crime. The criteria that a person must fulfill in order to vacate a conviction depends on the circumstances of his case, namely the offense that he was convicted of […]Further, RCW §9.94A.640 provides that for a felony conviction, the waiting periods are longer: five years for a class C felony and ten years for class B felony.

            I, personally, think that’s kind of screwed up. I guess I will refer to you as a former-felon then. Someone who has previously been convicted of a felon – which is entirely true.

          • Lauren
            January 16, 2015 at 8:20 pm #

            I agree – it’s appalling.
            It’s not as though she convicted of mail fraud (also a felony) or a traffic violation (can be a felony).
            She was convicted of a felony that absolutely pertains to her profession. It is the right of any person who wishes to obtain a Midwife to know whether that Midwife was EVER convicted of a felony that pertained to a birth.
            The fact that it was vacated does not change that it happened.
            It is then up to the Midwife to demonstrate a) she has learned from and changed so the actions resulting in the felony conviction would not happen again, or b) she was wrongfully convicted.

            It makes me very, very sad that this ‘vacation of a felony’ even exists. It seems highly contradictory to ensuring safety to the public.

            I don’t know whether this is even an option in Canada…I will check.

          • Lauren
            January 16, 2015 at 8:27 pm #

            Doesn’t look like it.
            We don’t even allow persons to travel here with a felony conviction – vacated or not.
            So I guess McCall won’t be visiting us any time soon.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            January 16, 2015 at 2:24 pm #

            Why is it acceptable to restrict people’s speech to call you what they want, but it’s not acceptable to restrict your ability to practice midwifery by requiring adherence to safety standards?

          • January 16, 2015 at 2:40 pm #

            I think Katie’s comments here amply demonstrate her reasoning.

            It’s all about business – and her bottom line. Nothing else matters but her business and he reputation – safety? Life and death? Psh. Show her the money!

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 3:20 pm #

            Now how on earth could I even begin to assist with safety issues if I have no business with which to do so because of all the libel being spread about my work?

          • January 16, 2015 at 3:46 pm #

            Despite your desperate comment spamming of claims of libel and intention to harm your business, neither have happened here. You go on and enjoy your smug satisfaction that you’ll track down and sue every commenter here. There is no legal leg for you to stand on. Furthermore, having been through the process of trying to pursue legal prosecution for slander and libel, I know precisely how difficult it is to retain a lawyer or to file any sort of suit of this nature.

            Also, and this is neither libel nor an ad hominem statement: you’re a disgusting lowlife scumbag motherfucker. That’s called a “personal opinion” and there isn’t one damned thing you can do to prevent me from having that opinion and expressing it here.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 3:54 pm #

            Wow. I must be doing quite well to get such a compliment from a Dr. Maim Me follower! 🙂

          • Who?
            January 16, 2015 at 6:51 pm #

            If you had stopped after ‘issues’ your sentence would have more accurately reflected what it is you seem to be doing.

            All anyone is doing is relying on the public record, which you selectively rely on yourself when you have the begging bowl out. I can see you would feel hurt that they report it accurately rather than fudge it to suit your agenda.

            Oh and thanks for your interest re my gardening yesterday, I have a bunch of cattleya orchids about to burst into bloom and all my elephant’s ears are coming up beautifully, so it’s all good.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 2:47 pm #

            What safety standards am I not adhering to, Amy?

            And people’s speech to yell “fire” in a movie theater when there is no fire or to yell “incompetence and negligence” or “she’s a felon” about me because they want to hurt my business is definitely restricted. Because they are lies.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            January 16, 2015 at 3:04 pm #

            I didn’t say you weren’t adhering to safety standards. I said that you have publicly denied the legitimacy of government standards for homebirth midwives and you have denied the legitimacy of government attempts to hold midwives accountable for violating those standards. But then you insist that the government can legitimately restrict my right to say whatever I want about you. In other words, you think your reputation is worthy of government protection but the lives of babies and mothers are not.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 3:18 pm #

            I’ve never said the government doesn’t have legitimate authority, otherwise why would I be licensed as a midwife now? Please stop putting words in my mouth. I said that midwives (and all health professions) I believe would have better safety and accountability standards in a more free market setting with voluntary trade affiliations that patients could select from.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
            January 16, 2015 at 4:02 pm #

            Wasn’t it you who equating violating the laws about homebirth with Germans hiding Jews from the Nazis?

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 4:18 pm #

            I was illustrating how ethics are not automatically derived from legislation.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            January 16, 2015 at 5:38 pm #

            So you made a holocaust reference as a straw man?

            That’s taking it to a pretty low low.

          • Lauren
            January 16, 2015 at 8:11 pm #

            Would part of that free market setting include knowledge of a practitioner’s history practicing within his/her field?
            Teachers in my country – Canada – are held to standards based on their region (province) and those standards not NOT set by the government (the Ministry of Education) but by a separate, ‘community’ entity – in that the persons presiding over this entity are elected to their positions, and members must pass rigorous standards in order to be accepted. Being a member and abiding by the standards is (and paying an annual fee) ENTIRELY voluntary – however, you cannot be employed in a public school without this membership.
            Each member’s history as professional teachers is available to anyone who seeks it, and when teachers violate standards these records are also available for public viewing.
            I would be appalled to know my child’s teacher had been convicted of a felony that STRONGLY RELATES to her teaching profession, and then had that felony vacated.
            I would be even more appalled that that information would be unavailable to me – the parent of the child who is at risk for a repeat of the behaviour that resulted in the original felony conviction.

            It seems to me, and do speak up if this is wrong, that your idea of a free market setting and voluntary adherence would mean that Midwives would have the option of not disclosing their practice history – good or bad – and that the standards would vary by the community they were in. And that these standards would be created by Midwives themselves, possibly with little to no public input.

            I surmise this based on your frequent comments that statements about your past are harmful to your future practice, and therefore should not be allowed. As well as your published statements that the government should have less influence – or jurisdiction? – regarding creating and/or maintaining these standards.

            In a free market system, I as the consumer (or client) have every right to know the complete history as it pertains to the profession of the person I am securing a service from. That is my RIGHT.
            That is a major contributing factor to how I choose my service providers.

            In the case of teachers – we are not at liberty to choose our child’s teacher. But we feel secure in knowing that the entire teaching history of that person is readily available, and that there are several entities – including the government – in place to remove said person, if standards are violated. This is our safety net as ‘consumers’ of education.

            Could you please explain to me where the ‘safety net’ for consumers of homebirth services would be in this system you envision?
            How would I know that the Midwife I choose is as good, and as competent, as she says, if her history is not available to me?

          • KarenJJ
            January 16, 2015 at 8:38 pm #

            I think her version of a safety net for parents is via the criminal court system so that then she has another “sister in chains” for her website and vaildation for her own choices in career. The more midwives that perform poorly, the more her own choices in her career are validated and the more notches on her website and the more her persecution complex is rewarded. Can imagine that anyone that gets rewarded so often for poor choices and poor professional behaviour will be against anything that might restrict that.

          • Lauren
            January 16, 2015 at 8:56 pm #

            In Canada – where I am – and specifically in Ontario, there is an entity that creates, enforces, and publishes practice standards for Midwives. A practicing Midwife must be a member of this organization, with a clean record (no criminal background) and no standards violations in order to legally practice.This information on each Midwife is available, should you want it.
            Further, many Midwives are vetted by OB’s – as in, ‘here are two Midwives I have worked with and have found to be competent and caring’.
            In Ontario, you can have only one primary caregiver for your prenatal care – but care can change during the birth process, based on need.
            If you choose a Midwife you can be reasonably assured that she has a) successfully passed a difficult education and training program and b) has assisted in/observed the minimum number of births to qualify her to work independently.
            Ontario Midwives provide a much higher level of prenatal care, and are legally-bound to transfer care at the FIRST sign that other medical professionals are needed (i.e. if you become ‘high-risk’ during prenatal care, you are automatically referred to an OB who takes over for the remainder of your care).

            I would never go so far as to say homebirth – even in Ontario – is SAFER than hospital birth, but here you can at least call it a viable option. Risks are minimized, ambulance transfer is high on the priority list, and we have excellent OB departments in our hospitals. Still, it is inherently dangerous, there is no way around that.
            OB care and Midwife care are, by the way, covered by our provincial insurance so they are both completely free. A doula (basically a birth ‘cheerleader’) is not.

            If McCall envisions something along the lines of what we have here in Ontario, Canada ….well wouldn’t that be great?

            But I agree — I don’t think that’s what she’s aiming for.

          • anonanon
            January 16, 2015 at 2:34 pm #

            Katie, your own self-published autobiography on page 167 says “the judge … has hinted he will downgrade my felony to a misdemeanor.” I don’t know if you’re saying that because your felony conviction was reduced or expunged, people can be sued for libel if they say you were “convicted of a felony”? That does not make a ton of sense.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 2:58 pm #

            Oh no, dear. I do not believe people can be sued for saying I was once convicted. But they can be if they say that I currently have a felony or that I was convicted for something I have never been charged with. Especially if they are doing it with the intent to ruin my line of work, which is exactly what many are saying.

          • Poogles
            January 16, 2015 at 7:07 pm #

            Oh I think letting people know that you were “once convicted” of a felony in relation to a birth gone wrong is plenty enough to get them to think twice before hiring you. I don’t think most people care all that much between “former-felon” and “felon” when they are considering who to trust with their lives – the crime still happened, you were still found guilty of it, even if it has since been “vacated”.

          • Oh Okay
            January 17, 2015 at 12:24 pm #

            You can’t prove intent, as your assumptions and allegations are not proof. They are your opinions, and as such are legally irrelevant. Also, it is perfectly legal for any person to tell any other person that they should not hire you. It’s called free speech. In order to prove intent you would have to find people who never hired you to testify that the reason they never hired you was because of the commentators on this blog. If your business declines you would have to prove that it declined because of the commentators on this blog and not because of publicly available information about you from the courts and the press. Good luck with all that. Also, you can file any suit you want, but that doesn’t mean you will win, and if you do win, it does not mean you will be awarded damages, and if you are awarded damages it does not mean you will be able to recover said damages. Hm, It just gets more and more daunting.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            May 29, 2015 at 6:43 pm #

            Yes. Doxxing is illegal. On it. Thank you!

          • wookie130
            January 18, 2015 at 2:36 pm #

            Quite frankly, I’m not interested in whether or not you are currently a convicted felon, or if you were yesterday, or yesteryear, or whatever. You’re hung up on the wrong issue “dear”, although I know that is nothing more than a tactic you use to divert from the real issue at hand which is basic common decency. I know that personally, I would just like to see a shred of remorse, humanity, whatever. A mother and child were hurt while you were conducting your “business”. I know that if I were interested in having a home birth, I’d need nothing more than to read the Buckley thread, and read smug comment after comment, where you truly come off looking crass, unfeeling, and narcissistic. You are not the type of woman who cares about the well-being of mothers and babies. I am all about choice, and a mother’s ability to choose where and how she’ll birth, as long as she makes that decision using informed consent. You seem to be more worried about your “business” than anything. Without knowing you personally, I can derive from your commentary that you are not someone I would want within 500 feet of my home, my birth, or my baby. Please do the expectant mothers of NH a huge favor, and find a different “business” before you end up killing someone, if you haven’t already.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            May 29, 2015 at 6:37 pm #

            Wait. .. who was hurt by my actions? Please do tell.

          • Poogles
            May 29, 2015 at 7:20 pm #

            “Wait. .. who was hurt by my actions? Please do tell.”

            The mother who testified in your felony conviction, for one.

          • Siri
            January 18, 2015 at 3:11 pm #

            Your ‘line of work’ SHOULD be ruined if that work is midwifery. You are a menace to women and babies everywhere, and dishonest to boot. Caveat emptor.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            May 29, 2015 at 6:36 pm #

            Did you have a bad run in with a midwife as a runt? Oh dear.

          • Oh Okay
            January 17, 2015 at 12:18 pm #

            OOOOHHHHHHHHHHHH! Scary! Not.

      • Mel
        January 16, 2015 at 1:32 pm #

        Would you rather we hold you up as a poster example of home birth midwifes?

        And you would want to sue for SLANDER. Interfering with an ambulance crew is ragingly incompetent – so telling people about that is telling a truth. LIBEL implies a lie. I can’t make up stuff more harmful than what you DO on your own…

        • Mel
          January 16, 2015 at 1:37 pm #

          Interesting thought experiment: What % of people who comment here carry some sort of malpractice insurance either personally or through their business?

          Does Katie Jenkins McCall? Hm…..

          • Dr Kitty
            January 16, 2015 at 1:53 pm #

            Me! Me!
            I am currently paying £6600 a year in indemnity fees.
            Which is about 15% of my gross income, before tax and mandatory pension payments.

            It’s not nice to watch the equivalent of another mortgage come out of my account every month, but that’s the just how it is.

          • Stacey
            January 16, 2015 at 2:18 pm #

            I’m a professional engineer, and my company maintains our errors and omissions insurance (our malpractice insurance). I don’t practice engineering outside of my company because I don’t have my own policy. I just turned down outside work because of that.

          • KarenJJ
            January 16, 2015 at 5:36 pm #

            My company has several million dollars of indemnity insurance. I forget how many as I haven’t needed to check the certificate recently. A copy of the current certificate is normally needed to be sent to clients during the tender stage for big projects/supply contracts.

          • Who?
            January 16, 2015 at 5:56 pm #

            I do, just re-did the form and paid the premium.

            It’s a cost of doing business as opposed to being a hobbyist. Oh and I have a house to lose if I make a mistake, so there’s that.

          • Medwife
            January 16, 2015 at 7:48 pm #

            But of course!

          • Stacy48918
            January 16, 2015 at 9:35 pm #

            Count me in – $1 MILLION policy for DOGS and CATS.

            Katie Jenkins McCall – $0 for BABIES.

          • DaisyGrrl
            January 16, 2015 at 9:57 pm #

            I’m indemnified through my job. Not a professional, but if I mess up and am sued for something work related, my employer will cover the cost of defending me.

            But I also carry a personal liability policy of $1 million so that if anyone slips and falls on my property, I’m covered for any of the resulting damages.

          • Elaine
            January 17, 2015 at 12:00 am #

            I do. I’m a pharmacist. I could buy a personal policy if I wanted, and it would be ill-advised not to if I did work on the side, but at work I am covered by my employer’s policy. Since it is a giant corporation with thousands of pharmacists, I’m sure their cost for malpractice insurance is pretty astronomical.

          • Liz Leyden
            January 17, 2015 at 4:33 pm #

            I just renewed mine. I’m an RN working in home health. I don’t have the certificate in front of me, so I don’t know the specifics of my coverage, but it cost $105 this year. If I worked in L and D, or as a CNM, It would cost a lot more. Still, I won’t work without it.

        • Katie Jenkins McCall
          January 16, 2015 at 2:13 pm #

          I held up an ambulance? When?

        • StThomas
          January 16, 2015 at 6:42 pm #

          £3000 pa

      • Guesteleh
        January 16, 2015 at 1:35 pm #

        You’re as good a lawyer as you are a midwife.

        • Katie Jenkins McCall
          January 16, 2015 at 1:46 pm #

          Awww. Ad hominem is all we have. I thought so.

          • Trixie
            January 16, 2015 at 1:49 pm #

            Calling you a convicted felon is an ad hominem too….oh wait. No. That’s actually the truth. You’re a felonious, incompetent “midwife”.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 2:29 pm #

            Please stop spreading lies with the intent to harm my business. See what Dr. Amy’s blogs do? They spread known lies so that the public can continue to spread lies and ruin people’s hard fought for businesses.

          • lilin
            January 16, 2015 at 2:33 pm #

            “Spread lies spread lies spread lies”

            How about this one – “convicted of a felony convicted of a felony convicted of a felony”

            Katharine “Katie” McCall, 37, was convicted Wednesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court on one felony count after an investigation by the Medical Board of California’s Operation Safe Medicine team, which probes allegations of unlicensed practice of medicine.


            I’m sorry you’re a criminal, but that’s not a lie.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 2:58 pm #

            I am not a felon. Period. Please stop trying to ruin my ability to work.

          • attitude devant
            January 16, 2015 at 3:23 pm #

            Once again, how do you infer that she is trying to ruin your ability to work?

          • Trulyunbelievable2020
            January 16, 2015 at 3:28 pm #

            Have you been convicted of a felony?

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            January 16, 2015 at 4:10 pm #

            Period, huh?

            Are you going to hold your breath until we agree, too?

            Seriously, our 4 yo knows that temper tantrums don’t get any where. Apparently no one taught you that lesson.

          • Alenushka
            January 16, 2015 at 5:41 pm #

            You should sue google. Your felony comes up there.

          • wookie130
            January 18, 2015 at 2:22 pm #

            None of us want to impede your ability to work. But, if anyone wants to get honest after reading anything about you and your case, I do think you should strongly consider a different line of work. Babies and mothers are really not where it’s at for you, Katie.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            May 29, 2015 at 6:38 pm #

            Why? Where do you come to that conclusion?

          • Poogles
            May 29, 2015 at 7:17 pm #

            “Why? Where do you come to that conclusion?”

            Probably from the testimony of previous patients (you know, in your felony conviction) and the obvious way you failed to provide proper or professional care. Since this can obviously cause serious damage to mothers and babies (and has) and you don’t seem to have learned anything at all since then…yeah, please stop. For the safety of others.

          • Trixie
            January 16, 2015 at 2:42 pm #

            So, this is all about your business? Thanks for clarifying.
            So you claim you were never convicted of a felony?

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            January 16, 2015 at 2:54 pm #

            I have claimed I am not a “felon” or a “convicted felon” and I have not be found guilty of “negligence” or “malpractice.” To say the contrary with the intent to ruin my ability to work is a lie and defamation of my character.

          • attitude devant
            January 16, 2015 at 3:14 pm #

            And just how to you infer that Trixie is trying to ruin your business?

          • Trixie
            January 16, 2015 at 3:24 pm #

            When I google her name and “felony” all the hits I get are websites supporting her.

          • Lauren
            January 16, 2015 at 5:37 pm #

            I am confused.
            How do you define ‘convicted felon’?
            According to current (and not-so-current) documents, news articles, as well as your own blog, you were convicted of a felony in court. You failed to have that conviction appealed.
            The generally used, and entirely legitimate, short-hand for ‘convicted of a felony’ is ‘convicted felon’.

            It may not be the nicest, most ‘people-first’ language to use, but it is the accepted term.

            So if you have been convicted of a felony, how does that exclude you from being a ‘convicted felon’?

          • Squillo
            January 16, 2015 at 7:00 pm #

            She was convicted of a felony, but because the felony was vacated, she isn’t, legally speaking, a felon.

          • Lauren
            January 16, 2015 at 7:30 pm #

            Thank you, it was incredibly unclear.
            If McCall would have simply stated that, with a supporting link, that would have helped immensely.

          • wookie130
            January 18, 2015 at 2:19 pm #

            So, technically, she “was” a convicted felon.

          • Lynn
            January 17, 2015 at 2:55 pm #

            Oh, honey, with your comments here, no one else had to say a word to defame your character. You did all the work there.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            May 29, 2015 at 6:42 pm #

            How so?

          • Siri
            January 18, 2015 at 3:27 pm #

            Katie Jenkins McCall, I hope you never work as a midwife again. I would be delighted to see your midwifery ‘business’ fail spectacularly.

          • Katie Jenkins McCall
            May 29, 2015 at 6:34 pm #

            Careful siri.

          • Poogles
            May 29, 2015 at 7:13 pm #

            “Careful siri.”

            See, now that sounds like a threat. An empty threat, but a threat all the same.

            Also, I agree 100% with Siri and have no problem bringing up that you were convicted of a felony due to the “care” you provided to a mother and her baby. You can scream and stomp your feet all you want, but it is the truth (thus, not libel or slander) – ex-felon or not, you were once convicted of a felony directly related to your “profession” and anyone thinking of hiring you should be aware of it.

          • ArmyChick
            January 16, 2015 at 4:27 pm #

            Of course it is. How else will she be able to afford the mortage in her $350K house in Fitzwilliam, NH?!

          • birthbuddy
            January 16, 2015 at 6:33 pm #

            The truth shall set you free.
            Oh wait, in your case it will tie you up in knots.

          • KarenJJ
            January 16, 2015 at 8:29 pm #

            Sorry I missed something, which lies are you specifically accusing Dr Amy of?

          • Guesteleh
            January 16, 2015 at 2:18 pm #

            I don’t think so. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1626030.html

          • LibrarianSarah
            January 16, 2015 at 3:59 pm