Here’s what I’ve learned about lawsuits so far: they take a really, really long time.

We’re still in the preliminary phase, discussing procedural issues. We have not gotten to the actual case. You may recall the Gina filed a motion to dismiss the case in Massachusetts, where I live, arguing that it can’t be brought there because she lives in Illinois.

We filed an Opposition to Gina’s motion. You can find the brief here:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/27713670/Tuteur-20130405_Opp_to_MTD_with_Exhibits.pdf

The issues in it are technical so I won’t bore you with the details. I’ll share the part that I understood, which is a footnote:

Defendant’s vitriol has not stopped; it has only expanded into this forum. Throughout Crosley-Corcoran’s Memorandum of Law filed in support of her Motion to Dismiss, Defendant calls Dr. Tuteur “mean,” and a “bully.” Of course, others call Dr. Tuteur a life-saver. Those who understand the risks of homebirth, including many mothers who have lost their babies unnecessarily, recognize that she is committed to protecting innocent infants from grave danger – and unsuspecting parents from a lifetime of grief. They understand that Dr. Tuteur’s use of real life examples of publicly reported preventable homebirths deaths is a powerful tool toward averting future homebirth tragedies. It is nothing short of ironic that Defendant’s Memorandum focuses on Dr. Tuteur’s “bullying” tactics when, in fact, Crosley- Corcoran’s conduct was replete with threats, intimidation, and aggression. Although Crosley-Corcoran attempts to create a sympathetic image of herself as an unsophisticated “student and mother of three young children” attacked by the “bully” Dr. Tuteur, the facts paint a very different picture.

As further set forth in Dr. Tuteur’s Motion to Strike and Memorandum filed in support thereof (Dkt. #s 15, 16), the Defendant’s self-serving rhetoric and ad hominem attacks against Dr. Tuteur are
designed to distract this Court from the underlying legal issue in this dispute: The Defendant’s unlawful use of provisions of the DMCA as a sword to suppress Dr. Tuteur’s legitimate right to publish content on the Internet.

Dear North Carolina Senators,

I could offer you many excellent reasons why you should vote against Senate Bill 107 decriminalizing the practice of lay midwifery.

I could explain to you that homebirth midwives, even those who have the CPM (certified professional midwife) credential, are not real midwives and would not be eligible for licensure in the Netherlands, the UK, Australia, Canada or ANY first world country.

I could offer evidence of the many preventable neonatal deaths at the hands of North Carolina homebirth midwives, leading to a homebirth death rate that is more than 10 times higher than birth in the hospital (and that’s only the deaths that I personally know about).

I could show you that the Midwives Alliance of North America (MANA), the organization that represents American homebirth midwives, refuses to release the death rates of the 27,000 planned homebirths in their database and that they have NO standards for practice, declaring that each midwife can devise her own standards.

But I’ll take a shortcut and offer the example of Rowan Bailey, the lay midwife who is currently in jail for her involvement in one of the many NC homebirth deaths.

Read the following descriptions and ask yourself: should you really decriminalize the ability of any women to call herself a midwife and spout nonsense such as this?

Bailey describes herself as as Community Midwife, Placenta Alchemist, Co-founder Asheville Holistic Birth Collective, Birth Activist. In other words, Bailey has absolutely no formal training in midwifery.

So why does she call herself a midwife? She awarded the designation to herself after studying at The Matrona.

According to The Black Mountain News:

In a nondescript home on a quiet West Asheville street, Tina “Rowan” Bailey learned that to act as midwife, she was responsible for the birthing process — but not the outcome.

The belief that managing and monitoring a woman’s labor strips her of her power is a guiding principle at The Matrona, a nonprofit that trains about 20 women a year in unaccredited midwifery and doula programs.

In other words, the guiding principle at The Matrona is that anyone can call herself a midwife, but there’s no need to take responsibility if a baby dies as a result.

The Matrona school was founded in 2001 by Diane Bartlett, who goes by the name “Whapio” in the midwifery community…

The school teaches “quantum midwifery” and methods of “undisturbed birth,” designed for “self-directed families planning an unassisted birth,” according to the school’s website.

Bailey graduated in 2006 from the school’s “midwifery immersion program,” a four-month training that teaches “Returning Birth to the Family.”

In other words, The Matrona instructs self proclaimed “midwives” in how to think nonsense about birth, but not how identify, manage or prevent childbirth complications.

But wait! She also completed The Matrona’s Sacred Birth Mentor Program!

The Sacred Birth Mentor Program, according to the program’s Facebook page, is “a 2-year, three-level mystery school for birth professionals that focuses on consciousness, spiritual practice, physical, spiritual and financial wellness and much more.”

And that’s not all. Bailey also attended Birth Heaven Now! As Bailey herself explains:

The first time I read the words ‘Excellent Self-Care’ and ‘Birth Professionals’ in the same sentence something shifted deep in my core. When I first began working with Stephanie Dawn 1 year ago I was completely depleted spiritually and personally, rarely worked as a birth professional and cleaned houses full time to pay the bills. I no longer believed I would ever BE a midwife. Wow, how far I have come! Stephanie facilitated me in defining my ideal client and I now have a full practice of clients I love, have a soul-level connection with and who value my work. I am fulfilled now in ways I did not imagine possible before. My spiritual practice, which I used only in times of desperation in the past, is now part of my daily life. This part has been huge in creating harmony in my home, my practice and when I have challenging experiences they no longer seem so devastating. I have learned to receive as well as give. I cannot express how amazing this feels. I am looking forward to even more expansion over the next year.

What’s most disturbing about Bailey’s self-designation of “midwife” in not the fact that she has no education and training in midwifery. What I find most disturbing is that someone who clearly has no education and training in midwifery is fully embraced by the homebirth midwifery community. As far as I can determine, the homebirth midwifery community has made no effort to determine whether Bailey was responsible for the death of baby Avery. Indeed, a supporter succinctly explained:

The story behind the birth does not matter.

Rowan Bailey is a walking, talking argument for vetoing a bill that decriminalizes such behavior. These self proclaimed “midwives” are honest in declaring that they have no concern for the outcome of the births they attend. The organization that represents them is honest in declaring that they have no standards for homebirth midwifery, and, therefore, no accountability, regardless of the deaths and disabilities that ensue. At the moment, the existing North Carolina laws are the ONLY protection that babies and mothers have against untrained, self-proclaimed “midwives.” Please think very carefully before you take it away.

I wrote Thursday that nothing demonstrates contempt for babies, mothers and truth like the picture of Dr. Robert Biter speaking at the appallingly misnamed Human Rights in Childbirth Conference. But the picture above is a close second.

The picture appeared on Twitter with the caption “persecuted midwives panel.” Imagine, these women are being “persecuted” just because a bunch of babies died. How important could that be, right? I’ve reviewed everything I could get my hands on from the Conference including the web announcement of the conference, blog posts and tweets, and I couldn’t find a single mention of the dead babies.

Marcene Rebeck, Sister Morningstar (Sandra Mountjoy, 5th from the left), Jessica Weed were charged in connection with homebirth deaths.

Diane Goslin, and Ireena Keeslar were arrested and charged with practicing without a license.

As what is the “persecution”? They’re being held accountable for their actions and if there is one thing that homebirth midwives are absolutely, positively sure about, it is they should never be held accountable regardless of which laws they break and regardless of the carnage that results.

Which gets back to the question I asked a few months ago. Human rights in childbirth: does the baby have any?

The baby? You remember the baby, the other individual whose life is at stake during the process of birth? What about the baby?

I’m not talking about legal rights. Children have virtually no legal rights before birth. I’m talking about moral rights. When a mother makes the decision to take a pregnancy to term, does the baby have a moral right to receive appropriate and life-saving medical care? …

Simply put, an unborn term baby has a moral right to receive potentially life-saving medical care, and that moral right is not trumped by something as trivial as the mother’s desire for a specific birth “experience.” This is analogous to a right of a child already born to receive life-saving medical care. That is a legal as well as a moral right. The parents’ desire to avoid medical care, to substitute prayer, or to simply ignore the child’s distress pales into insignificance next to the child’s legal right to life-saving care.

And the birth junkie midwife’s “right” to entertain herself by attending births and getting paid for it doesn’t even exist.

The Conference was not about human rights in childbirth. It was about birth junkies’ “rights” to pretend to be midwives, to break the law and to preside over preventable homebirth deaths. The organizers may have picked a title for the conference that is a successful public relations gambit, but this picture is a public relations disaster and these women are apparently so clueless that they don’t even realize it.

At first glance, obstetrician Robert Biter and unlicensed “midwife” Rowan Bailey appear to have a lot in common. Both presided over homebirth deaths and both face serious consequences as a result. It seems to me, though, that the differences between the two cases are far more instructive than the similarities. Moreover, those differences tells us a great deal about the professionalism of doctors, and the utter lack of professionalism of homebirth midwives.

Consider:

1. Rowan Bailey broke the law and Dr. Biter did not.

This is a critical distinction that seems to have escaped most homebirth advocates. The Medical Board of California found that Dr. Biter demonstrated gross negligence in his care of patients and was both dishonest and unprofessional. However, Dr. Biter was practicing under a valid medical license. At no point did he ever represent himself as something he was not. In contrast, Bailey was practicing midwifery illegally and was allegedly misrepresenting her credentials to parents.

Had Dr. Biter presided over the death of a baby while unlicensed, he almost certainly would have been arrested as well.

2. Dr. Biter carried malpractice insurance and Rowan Bailey did not.

In keeping with the legal requirements for practicing medicine in California, Dr. Biter carried malpractice insurance. The patients that he has injured may be able to collect compensation. In contrast, Bailey offered no such protection for her patients.

3. Dr. Biter was disciplined by his own profession.

The medical system did not close ranks to protect Dr. Biter. First he lost his hospital privileges, then he was placed on probation by the Medical Board of California, and currently he is facing revocation of his license. In contrast, no midwifery board or organization took any disciplinary action against Bailey. Indeed, they didn’t even bother to investigate.

4. No doctors rallied around Biter when he lost his hospital privileges.

They understood that the loss of privileges represented a very serious accusation against Biter and withheld judgment until more of the facts were known. Indeed, the only people who rallied on Dr. Biter’s behalf were homebirth advocates, including Ricki Lake, who made no effort to determine the facts of the situation and blithely accepted Biter’s claim that he was being “persecuted.”

5. No doctors or medical organizations raised money to support Dr. Biter.

Why? Because the medical profession does not feel threatened when bad doctors are disciplined. In contrast, homebirth midwives feel threatened when incompetent midwives are investigated, charged, tried and punished. They do not want to be held responsible for their actions or any carnage that follows in the wake of their actions. They want to be able to entertain themselves by attending births and getting paid for it. They apparently feel no responsibility to make sure that their actions are safe.

These differences make a mockery of the claims of homebirth advocates that there is a double standard for obstetricians and for midwives. Preside over a death while practicing without a license and you may go to jail regardless of whether you are a doctor or a midwife. Commit malpractice as a physician and you will not be protected by your medical colleagues; they will not support you; will not rally for you and will not raise money on your behalf. They will discipline you and even drum you out of the profession. There are very real and very serious consequences for physicians who fail to care for patients appropriately and no one is arguing that penalties for malpractice are unjustified.

You have to give homebirth advocates credit for one thing, though. They are ideologically consistent. Commit negligent acts, commit malpractice or preside over a perinatal death at homebirth, and homebirth advocates will insist you are being “persecuted” whether you are a doctor or a midwife. Homebirth advocates are consistent in their morally bankrupt behavior.

A big shout out to my friends at the Human Rights in Childbirth Conference (HRiC). Why are they my friends? Because they demonstrate better than I ever could that homebirth advocacy is morally grotesque, ethically bankrupt and has an appalling contempt for both the truth and for the babies and women injured by homebirth providers.

I’ve written before about the morally grotesque campaign for human rights in childbirth. You or I might think that human rights in childbirth refers to making sure that all women have access to competent medical care, without regard for ability to pay, that incarcerated women not be forced to labor in chains, and that women have access to birth control. Don’t be foolish. Who cares about those women? The HRiC is about the “rights” of white, Western, relatively well off midwives, doulas and childbirth educators to do and say whatever they want and be paid for it.

But nothing says “fuck you” to babies, mothers and the truth like the above photo, taken at the HRiC Conference.

What does the picture show? According to the tweet that accompanied it:

Dr. Biter talks about how he was stripped of his OB privileges for supporting physiologic birth

You remember Dr. Robert Biter, don’t you? He’s the doctor who makes recently arrested “midwife” Rowan Bailey look like Mother Theresa by contrast.

Dr. Biter did NOT lose his privileges (at a hospital known for supporting physiologic birth) because he was supporting physiologic birth. He lost them because he was named in multiple malpractice suits. His license to practice medicine was severely restricted because of 7 separate instances that the Medical Board of California described as:

“gross negligence in his care and treatment” of a patient
“repeated negligent acts” performed on 6 additional patients
“prescribing without an appropriate prior examination”
“acts of dishonesty with respect to the care and treatment of patients”
“failure to maintain adequate and accurate medical records”
“general unprofessional conduct”

As a result of his conduct, Dr. Biter was suspended from the practice of medicine for 60 days, followed by 7 years of strict probation. However, AFTER Dr. Biter signed documents acknowledging the findings of the Board and the prescribed disciplinary action, but before the official start of the suspension, Dr. Biter presided over a homebirth death. He now faces the possibility of permanent revocation of his license.

In other words, there is absolutely no evidence that the multiple disciplinary measures faced by Dr. Biter have anything to do with physiologic birth. He has been disciplined for 8 separate instances of malpractice including the death of a baby at homebirth. He has been found grossly negligent, dishonest and unprofessional.

So why was he a featured speaker at the HRiC Conference?

Because when homebirth advocates talk about human rights in childbirth, they aren’t talking about mothers or babies, they’re talking about homebirth providers and their “right” to do whatever they want, whenever they want, without oversight of any kind, regardless of who is injured or dies in the process.

What about the human rights of the women and babies injured and killed by incompetent homebirth practitioners? They apparently have no rights at all.

So thanks again to my friends at the HRiC. I and others are working tireless to prevent the licensing of incompetent and deadly homebirth practitioners and you are working tireless to demonstrate why that is absolutely necessary.

Honestly, I couldn’t succeed without you.

Sara Snyder, Bambi Chapman and I discuss the tragedy of preventable homebirth deaths on HuffPo live.

One of the greatest of the many ironies of homebirth advocacy is the way that homebirth advocates have become exactly what they claim to despise.

The same people who tout The Business of Being Born apparently don’t notice the business of being born at home, involving a small army of service providers who charge hundreds or thousands of dollars (placenta encapsulation specialist, anyone?). The same people who write books about putting childbirth ahead of the corporate bottom line, charge money for those books, money that is being used to improve the bottom line of the corporation that published the book and the author who wrote it.

But perhaps the biggest irony of all is the way that homebirth advocates use fear to manipulate women. I’ve written before about the central role that promoting fear of doctors plays in natural childbirth and homebirth advocacy.

The message, integral to natural childbirth advocacy is clear: Obstetricians can’t help women because their technology is useless (except in the rarest of circumstances). Obstetricians don’t want to help women; they want to make money, show off, and get to their golf games as quickly as possible. In fact, obstetricians actually want to HURT women by imposing their fancy technologies to ruin otherwise perfect labors simply so that they can apply even more technology. And (this is the big finish), the only way you can prevent obstetricians from victimizing you, hurting you and profiting from you is … to buy our NCB products!

The ultimate expression of fear mongering is the way that natural childbirth and homebirth advocates play the autistic baby card.

That’s right; the same people who wail and gnash their teeth over obstetricians “playing the dead baby card” copy them faithfully with only one exception. Despite the derision of natural childbirth and homebirth advocates, a dead baby is real possibility in every pregnancy. In contrast, autism due to vaccination, ultrasound, pitocin, etc. is merely a figment of their imaginations.

Google the phrase “dead baby card” and you get more than 25,000 results, almost all of which are natural childbirth and homebirth websites. And what is the “dead baby card”? It’s the NCB and homebirth advocates’ sneering dismissal of interventions that reduce the risk of perinatal death. When an obstetrician tells a woman that breech increases the risk of death during vaginal delivery, advocates insist that the doctor is playing the “dead baby card” and proceed to offer anecdotes of women whose babies were fine after being delivered vaginally from the breech position. When obstetricians warn women about the risk of neonatal death from Group B strep sepsis, advocates offer advice to skip the test,  stick garlic into your vagina, and, of course, anecdotes about women who tested positive for GBS and whose babies didn’t die of sepsis. And when obstetricians point out that prolonged labor is a risk factor for poor outcomes, advocates whip out stories about women who pushed for 9 hours and whose baby survived the experience.

Yet these same advocates have absolutely no problem expounding the most fanciful theories about interventions in childbirth. Australian midwife Hannah Dahlen is currently flogging the absurd claim that C-sections alter infant DNA. Killer “midwife” Gloria Lemay routinely ejaculates claims that pitocin causes autism. Wootastic journalist Jennifer Margulis is currently peddling her hope claim that prenatal ultrasound causes autism. A post on a chiropractic website hits all the high points, insinuating an autism connection with ultrasound, mercury in pregnancy, Rhogam, flu shots, dental fillings, induction, epidural, restricted maternal position, forceps, vacuum, C-sections, and umbilical cord clamping.

Is there any evidence for these claims? No, there’s none, zip, zero, nada, but that doesn’t stop natural childbirth and homebirth advocates from wielding the “autistic baby card.”

The ultimate irony is that natural childbirth and homebirth advocates have become everything they claim to despise. They make millions of dollars peddling “natural” goods and services (Hyno-babies, anyone?). They create and fund lobbying groups whose only purpose is to increase the income potential of homebirth midwives. They engage in fear mongering of the worst kind promoting fears of doctors, hospital, and childbirth interventions (except those that can be done by homebirth midwives).Perhaps most despicable of all, they routinely play the completely fabricated “autistic baby card” and utterly fail to see the irony.

In a striking about face, Jennifer Margulis, wootastic journalist and homebirth advocate, has modified her stance that vaccines cause autism to embrace the idea that ultrasounds cause autism. It’s not surprising when you think about it because the vaccine autism claim has been thoroughly and exhaustively debunked vaccines and ultrasound are exactly alike: both are interventions and all homebirth advocates know that interventions are bad.

On her blog today, Margulis treats us to her special brand of smearing by insinuation “journalism” by posting her interview with Dr. Manuel Casanova, M.D., the Gottfried and Gisela Kolb Endowed Chair in Outpatient Psychiatry and a Professor of Anatomical Sciences and Neurobiology at the University of Louisville. As far as I can determine, Dr. Casanova’s theory is this: ultrasound can affect cells, the brain is made of cells, ultrasound may affect the brain. How does he get from that to autism?

Through this absurd bit of deduction:

Those were my initial thoughts about why ultrasound could be of significance in terms of autism. Then the more you examine ultrasound and its epidemiology, the more proof you can draw of the same as a risk factor for autism. Populations within the United States that don’t use as much ultrasound are at a lower risk, like the Amish. The Somalis, where autism is practically unknown in their native countries, when they migrate to developed countries, they acquire a higher risk. This is not a property of being in this country. Somalis also acquired a higher risk for autism if they move to other developed nations. Obviously, in these new surroundings, they are receiving more ultrasounds.

Many people believe that because having a child with autism confers a greater risk for having a sibling similarly diagnosed, that this is a genetic condition. However, this could also be explained by ultrasound, as the mothers tend to go to the same OB-GYN practitioners…

Sorry, Jennifer Margulis and Dr. Casanova, it’s pretty clear that ultrasound doesn’t cause autism, attachment parenting causes autism.

Let’s face it, the the more you examine attachment parenting and its epidemiology, the more proof you can draw of the same as a risk factor for autism. Populations within the United States that don’t practice attachment parenting are at a lower risk, like the Amish. The Somalis, where autism is practically unknown in their native countries, when they migrate to developed countries, they acquire a higher risk. This is not a property of being in this country. Somalis also acquired a higher risk for autism if they move to other developed nations. Obviously, in these new surroundings, they are exposed to attachment parenting.

Many people believe that because having a child with autism confers a greater risk of having a sibling similarly diagnosed, that this is a genetic condition. However, this could also be explained by attachment parenting, because mothers who practice attachment parenting with one child tend to do so with their other children.

Consider the following graph that demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that attachment parenting causes autism by demonstrating the steep rise in autism prevalence that occurred following the publication of Dr. Sears’  exhortation to practice attachment parenting:

Need more proof? You can refer to my ground breaking post of November 2010 in which I first revealed that attachment parenting causes autism.

1. Both autism and attachment parenting have increased dramatically in the past two decades. The origin of the attachment parenting is credited to Dr. William Sears, who first mentioned it in his book in 1988. Studies show that in the VERY SAME YEAR, the incidence of autism began to rise dramatically. (Environ. Sci. Technol., 2010, 44 (6), pp 2112–2118).

2. Regardless of who practices attachment parenting or how they define it, no one can deny that the practice of attachment parenting ALWAYS precedes the diagnosis. There are no known cases in which attachment parenting practices began after autism was diagnosed.

3. The purported mechanism is thought to be the sensory deprivation caused by baby wearing and extended breastfeeding. During the critical early months and years, when babies should be learning about the world and making millions of neuronal connections, babies exposed to AP are deprived of contact with the outside world (many are constantly carried in a position where they can see nothing but the surface of the mother’s clothing) and their exposure to other individuals such as fathers, grandparents and childcare workers is severely limited.

4. No one has EVER shown that attachment parenting does not cause autism.

5. Even those who strongly reject the notion that attachment parenting causes autism acknowledge that there are MANY children raised with attachment parenting who are subsequently diagnosed with autism.

6. Many of those who deny a link between attachment parenting and autism stand to lose money if attachment parenting is shown to be harmful. Authors, lactation consultants, and sling manufacturers, among others, have a strong economic motivation for discouraging investigation of this link.

*****

Those who have read this far have probably figured out that this is a satire. I’m satirizing the “thinking” of wootastic “journalists” like Margulis. The purpose of the satire is to demonstrate that what seems to Margulis to be compelling “reasoning” is nothing more than nonsense, and logical fallacies.

I’ve tried to highlight the major rhetorical gambits of the claim that ultrasound causes autism. Number 1 is the claim that because both ultrasound use and autism have risen in recent decades, ultrasound must cause autism. That claim is foolish as can be seen when the same observation is made about attachment parenting and autism. Just because the incidence of two phenomena rise at the same time does not mean that one caused the other.

Number 2 is the temporal connection. Prenatal ultrasound precedes the observation of autistic symptoms, but a lot of things precede the observation of autistic symptoms. That’s because those symptoms typically do not appear until the early toddler years and anything that takes place earlier (like attachment parenting practices or prenatal ultrasound) will precede the observation of symptoms.

Number 3 invokes a spurious mechanism of action. It is certainly plausible, but no evidence is presented that it actually occurs.

Number 4 is the “argument from ignorance.” The argument from ignorance dares the opponent to prove a negative and when a negative cannot be proven (since that is a logical impossibility in most cases), the conclusion is proclaimed that this “shows” that ultrasound causes autism.

Number 5 is the “fallacy of the lonely fact.” Since some children have developed autism after their parents practiced attachment parenting, the conclusion is drawn that large numbers of children will develop autism after their parents practice attachment parenting.

Number 6 is the conspiracy theory that undergirds almost every attempt to defend vaccine rejectionism. But when the same “reasoning” is applied to attachment parenting, it is easy to see that the conspiracy theory does not have much explanatory power. There is ALWAYS someone who stands to benefit from any recommendation or practice. That does not mean that those who benefit are actively hiding information on harms and risks from everyone else.

True to the principles of wootastic “journalism”, Margulis concludes the post with the seemingly innocuous call for “more research.” But we cannot and should not waste time “researching” connections that have no basis in science. If we did, we could spend a lot of time “researching” whether the moon is made of green cheese or whether clouds are made of marshmallows. The call for “more research” is just away to add gravitas to what are often ridiculous claims. We do not need to “research” every wacky idea that vaccine rejectionists devise and our refusal to “research” those ideas without basis in science or logic is not a sign that someone is hiding something.

The key point is that what passes for “reasoning” among wootastic journalists like Margulis is not reasoning at all. It is nothing more than wild accusations, logical fallacies and conspiracy theories. There is no more reason to take seriously the idea that ultrasounds cause autism than there is to take seriously the idea that attachment parenting causes autism.

It’s almost as if homebirth advocates are trying to advertise their moral bankruptcy. They couldn’t care less how many babies die at homebirth, why they die at homebirth and who pretends to be a midwife.

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised since this is a crowd that has spent years desperately hiding (or when exposed, ignoring) the hideous homebirth deaths rates in Oregon, Colorado and in MANA’s own database. Homebirth midwives have always valued their freedom to “practice” over the lives of innocent children, but this is a new low, even for them.

I’m referring of course to the case of Rowan Bailey. She allegedly represented herself as a licensed midwife even though she uncredentialed and unlicensed. She has been jailed for allegedly presiding over an intrapartum death at homebirth that occurred in July. *Initially it appeared that she allegedly presided over a second intrapartum death in February, but the newspaper has issued a correction stating that the death occurred in July and was reported to the police by the State Medical Board on February 7. In addition, she was arrested last month for prostitution. What are other homebirth midwives doing in response? They’re raising money to “free” her, of course.

Over they years I have written about dozens of preventable homebirth deaths involving mind boggling incompetence on the part of homebirth midwives. Inevitably homebirth advocates parachute in to the blog to insist that the midwife in question was a “rogue” midwife and not representative of homebirth midwives as a group. It appears that you cannot be more of a “rogue”than Rowan Bailey, yet I have seen no midwifery organization, no midwives and no “birth workers” of any kind calling for her to be investigated, and if warranted, held accountable for malpractice.

Quite the opposite, in fact. A fundraising campaign has been launched on her behalf:

Wednesday, March 27, 2013, a friend, teacher, mentor, and fellow midwife, Rowan Bailey, as we know and love her was arrested for murder in Asheville, NC. North Carolina prohibits the practice of midwifery by traditional community midwives and CPM’s

In case you were wondering, they couldn’t care less what she did, who was hurt, and whether her actions led to the deaths:

At this time, the details of the case are not available until we have more input from Rowan’s attorney.

It doesn’t matter what happened. All that matters is the issue of human rights:

The way we birth is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue and we must embrace it with compassion, love, and responsibility.

Wrong! The right  of a baby who begins labor alive to be born alive may be a human right. There is no human right to represent yourself as a midwife when you are uncredentialed and unlicensed. There is no human right to get your birth junkie fix while letting babies suffocate to death. There is no human right to escape accountability for actions that hurt others. It is morally grotesque to pretend that there are any such human rights.

Bailey has no shortage of supporters. Here’s a look at the Twitter feed soliciting support:

The behavior of these supporters is nothing short of disgusting. They’re raising money to “free” an uncredentialed, unlicensed “midwife” who is charged with misrepresenting her qualifications to parents, presiding over a homebirth death, and who was arrested for prostitution, without making an attempt at, indeed without even calling for an investigation of any kind. Why? Because they think their “freedom” to entertain themselves at births and get paid for it is more important than whether babies live or die.

We can thank these supporters for one thing, though. They have made it crystal clear that they are morally reprehensible in addition to being unfit to care for pregnant women. Rowan Bailey is an object lesson in why North Carolina should never license homebirth midwives. They are ignorant, dangerous and utterly unconcerned about whether babies live or die.

Bailey’s supporters should be ashamed of themselves, but that’s not likely. If you’re willing to ignore dead babies, then you’ve already broadcast the fact that you have no shame.

Poor Jennifer Margulis!

It’s getting tougher and tougher to be a homebirth blogger. It’s fine if you restrict the comments on your blog to only those who know as little about science, statistics and childbirth as you do. You can dazzle those people with any nonsense that you care to fabricate. But when you are hawking your book, you have to interact with the rest of the world. And the people in the rest of the world are so mean, so hateful, so lacking in basic decency that they have the unmitigated gall to demand … actual evidence.

What’s a homebirth blogger to do when confronted with evidence that doesn’t support her position? Standard operating procedure in the homebirth community, which Margulis faithfully followed, is to offer a stupid excuse, and she outdid herself by offering one of the stupidest. When confronted on her recent post (When Obstetricians Hate Homebirth Midwives, Birth Becomes Less Safe for Everyone) with the recent statistics from Oregon that planned homebirth with a licensed midwife has a death rate 9X higher than term hospital birth, Margulis responded with this gem:

Amy, Oregon has some of the safest best homebirth stats in the country IF YOU DON’T COUNT PORTLAND…

Having made a complete fool of herself, and completely incapable of rebutting my claims, Margulis has retreated to a pity party on her Facebook page:

I’m used to be flamed and hated, but some of these comments are so nasty and personal that I think they go too far. I need advice from more experienced bloggers: do I allow the hate comments to continue (that’s what I’m leaning towards) or do I turn the comments off?

What’s “hateful” about the comments? Apparently it’s “hateful” to demand that someone support her factual assertions with actual facts. Apparently it’s “hateful” to question a journalist with a PhD in literature on whether she has the qualifications to write about obstetrics, science and statistics. Apparently, for homebirth advocates, just like for junior high school girls, it is “hateful” to dare to disagree.

Here’s a little unsolicited advice for Margulis:

In the world of grown ups, it is not hateful to disagree with someone or to demand proof for their assertions. If you want to put yourself out there as a defender of the safety of homebirth, you damn well better be prepared to support your positions with actual facts. And if you can’t support your position (and you can’t), instead of whining, start questioning your beliefs.

Exactly how many babies have to die preventable deaths at homebirth, Jennifer Margulis, before you manage to wrap your head around the fact that you are wrong? Ten? A hundred? A thousand? Or is it more important to you to hold on to cherished beliefs than to care whether babies live or die?

Addendum (3/30/13): Apparently whining isn’t enough to prevent those “hateful” people from insisting that if you publish a book, you ought to be able to defend your claims.

Henceforth Margulis intends to employ the professional homebirth advocate’s most important tool, the ability to make dissent disappear by deleting or banning it.

“Any future comments on this thread that do not show respect towards myself and other commenters will be deleted, and the commenter will be blocked from commenting on this blog in the future.”

Why do professional homebirth advocates reflexively reach for the delete button, and, if available, the ban button, when confronted with dissent? I suspect there are three reasons:

1. It is vital for their advocacy (and I suspect for their fragile self-esteem) to create a space that doesn’t simply reinforce their beliefs, but makes it look like no one believes anything else. Dissent simply cannot be tolerated.

2. They are incapable of addressing the criticism.

Most professional homebirth advocates are aware at a certain level that they don’t have science on their side. They readily vomit up bibliography salad, but they don’t analyze (or, in many cases even read) the citations they offer.

Margulis could have acknowledged her mistakes and corrected them, but that would have required two things she apparently cannot tolerate: actual research into the topic she’s babbling about and intellectual honesty.

3. They are afraid of letting their readers think for themselves.

If they had even a fraction of confidence in their own claims and/or a modicum of respect for the fact that their readers are intellectually capable of drawing their own conclusions, they wouldn’t merely let dissent stand, they would welcome it. By defending their claims against those launched by critics, they could strengthen their case that homebirth is safe. But they are exquisitely aware that they lack the knowledge base and the intellectual ability to defend the safety of homebirth. Most importantly, they are well aware that the dissenters are often right and they are wrong.