Moments ago I filed a lawsuit against Gina Crosley-Corcoran in Federal Court in Massachusetts that includes claims that Gina unlawfully sent false notices (called “takedown notices”) under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and for tortious interference with my contracts with webhosts.

I did not make this decision lightly. A lawsuit is a serious matter, is extremely expensive, and no one can predict what will ultimately happen over the months or even years that a lawsuit can require. I regretfully came to the decision that it was necessary for several reasons: Gina’s various declarations that made clear to me that her real intentions had nothing to do with some supposed copyright and everything to do with “taking down” my site and interfering with my right to free speech, Gina’s recruitment of others to send what would almost certainly be frivolous DMCA notices alleging copyright violation, and the apparent hounding of my webhosts by Gina and/or her followers.

The statute that Gina relied on in sending her takedown notices (the DMCA) recognizes that it is easy to file frivolous notices. For that reason, the statute includes the following language:

Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section —

(1) that material or activity is infringing …

shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer … who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing …

In practice, courts have awarded as much as $100,000 plus attorney’s fees for filing misrepresentations under the DMCA act.

The thrust of my legal complaint is this:

As a threshold matter, there is no infringement because Dr. Amy only posted the Finger Photograph after Defendant Crosley-Corcoran publicly and expressly granted Dr. Amy permission to do the same…

On information and belief, Defendant Crosley-Corcoran had actual subjective knowledge of The Skeptical OB’s treatment of the Finger Photograph and that it did not infringe any copyrights on the dates Defendant Crosley-Corcoran sent Bluehost.com and DaringHost the takedown notices regarding the Finger Photograph. With this knowledge, Defendant Crosley-Corcoran acted in bad faith when she sent the takedown notices, knowingly and materially misrepresenting that she had concluded that The Skeptical OB was infringing. In this regard, Defendant Crosley-Corcoran’s public expressions of support on Facebook and elsewhere for The Skeptical OB’s recent service disruptions reveal her lack of bona fides as well as her true intentions with respect to The Skeptical OB.

I have sued only Gina. I have absolutely no desire to sue anyone else who may have submitted a frivolous DMCA complaint or has given Gina authority to file one on her behalf. However, I will avail myself of any remedies the law accords me, should I deem it necessary.

It is highly likely that I will have to move my site to yet another host. As I have said before, The Skeptical OB will be here next week, next month and next year. Nevertheless, having to move hosts again — thanks to Gina’s malicious attacks — is a burden neither I, nor my readers, should have to undergo.

Make no mistake, however, there has never been any chance that The Skeptical OB would disappear. There may continue to be service disruptions until the matter is sorted out, but my writing will continue to appear in the marketplace of ideas that is the Web. Homebirth increases the risk of neonatal death, and apparently there is no limit to what homebirth advocates will do in an effort to suppress that vital truth, in the process denying women the opportunity to make medical decisions after informing themselves of ALL the risks.

I am deeply grateful for the expressions of support, both public and private, that I have been receiving. I am truly moved and encouraged by your words.

Imagine you are standing in a group at a cocktail party discussing the latest thriller from Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code.

One of your companions remarks:

“I loved The Da Vinci Code, but I was so disappointed by Brown’s most recent book The Lost Symbol. The writing was poor, the story was unbelievable even by the standards of blockbuster thrillers, and I found myself not caring about the outcome.”

And you reply:

“But it is an intelligent, lightning-paced story with surprises at every turn–Brown’s most exciting novel yet.”

Several people express surprise, and one ventures to ask if you read the same book he did. You reply, truthfully, that you never read the book at all. You know that it is lightning-paced, that there are surprises at every turn and that it is Brown’s most exciting novel yet because that’s what it says on the back of the book jacket.

Everyone laughs because you’d have to be a fool to think that reading the blurbs on the book jacket is equivalent to reading a book. The blurbs are written by the author and the publisher in an attempt to get people to buy the book; they represent the hope of how people will feel after reading the book, not the reality of how people really do feel after they’ve read the book.

The same principle applies to scientific papers. There is no substitute or shortcut for reading the paper itself. The abstract may or may not be an accurate assessment of what the data in the paper actual shows. The abstract is the equivalent of a blurb. It is written by the authors themselves and represents the hope of what other scientists will think once they’ve read the paper, NOT the reality of what scientists really think about the quality of the paper, the reliability of the evidence and whether the evidence supports the conclusions.

That’s why natural childbirth and homebirth advocates need to understand they aren’t accomplishing anything by quoting an abstract of a paper as “proof” of a claim, beyond marking themselves as ignorant of the way that science works.

Homebirth advocates regularly parachute in to the blog to “inform” me of the findings of Johnson and Daviss’ 2005 paper in the British Medical Journal purporting to show that homebirth with a CPM (certified professional midwife, a non-nurse midwife) is safe are making the same impression of the guy at the cocktail party who declares that he knows Dan Brown’s newest book is terrific because that’s what it says on the back.

There’s a reason why scientific journals publish entire papers, not just abstracts and that reason goes to the heart of what a scientific paper is. The publication of a scientific paper is not the end of the discussion; it is merely the beginning. Just because a paper is published in a peer reviewed scientific journal does NOT mean that the paper is true. It merely means that the authors’ data and conclusions are worthy of being included in the discussion. The entire paper is presented for the specific purpose of allowing the readers who have appropriate background and knowledge of statistics to decide for themselves whether the authors’ claims are true.

Consider the Johnson and Daviss paper. The abstract claims that the authors’ demonstrated that homebirth with a CPM in 2000 was as safe as hospital birth. To do that, though, the authors would need to compare the death rate at homebirth in 2000 with the death rate for low risk hospital birth in 2000. When you read the actual paper, you find that the authors did nothing of the kind. They compared homebirth with a CPM in 2000 to a bunch of out of date papers about hospital birth extending back to 1969. So not only did the authors fail to supply data that proved their claim, the only way they could make homebirth death rates look acceptable was to compare them with hospital death rates from decades before when the overall death rate was much higher.

I know that most lay people do not understand that quoting the abstract of a paper you have not read is the equivalent of quoting the blurbs on a book jacket to support your claim that the book is excellent. Professional homebirth advocates play off that lack of understanding to fool women into believing that abstracts show that homebirth is safe. In other words, they trade on their target audience’s gullibility and lack of knowledge of science and statistics to persuade them that “studies show” that homebirth is safe and that obstetricians do not practice “evidence based medicine.”

That’s why I offer this simple rule:

Quoting a scientific abstract of a paper you have not read is not proof of anything other than the fact that you don’t understand science. If you wish to be taken seriously in any debate about homebirth, you MUST read, understand and analyze the paper itself. Anything else is the equivalent of claiming that a book is great because that’s what it says on the cover.

Recently Time Magazine asked Is the Medical Community Failing Breastfeeding Moms? In the piece an obstetrician mused on the difference between the way we treat breastfeeding issues (“well-meaning lactation consultants urge them to try harder”) and erectile dysfunction, which got me thinking …

Mr. Jones, so nice to meet you.

Allow me to introduce myself, Ima Frawde, IBCEC. What are the letters for? International Board Certified Ejaculation Consultant, of course. I support men who have ejaculation dysfunction at the low introductory price of $200 per hour. I’m here to help you with your erectile dysfunction.

Examine you? No, I’m not going to examine you. I know what’s wrong without examining you; I learned during my training that so called “erectile dysfunction” is always caused by the man who claims he is suffering from it. Different ejaculation consultants may have different opinions about a variety of issues, but on one thing we are all agreed: there is no such thing as “not enough” erectile function.

Just think about it. If erectile dysfunction were real, the population of the world would have died out long ago and we wouldn’t be here. We’re here, so that proves my point!

What is causing your problem? Well, there are a number of possibilities.

1. You are not trying hard enough.

Some men simply don’t care about giving their wives the best sexual experience possible. Let’s face it, sexual intercourse can be a challenge and most husbands are just too lazy to meet the demands of regular activity. When the going gets tough, they give up and give in, opting for vibrators and other sex toys. Sure their wives may seem satisfied with vibrators, but over time those same wives will experience a decrease in IQ. If you really cared about your wife, Mr. Jones, you’d try harder. Lololol, get it? Try harder?

2. You are deformed, but that’s not an excuse.

Sigh, you have a circumcised penis, and we all know who’s to blame for that. Your ignorant parents never realized that circumcision causes erectile dysfunction. Sure you might not have noticed it for the first 65-70 years of life and it might not have started until after you had your first heart attack and began insulin for diabetes, but it is just as much the cause as if you were circumcised yesterday. Too bad for you.

3. Decreased blood flow? Don’t be silly.

You might have heard that erectile dysfunction can be caused by diseases that decrease blood flow to all organs, not just the penis, but it’s not true. That’s just a lie made up by Big Pharma in an effort to sell Viagra. There is no such thing as “not enough blood flow”! Your body is perfectly designed to have an erection and if you only gave it enough time, everything would be fine.

4. So what if your wife is crying because you can’t have intercourse; she’ll just have to wait.

Erectile dysfunction is a matter of supply and demand. If you don’t try to have sex often enough, you’ll never have enough blood flow. You have to keep trying to have sex over and over and over again each day and eventually there will be enough blood flow for erections on demand.

5. You’re doing it wrong.

Positioning is very, very important to prevent erectile dysfunction. If you held your wife the right way, she’d be able to “latch on” to your penis properly and you would then get an erection. So basically this is all your fault.

Oops, time’s up. You can pay with a check, although cash under the table is always appreciated. I’ll be back later in the week for another session. Just remember what I told you: you are not trying hard enough; you are deformed; there is no such thing as decreased blood flow; your wife is just going to have to deal with her disappointment; and, don’t forget, you are doing it wrong.

What? Of course it is your fault! Stop whining that there’s something wrong just so you have an excuse to stop having intercourse. We all know that is what is really going on.

You feel worse now?

No need to thank me; I’m just doing my job as an IBCEC, International Board Certified Ejaculation Consultant.

This piece is satire.

From “the can’t-take-the-heat dept“:

Radio personality Rush Limbaugh apparently has decided he can’t handle criticism well, so he’s abusing the DMCA to take down a video critical of him. The video does use Limbaugh video, but it seems like a pretty clear case of fair use. And, if we go by the standard established in the Lenz v. Universal case, those issuing a takedown are supposed to first consider fair use. If Limbaugh failed to do so, he could run into trouble.

But, more to the point: WTF? Why do people keep abusing the DMCA solely to silence free speech that criticizes them, at the same time they claim to be supporters of the First Amendment…

Long-time readers of this blog know that I have one abiding commitment: to tell the truth about and expose the lies of self-proclaimed homebirth “midwives”, and to protect babies who don’t have to die. In carrying out that commitment, I will not be silenced by the fanatics and crazies who claim they’re going to “shut me down”; as you can all see, I’m still here.

The latest in the long line of fanatics and crazies is Gina Crosly-Corcoran, the self-styled “Feminist Breeder.” She’s been crowing on her site about how she’s going to shut down me and The Skeptical OB, and she’s even raising money for a “legal defense fund” to do it. Let me just say this: If you come back to this blog a month, or 6 months, or a year from now, I’ll still be here. And to you who are giving Gina money, a suggestion: I’d consider whether it is being wisely spent.

In the course of all of this, you may at times see a picture or an entry removed from one blog post or another — temporarily. The law (somewhat foolishly) allows people to complain to web hosts (without offering any evidence), and web hosts then have to (temporarily) take items down. But I believe in the “long game.” And in that game, you won’t see my blog changing its ways at all.

One final note: You’ll never see me trying to “shut down” the fanatics and crazies on the other side. I believe – as they clearly don’t — in free speech and transparency. Unlike the fanatics and crazies, I will rarely delete a negative comment unless it is abusive to other commentors. I will let my words – and theirs – compete in the marketplace of ideas. But that’s because I’m not afraid of what they have to say — while they are clearly afraid of me.

So keep watching this page. I’ll be happy to give anyone odds that I’ll still be blogging the next time you look.

In 2003 the US standard birth certificate form was revised to include place of birth and attendant at birth. That makes it possible to compare neonatal death rates at home vs. in the hospital. The latest set of statistics (2008) have been released by the CDC and can be found on the CDC Wonder website. The statistics from the latest year show what the statistics have shown every year: homebirth with a non-nurse midwife increases the risk of neonatal death.

The beauty of the CDC Wonder database is that you can set the parameters to find specific information and control for various risk factors. Therefore, it is possible to look specifically at white women (almost all homebirths are to white women) ages 20-44, singleton pregnancies, at term (37+ weeks), not suffering from intrauterine growth restriction (2500+ gm). Moreover, because the data are based on who signed the birth certificate, we know that all out of hospital births with a non-nurse midwife were PLANNED births.

This year’s data is shown below:

The table shows that the neonatal mortality rate for PLANNED homebirth attended by a non-nurse midwifes (CPM, LM) is 3.5 time higher than comparable risk hospital birth attended by a CNM (certified nurse midwife). In fact, the rate of homebirth death is more than double that of MDs and their statistics include all high risk births.

Keep in mind that these statistics dramatically undercount the real rate of homebirth death. Why?

1. All homebirth transfers are included in the MD numbers. That means that any deaths that occurred after the mother was transferred to the hospital are in the MD group and not in the homebirth group where they belong. This is important because we know that many homebirth deaths occur because even being “10 minutes from the hospital” is not close enough to save a baby in a life threatening emergency.

2. Intrapartum deaths are not included in these statistics at all, because those babies don’t get birth certificates. All those homebirths where dead babies drop into the hands of unsuspecting homebirth midwives (“the heart rate was just fine a minute ago”) are not noted here.

So the real rate of homebirth death could be double or more the death rate of these CDC statistics.

The dramatic increase in homebirth death rates has been remarkably consistent over the years.

The consistency over a 6 year period demonstrates beyond doubt that homebirth increases the risk of neonatal death.

No wonder the Midwives Alliance of North American (MANA) continues to hide their death rates. How many of the 27,000 babies in their database of outcomes from 2001-2008 died at the hands of homebirth midwives? They won’t say, but the rate is probably comparable to, or likely even higher than the CDC data.

Homebirth with an American homebirth midwife kills babies. There is simply no question about it. Even the Midwives Alliance of North America knows that this is true. It’s time that American homebirth advocates stopped lying about the safety of homebirth and start doing something to reduce the number of preventable neonatal deaths.

A quacktivist is a person who proselytizes demonstrably false medical claims with cult-like intensity. The anti-vax folks are quacktivists by definition. Jenny McCarthy is a quacktivist and so is Joe Mercola. Andrew Wakefield is a quacktivist extraordinaire.

Natural childbirth is promoted by its own band of quactivist. There are entire organizations devoted to natural childbirth quactivism like Lamaze and ICAN (the International Cesarean Awareness Network).

How do you recognize quacktivists?

Here are a few helpful hints:

1. The natural habitat of a quacktivist is her own blog.

2. Quacktivists almost never stray outside their natural habitat because they are defenseless in the presence of scientific evidence. They never go to mainstream conferences and they certainly don’t attend scientific meetings because quacktivism is threatened by science

3. Quacktivists invite visitors to their natural habitats, but protect themselves from potentially devastating facts by deleting and banning any commentors who dare to question the quacktivist cult.

4. Quacktivists are relentless self promoters. Live blogging your own homebirth is a classic quacktivist move.

5. Ignorance is the main nutrition source for quacktivists. They generally lack even the most basic information on science, statistics, immunology or obstetrics.

6. Quacktivists love “bibliography salad.” That’s a mishmash of scientific citations (often copied from a website or book) that the quacktivist has never read, couldn’t understand if she did read it, and doesn’t say what she thinks it says.

7. Quacktivists have a highly evolved defense mechanism. They are evidence-resistant. Show quacktivists that vaccines have dramatically reduced death and disease and they dismiss it out of hand. Explain and demonstrate that death is a natural part of childbirth and natural childbirth quacktivists question your sources. Point out that their arguments are riddled with logical fallacies and quacktivists have no idea what you are talking about.

8. Quacktivists proselytize. Professional quacktivists proselytize because that’s how they make money. They sell books, sell advertising on their websites, solicit free products in exchange for favorable reviews, and sell bogus “remedies.”

9. Natural childbirth quacktivists are very needy. They hold “conferences” and “work shops” that are nothing more than echo chambers because they need to have their beliefs reinforced by others and cannot tolerate questioning or disagreement.

10. Natural childbirth quacktivists have a further defining feature. They spend an inordinate amount of time accusing those who don’t agree with them of being mean. That’s not surprisingly, really, when you consider that self-glorification is an intrinsic part of quacktivism of all kinds. Quacktivists believe they are in possession of special knowledge that is being hidden by grand conspiracies involving virtually everyone else on the planet.

How do the rest of us protect ourselves against quacktivists?

The best defense is knowledge, the real kind that is a product of college and graduate education, not the pseudo-knowledge found on websites and beloved of every quacktivist. Keep an eye open for the defining signs of quacktivism. Does the “expert” refuse to leave her website except to go to “conferences” of like minded believers? Does she delete comments because they challenge her claims? Does she offer “bibliography salad” to support her claims? Does she insist that anyone who disagrees with her is attacking her? If the answer to these question is “yes,” you know you are dealing with a quacktivist.

Adapted from a piece that first appeared in April 2011.

I realize that homebirth advocates tend to lack basic knowledge of science, statistics and human physiology. I also realize that they are gullible and easily manipulated by others into believing they are “achieving” something by having a homebirth. That’s why they are so eager to acceept complete and utter falsehoods about childbirth. Nonetheless, there are some falsehood that are so obviously idiotic that I have trouble understanding how anyone could believe them.

Case in point, one of the beloved tropes of the homebirth and natural childbirth movements:

Pregnancy is not a disease.

Evidently this is supposed to invoke the following bit of logic:

Doctors treat disease; therefore, doctors are unnecessary in pregnancy.

There’s just one teensy, weensy problem. Doctors don’t treat “disease” per se; they treat all the human conditions that can result in death, disability, pain and loss of function. Some of those things are diseases, but many are not.

Doctors treat gunshot wounds and they are not diseases, but they can easily result in the death of the wounded person.
Doctors treat car accidents and they are not disease, but they can easily result in the death of the affected individual.
Doctors treat broken bones, and broken bones are not typically caused by disease.
Doctors treat allergic reactions, and they are not diseases.
Doctors will treat you if you are poked in the eye in an effort to save your sight, but getting poked in the eye is not a disease.
Doctors will treat you if you have severe menstrual cramps, but menstrual cramps are not a disease.
Doctors will treat you if you want to control your fertility, but fertility is not a disease.
Doctors will treat you if you want to interrupt and end a pregnancy, but pregnancy is not a disease.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea. It is a matter of common knowledge that we turn to doctors for help, sometimes lifesaving help, with many things that are not diseases. Therefore, the fact that pregnancy is not a disease in no way obviates the need for doctors to be involved with it.

What do pregnancy and childbirth have in common with the list of non-diseases treated by doctors.

1. Pregnancy and childbirth routinely kill babies and mothers. Indeed, in every time place and culture, pregnancy and childbirth are a leading cause of death of young women.
2. Childbirth routinely leads to injuries of both babies and mothers. A baby suffocating to death from shoulder dystocia does not have a disease, but it is worthy of treatment.
3. Fecal incontinence from a 3rd degree perineal tear is not a disease, but doctors know how to prevent and treat it.
4. Postdates pregnancy is not a disease, but it does kill babies.
5. Postpartum hemorrhage is not a disease, but it kills many women each year, even in first world countries.
6. Neonatal hypoxia (lack of oxygen to the baby) in labor is not a disease, but it permanently injures and kills babies.
7. Labor pain is not a disease, indeed pain itself is not a disease, just the body’s response to a variety of different stimuli, but that does not mean it isn’t worthy of treatment by doctors.

Again, I could go on and on, but I’m sure you get the idea by now. Claiming that pregnancy is not a disease and therefore should be allowed to proceed unhindered is like claiming that tripping and breaking your femur is not a disease and should be allowed to heal unhindered. In other words, it is pure nonsense.

So the next time someone advocates for natural childbirth or homebirth because “pregnancy is not a disease,” feel free to respond:

“Gunshot wounds aren’t a disease either. What’s your point?”

Bitter grief is often an unselfish motivator.

Consider organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, started by parents who suffered the ultimate loss, to ensure that other parents would not have to endure the death of a child. Consider the various laws named after children who were abducted and murdered, championed by parents who wanted to make sure that no other family’s life would be shattered by crushing grief. Consider websites like Love, Light, Laughter and Chocolate – One Mom’s Journey where a mother shares her excruciating grief at the loss of her beautiful daughter Meghan in an effort to prevent other children from dying by pulling down heavy furniture on themselves.

Where is the organization to ensure that no other mother has to endure the preventable death of a child at homebirth?

There is no such organization.

Why? Because the mothers who have lost a child to a preventable homebirth death often collude in protecting the very individuals who have contributed to or caused that death.

It’s quite remarkable when you think about it. It’s not because of guilt over the deaths, since many campaigns are started by women like Meghan’s mother who feels terribly guilty that she did not bolt the heavy furniture to the wall. Yet she is willing to admit to and confront that guilt in an effort to save your child.

What’s even more remarkable is that not only do most homebirth loss mothers fail to make any attempt to prevent future infant deaths at homebirth, they work hard to prevent any homebirth midwife from being held responsible for the actions that led to the death. They refuse to participate in prosecution or disciplining of the individual midwife involved; they refuse to testify against their midwife; they actively oppose any attempt to restrict homebirth midwives’ scope of practice; and they promote increased licensing and reimbursement for obviously incompetent practitioners.

Why the big difference? I suspect that its because homebirth is an integral part of the self-image of homebirth mothers. Meghan’s mother Kim is wracked with guilt that she did not bolt the heavy dresser to the wall, but she recognizes that if she had realized the danger, she would have done; now she wants other mothers to recognize the danger before a tragedy occurs. In contrast, homebirth mothers have been told repeatedly by relatives, friends and medical professionals that homebirth poses a real danger of death to their baby, and they have denied, or even embraced that danger in an effort to bolster their self image within a community of like minded believers. To admit that homebirth led to the preventable death of the baby is to admit that they weren’t educated at all; that rather than being special for choosing homebirth, they’ve marked themselves as gullible and selfish.

Homebirth mothers are different from other mothers in another important way. Homebirth is about them, their needs, their desires, their self-image. The baby is nothing more than a prop in a piece of performance art. Given the choice between protecting the star or the prop, homebirth loss mothers usually choose to protect themselves.

Why can’t they hold homebirth midwives accountable? Homebirth midwives lack the education and training to provide actual medical care; indeed many boast that they fully intend to do nothing at the birth. Their primary function, then, is praising the mother for her outstanding performance. Holding the midwife accountable will inevitably turn a source of support into a source hostility and many homebirth mothers are so desperate for praise that they crave it even from the women who let their babies die.

Think about just how aberrant and abhorrent that it. Can you imagine the mother of a child who died because someone drove drunk praising the decision to drive while intoxicated and refusing to testify against the perpetrator? Can you imagine the mother of a child who died at the hands of a sexual predator advocating for the freedom of sexual predators to follow their urges? Can you imagine the mother of a child who died after pulling down a heavy piece of furniture on herself announcing that “death is a part of life” and “some children are just meant to die”?

No, I can’t, either. Yet time and time again I have read and written about homebirth loss mothers praising deadly midwives, praising the “experience” of a vaginal birth of a dead child, refusing to cooperate in disciplining the midwife responsible, advocating for more “freedom” for homebirth midwives, and, most grotesque of all, choosing to risk their next child’s life by having a homebirth.

Who cares about the babies who die at homebirth?

No one, apparently. Certainly not the mothers who insist that they “would do it all again even knowing the outcome.” Certainly not the mother’s friends who brazenly insist that no one should publicize even public stories of homebirth death in order to “protect” the mother. Certainly not the midwives who make no attempt to learn from their mistakes. Certainly not the homebirth midwifery establishment, which is actively engaged in a campaign to hide homebirth deaths by refusing to release their own statistics.

I am fortunate to know a few brave women who are working privately to prevent any mother from experiencing the devastation of the homebirth loss that they experienced. They are working without benefit of lobbyists, support groups or donors. They are working, despite the pain, to make sure that other mothers never experience that same pain.

There is one other person who cares about the babies who die at homebirth: me. That’s the primary reason why I started the predecessor of this blog nearly 7 years ago, and why I maintain it to this day. I fervently believe that most babies who die at homebirth did not have to die. I fervently believe that American homebirth midwives shouldn’t be taking care of houseplants, let alone mothers and babies. I fervently believe that homebirth advocates dupe women into risking their own babies’ lives because they are desperate for validation. I also fervently (and probably naively) believe that when the American public becomes aware of the death toll that homebirth midwifery organizations are strenuously trying to hide, there will be consequences.

I would not describe myself as selfless since the fact is that I cannot stop myself from doing this. I am angry that women opt to risk their babies’ lives by choosing incompetent American homebirth midwives; I’m angry that American legislators have been duped into licensing these woefully undereducated and undertrained self-proclaimed “midwives” believing that they are no different from midwives in the rest of the world; I am angry that homebirth celebrities and industry leaders, many of whom are just as aware of the appalling death toll of homebirth as I am, are deliberately hiding their own data.

It is my concern for these babies and my anger toward those who cause and promote their preventable deaths that motivate me. That’s why people who like to write me profanity laced emails, post profanity laced comments, and generally deride me are simply wasting their time. I really don’t care what you think of me, because it’s hard for me to respect the assessments of those who are more interested in a mother’s self-image than a baby’s life.

I care about babies who die at homebirth, and the regular readers of this blog do, too. Now if we could only get everyone else to care, perhaps we could put an end to needless, preventable infant deaths.

Over the years I’ve written many damning things about homebirth midwives, but nothing as damning as what they write about themselves. My central contention about American homebirth midwives (CPMs) is that they are under educated, undertrained hobbyists who care more about their experience than whether the baby and mother are injured or die. Along comes Birth Junkie to corroborate my claims.

On her Tumblr blog, she actually writes, with apparently no insight at all:

I’ll be honest, I’m not really into the baby… It is the process, the journey and watching a mom did [sic] deep into the depths of her soul that touches my tears …

She’s not really into the baby. Duh! That’s practically part of the definition of a homebirth midwife, a woman who attends births for the experience … her own experience that is. The baby, as in most homebirths, is just a bit player.

Of course we already knew that when she labeled herself Birth Junkie.

What is a birth junkie and why is she obsessed with other women’s births?

Many if not most homebirth midwives, doulas and, sanctimommies are quick to tell everyone that they are “birth junkies.” They consider it a boast, but in reality, it is evidence of serious shortcomings…

Being obsessed with birth, one’s own births and the births of others, is pathological. And being a birth junkie has nothing to do with birth, with babies and certainly has nothing to do with helping other mothers. The women who are birth junkies suffer from a crippling lack of self-esteem. Their only “achievement” is the faux achievement of having an unmedicated, and preferably an outlandish, birth…

Homebirth midwives are just birth junkies who took it a step further…

Most have no interest in a real midwifery program because being a birth junkie is not about birth and has nothing to do with preventing and managing complications. It’s all about them and their constant need for validation…

Birth Junkie elaborates:

I’m a Home Birth Midwife who loves the journey. Sometimes, I love the journey a wee bit more than the destination, even when it brings me to my whits ends and onto my knees. And when I hit a destination where the light shines in just the right way… and the clouds part in that perfect place… Its the same feeling I get when a baby is being born – a feeling of balance. the ‘both and’. all the parts becoming whole – Its like great art. I get this strong feeling inside that there is undeniably something bigger than me creating… and then ahhhh… my heart opens up, my tears are touched and I settle. I settle warm and safe into my body, with a huge shit eating grin on my face.

I, I, me, me. Nothing about babies or mothers because they are like needles and tourniquets to a real junkie: nothing more than props required to deliver the fix.

Birth Junkie helpfully counsels others:

You don’t need ANY of my degrees to become a home birth midwife. If you are in America, you can become a Certified Professional Midwife (CPM) the way I did it and learn everything you need to know in your hands on training…

In other words, you don’t need to know ANYTHING to become a homebirth midwife.

In addition to self-absorption and ignorance, it helps to fetishize the placenta by eating it, making art from it and encapsulating it. Don’t miss Birth Junkie’s post about placenta prints to view this inanity in all its glory.

Birth Junkie’s entire website is an exposition of birth porn. The better part of the last two centuries have been spent attempting to convince men that women are more than two breasts and a vagina, but Birth Junkie’s blog is decorated with pictures that reduce women to nothing more than breasts, vagina and a pregnant abdomen. Interestingly, there are precious few picture of babies, but I suppose that’s because she’s not really into the baby; she’s into her “journey.”

To anyone thinking about a homebirth, ask yourself this:

Are you into the baby?

If so, why would you hire an undereducated, undertrained, self-proclaimed “midwife” who wants to attend your birth to get her fix, not to make sure that you and your baby are safe?

Homebirth midwives are clowns, not health care professionals. Health care professionals have an ethical obligation to put your welfare and the welfare of your baby ahead of their personal needs.

I understand that a homebirth midwife bolsters many women’s fragile self-esteem by praising her as strong and “educated,” but is anyone’s self esteem so fragile that it is worth risking her baby’s life to get meaningless “you go, mamas” from a stranger who thinks your baby’s birth is all about her?

I propose a new motto for homebirth midwives:

All I really need to know to be a homebirth midwife I learned before kindergarten.

By the end of kindergarten, most children recognized that their thoughts do not have the power to affect events. Homebirth midwives never learn this. They actually believe that “affirmations” can affect outcomes.

By the end of kindergarten, most children recognize that there is a very great deal that they do not know, but need to learn. Homebirth midwives never learn this.

By the end of kindergarten, most children learn that defying authority is not worthy of praise in and of itself. Homebirth midwives never learn this.

By the end of kindergarten, most children recognize that when you are caught red handed with the disaster that you created, shouting “It’s not my fault” doesn’t get you off the hook. Homebirth midwives never learn this.

By the end of kindergarten, most children realize that there are far more important things in life than getting the “experience” you desire. Homebirth midwives never learn this.

By the end of kindergarten, most children expect that there are consequences for hurting others, whether or not you “didn’t mean it.” Homebirth midwives never learn this and actually insist that they are being “persecuted” when held to the same standards as everyone else..