Many of you know that we have chosen to give birth to our baby at home. We had Daniel at home as well, and we loved it so much, we wanted to do it again. This being said, having a child anywhere takes alot of thought, prayer, and can change as need dictates. So our current plan is to have our new baby at home, but should either Scott or I begin to feel bad about the decision, we will reevaluate.
Home birth is on the rise. One of the biggest reasons is probably cost. A normal, healthy child born in the hospital will probably cost around $6,000. If you don't have insurance, or if you don't qualify for Medicare, this is a little costly. Compare that to the $1,800 that it will cost Scott and I to have a normal, healthy child at home is quite drastic. This alone is probably one of the major factors. When Scott and I went looking for insurance that would cover child birth, it was extremely expensive, even through his work. The insurance company wanted us paying the insurance for over two years before they would cover any Maternity Charges. I thought this was ridiculous. Since we would have to cover the charges ourselves ANWAY before they would pay out, and we would still be paying an insane amount of insurance, we decided to save the difference. See, our insurance will pay for emergency situations. IF we had complications with our pregnancy, they would cover everything except the actual birth.
Another reason I think Home Birth is on the rise is simply because birth is a natural process. It happens anyway. Having been trained for an emergency situation, when it comes to birth we are told to only interfere if there is obvious stuff wrong, like the cord wrapped around the neck. In a major disaster, the first people turned away from hospitals are women in labor, because they can do it themselves.
I know that there are reasons to have your baby in the hospital, and I want the hospital there and available in case I need it. I just want to be able to go into the hospital knowing it is where I need to be, instead of being forced there.
In a few days, a bill that has already passed the Utah State Senate will be appearing before the House of Representatives for a vote. This bill limits the women who can choose to have a home birth to nearly nothing. If it passes, it means that I will not be able to have this child at home. I do not think it is the government's responsibility to legislate who can and cannot have a home birth. Every midwife in practice knows what women are high risks, and they reccomend them to a doctor. It is hard enough to help a woman, but no one wants to willingly walk into an emergency situation if they can head it off.
The bill is SB93S1, and I am personally writing my representative today, and asking that he vote no. I am also explaining why. I want the choice for myself.
6 years ago
4 comments:
The text of the bill is at http://le.utah.gov/~2008/bills/sbillint/sb0093s01.htm
And the bill doesn't sound too unreasonable. I would get rid of one or two parts but even if it passed I don't think it would be such a terrible thing.
Utah is very careful about providing for pregnant women. If you are going to have a child, you are pretty much set, and they cover every thing for you and your baby, even if you have too high of an income to qualify normally. (Trist me.)
This bill seems to be just about ensuring that crazies have to go to the hospital if there is risk to the mother or child, if they are so... uh...adamant about not going.
Most people would go to the hospital at the points recommened anyways.
And if you believe that we should pass a law to protect unborn children from abortion, I think that it's a little hypocritical to be against a bill that protects them during the birth process.
Love.
There are several things to understand in this bill. If this bill passes, my mother couldn't have delivered any of us at home because she would have been considered "risky."
Another is that it changes the board of midwives, from 3 licensed midwives to 2 doctors and 1 midwife. This changes the focus of what Direct Entry Midwifery is supposed to be.
After reading the "risky" factors that would require a midwife not to see her patient, it takes away about 96% of a midwife's clientele. You couldn't have twins at home, which has been done successfully many many times, you couldn't have a home birth after a c-section (my mother had 3 births after a c-section.)
Most of the time, a midwife ALREADY transfers care. No midwife wants a dead baby or a dead mother on her watch. To take away the midwife's ability to make informed judgement calls is absolutely ridiculous.
This doesn't really protect those having a home birth, what it does is open the doors so that the AMA can dictate on what condition a Midwife can practice. If it passes, it won't be very long until all home birth is outlawed and illegal.
Actually Chani, I'd have to side with you. The less Government involvement the better. If the system is already reasonable there would be no real need for a change. Why break something with a law that doesn't need fixing? Passing needles laws just to get something "done" is worse than if they did nothing. Later the government has to "do more" for a failing system *cough* which was made to fail by them anyway *cough cough* That usualy means more restrictions that make it worse and slowly our personal freedoms erode.
Now I do belive in some regulator laws that are needed for human decency, but stupid nit-picky things like this are just ....uuuuhhhgggg.
This is so your choice and I can't believe that the state is trying to change that. You have the right to an abortion but not the right to have your child born at home! AHHHH! If I did HAVE to HAVE my EPEDERAL I would have my babies at home too. STAY STONG GIRL!
Post a Comment