Colorado Direct Entry Midwifery Registration:
For an overview of recent laws and statutes:
Go Here
Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA):
Mission Statement: “Public protection through effective licensure and enforcement”
Go Here
The Colorado Midwives Association:
Go Here
Colorado revised statues for Midwives effective 2004
Go Here
Interesting rules in Colorado regarding Midwifery care
Go Here
Minimum practice requirements regarding antepartum care:
F. Must refer care if twins or Breech.
G. 1-19 – These “risk out” factors would have made it impossible for me to have a home birth with a midwife several times over…most notably G.14 – gestation more than 42 weeks and G.15 rupture of membranes without labor more than 12 hours.
During my fifth pregnancy I carefully tracked the weeks of gestation, and was dismayed but not surprised when I went over the 42 weeks marker. I knew then that if I had hired a lay midwife for prenatal and birth care during that pregnancy that once 42 weeks gestation had been reached, the midwife would have been forced by law to refer care to a medical professional.
During my third pregnancy, it was this very issue of postmaturity that caused me to say to my husband that never again would I submit to prenatal care and a hospital birth. We had thought that our son was 42 weeks and went through the final days of his pregnancy trying every natural induction method under the sun only to learn upon his birth that he had gestated to 37 and a half weeks, and was in fact a month early, and not two weeks late.
During my fourth pregnancy I did my own prenatal care and ended up with a whopper 45 weeks gestation before I went into labor with Andrew.
When I began the 42nd week of my fifth birth with my water breaking at my exercise class, Paul and I entered unchartered territory in terms of not having any of my previous labors begin this way. During my first pregnancy the doctor broke my water just before pushing, my second was a c-section, my third the water broke spontaneously on the second to last push, and with my fourth, he was born in the sac without the water breaking at all.
When I continued to gush fluid for the next 72 hours without going into labor, this was the “trial of my faith” during Ben’s pregnancy. I was never tempted to go to the hospital for care however, because I knew that a few hours after arriving I would be sectioned for “failure to progress“.
It was interesting because during those three days, I could feel various changes happening in my body. My breasts became heavier with the hormonal changes that were happening, anticipating the baby being born and wanting to eat. I slept alot, and continued to eat large meals. I also had some emotional highs and lows as the hormones of labor aligned and fluctuated.
When I finally did go into labor exactly three days after my water broke and three days AFTER a midwife would have been forced to refer me to a doctor, I ended up with a six hour labor, and pushed my nine and a half pound son into his father’s hands on October 25th, 2002 just about on the stroke of midnight. Benjamins head was 15 and 1/4 inches and we enjoyed a lotus birth, safely, quietly, in the sanctity of our own home.
Please take the time to learn for yourself the laws and regulations regulating lay midwifery in your state. I will never advocate any family breaking the law. And I don’t believe I was breaking the law as I am not a midwife, nor is my husband. However, should anything have gone wrong with the birth, lay midwifery birth laws may have been used in court against our family. I don’t know this to be true, but as no Colorado laws regulating unassisted childbirth are in play yet, this could have been the case.
But I do anticipate laws attempting to regulate Unassisted Birth being passed in the future, and it is important to realize that this may severly impinge on our abilities as mothers to do what is natural and normal for our bodies and our babies.
Jenny Hatch
Read the Introduction to this Blog

Here is a great article with lots of links to share the definition of evidenced based care. Pregnant women should expect nothing less than evidenced based maternity care…
Go Here
Jenny Hatch

The most recent birth statistics for America are from the year 2002. I believe if one is going to take the personal responsibility to forego prenatal care, and build a healthy child using scientific nutritional principles, it is helpful to have an idea of where we are at as a country in terms of birth stats.
Here is a link to the CDC’s most recent stats. Go Here
I find it interesting that while the CDC raves about the fact that prenatal care has gone up, that even with increased prenatal care, the C-section rate, pre maturity rates, and low birthweight have also in fact increased.
Is there a connection to women using Allopathic care and then having an increase in these medical conditions which have been so harmful to the lasting health of children? Go Here for more detailed information about the birth statistics.
Quick overview of Stats:
2002 C-Section rate: 26.1% (rate has risen 26% since 1996)
VBAC rate: 12.6% (Plummeted 23% from the previous year)
Late or no prenatal care: 3.6% (Lowest ever)
Induction of Labor: 20.6% (more than double the 1989 level of 9%)
Preterm (under 37 weeks gestation) Birth: 12.1% (rate risen 14% since 1990)
Postterm (over 42 weeks gestation) Birth: 6.7% (rate has tumbled 41% since 1990 from 11.3%)
Low Birth weight (less than 2,500 grams): 7.8% the highest rate reported in three decades
Day of the week of birth: Tuesday 2/3 more than on Sunday (The overall index of occurance on saturday and sunday has declined 12 and 20 percent respectively, since 1982)
Eclampsia rate: 3.2%
Press Release for 2002 statistics:
Go Here
Preliminary Data for 2003: Go Here
Quote from 2003 preliminary report:
“The cesarean delivery rate rose for the seventh straight year. Preliminary 2003 data show that 27.6 percent of all births were cesarean deliveries, a marked 6-percent increase from 2002.
The percent of babies born preterm (less than 37 weeks of gestation) rose from 12.1 in 2002 to 12.3 in 2003, continuing its steady increase since the mid-1990s.
The percent of babies born at low birthweight (under 2,500 grams) rose from 7.8 percent in 2002 to 7.9 percent in 2003. Low birthweight has gradually increased since the mid-1980s.”
So, I guess my question is: What is going on here?
We have more women in America having medical prenatal care than ever before. Why these huge jumps from one year to the next in C-section rates??? Prematurity??? and Low Birth weight???
Will these trends continue to escalate?
I will post the final tallies for 2003 when the report is compiled, and will share any and all information on 2004 and 2005 when it becomes available.
WHO is going to turn the tide back to what is natural and normal?
Quote from Henci Goer:
“We seem to have spent the last few years reeling from assault after assault on the concept of normal birth. Have you wondered, as I have, what is going on? Why is our side of the story nowhere to be heard? Why, for example, isn’t the rising cesarean rate—which translates into about half a million unnecessary major operations per year at a cost of over $1 billion to our health care system—considered newsworthy?
Why are mainstream media rife with the grossest misinformation about cesarean section, VBAC, induction, epidurals—you name it—with nothing, nothing coming from our side other than an occasional tidbit tacked on in the name of balanced reporting, but clearly not meant to be taken seriously?
I think I have the answer: This isn’t a matter of chance; it’s a concerted effort. Here’s what I think happened…”
WHEN are we as families going to DEMAND efficacy in Prenatal care? Birth? and Education?
When is some governmental agency going to investigate these rapid increases in surgical rates? And what rate is going to jolt the American Public into some sort of activism? A c-section rate of 40%, 50%, 75%???
Or will we believe that these surgeries are all justified, and mothers and babies would have died without them?
Something to think about…
Jenny Hatch
Read the Introduction to this Blog

Please consider signing this petition to the FDA
“The FDA has an even more important role in play than it would bear if the U.S. were a country with reliable data on maternal mortality and morbidity or with mandatory mortality and morbidity reporting. The Centers for Disease Control itself says that its data on maternal mortality are “grossly underreported.””
Please remember this when someone starts spewing that America has the lowest maternal morbidity rate in the world!
Quote from the petition…
“Serious adverse events reported following off-label use of Cytotec in pregnant women include maternal or fetal death, uterine hyper-stimulation, rupture or perforation requiring uterine surgical repair, hysterectomy or salpingo-oophorectomy, amniotic fluid embolism, severe vaginal bleeding, retained placenta, shock, fetal bradycardia and pelvic pain.
On May 31, 2002, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists announced that the FDA had announced on April 17, 2002, a revision in the drug labeling of Pharmacia’s drug, Cytotec. The label change acknowledged the widespread off-label use of Cytotec by obstetricians for cervical ripening to induce labor and “removed the previous contraindication for use in pregnant women for this purpose. “
We ask that the original labeling be restored and that the FDA make publicly known the adverse event reports that have been associated with this drug. People all across this great country assume that is what the FDA is for. You are supposed to be the early warning system and protect the public from unwarranted use of dangerous drugs. If the manufacturer itself warns of death as a possibility for both mother and child, the FDA should make this known.”
Because Cytotec is often administered without the pregnant mother being completely aware of the risks, this is yet another reason to give birth at home!
Jenny Hatch