Every bill has a purpose clause.

That clause for House Bill 351 begins:

“Allowing a licensed direct-entry midwife to assume or take responsibility for a client who had a previous cesarean section and regulating the circumstances under which the responsibility may be assumed or taken.”

At today’s bill hearing, a supporter of the bill testified, “We’re going to have our babies the way we want to have our babies.”

”It’s the location, not the provider,” said an opponent “These services should be provided in a hospital because emergencies may arise.”

The task before the subcommittee I chair will be to balance these differing interests.

When should the state intervene in a woman’s decision how to deliver her baby when a home delivery presents serious risks to her and her child?