Reason 1,000,001 ...

why I'm a Libertarian is this story on yet another failed attempt to allow "direct-entry midwifery, which allows someone other than a nurse or doctor to attend a birth outside a hospital" in Alabama. AL is one of 10 states that do not allow the practice. Why?

Well according to Danne Howard, vice president for government relations of the Alabama Hospital Association, it's because:

[T]he bill would not have provided needed formal training for midwives. She said medical training is needed before a person delivers a baby, partly because of the possibility of an emergency.

"Without formal training, how do you know what to look for?" Howard said.

Several legislators who voted against the bill said they were also concerned that it did not provide for sufficient medical training.

Now even if I were able to look past the blatant self interest of the AL Hospital Association in this case and I truly did believe the stated concerns, I'm still appalled at the "nanny state" mentality of this reasoning. Implicitly it assumes that women would be too stupid to choose the best childbirth option. Gosh, there might be an emergency? I bet expectant mothers would never have considered that possibility unless the state pointed it out to them. I have a friend who recently gave birth at The Farm and another who is planning a "home birth" in 9 days (or is it 8 or 10, stupid time zone differences) and I figure both of them were/are better equipped to make THEIR OWN baby-related decisions than a state legislature!

Now I'm not a 100% Libertarian. I'm willing to admit the state may have a legitimate interest in protecting kids from stupid things their wacko parents might do. Somehow, though, 40 states have managed to allow midwifery without disastrous statewide consequences. Furthermore, I don't think the bill [Full disclosure, I haven't read the bill, just summaries.] would have opened the door for just any old yahoo to open up a birthing barn. No, as I understand it, it would have allowed for the LICENSING of midwives. Hence, it seems to me the legislature's concerns could be incorporated into the licensing process. [After rereading the quote above, one could argue this IS why legislators killed the bill. They didn't think the licensing process was stringent enough. Given this is (at least) the 3rd time such a bill has been attempted, though, I find it hard to believe the sponsors have not incorporated such concerns.]

Of course that's irrelevant as I cannot get past the vested interest of the AHA. It's obvious this is a naked attempt to maintain their monopoly. Oh well, at least I'll have another example to use next semester when we discuss barriers to entry in monopoly markets. See, I'm a "bright side" kind of guy.