Alabama House committee passes contested midwife practice bill after public hearing
Johannah McDonald, a Huntsville resident, sits in a crowded House Health Committee meeting on April 23, 2025, with her daughter, Ruhama McDonald, to watched the public hearing on SB 87, which would only allow midwives to conduct the heel stick test of the newborn screening panel.
An Alabama House committee Wednesday passed a bill changing the scope of practice for midwives in Alabama after a packed public hearing over the measure.
As originally filed, SB 87, sponsored by Sen. Arthur Orr, R-Decatur, would have allowed midwives to administer three parts of newborn screenings: heel stick, hearing screening and Critical Congenital Heart Disease (CCHD) screening, which can provide early detection of genetic or metabolic conditions.
But in the Senate, the bill was amended to only allow midwives to conduct a heel stick and adds language prohibiting midwives from providing 'any care' that is not in law or in an emergency to newborns.
'This bill started out with those three newborn screening tests included, but two of them were removed when the substitute was submitted over in the Senate. It passed the Senate, and so that's where the bill stands today,' said Rep. Ben Harrison, R-Elkmont, who is carrying the bill in the House.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Midwives in Alabama were only allowed to practice after the state in 2017 started regulating midwifery and lifted a four-decade ban on the practice. Midwives have since then been fighting to provide more comprehensive care. The medical community has historically pushed back against such efforts, saying midwives don't have sufficient training, especially in cases of emergency.
State health guidelines in Alabama require newborn screenings within 24-48 hours postpartum. Midwives must refer newborns to pediatricians, often delaying these critical tests. While midwives can administer screenings if a doctor is absent, they are not allowed to order these tests.
Alabama midwives pull support from bill after addition of 'hostile language'
The new version also states that while a licensed midwife 'may order and administer a heel lance within 72 hours after birth,' they are 'prohibited from interpreting any tests or screens under this subsection and shall cause any results to be referred to a physician of the mother's choosing who is licensed to practice medicine.'
'Today, I'm calling out a disgrace … SB 87 has been hijacked. As is, it denigrates the sanctity of motherhood, the safety of newborns, and above all, is a wolf in sheep's clothing,' said Aaron Crawford, president of the Alabama Birth Coalition, who blamed lobbyists for changes in the bill.
Rep. Ernie Yarbrough, R-Trinity, said he opposed the bill as amended but supported its original intent.
'Choices and options are being removed or denied from Alabama mothers because it would seem special interest and a general attitude that our mothers and their midwives can't possibly make good decisions and should trust the experts. I would humbly submit that 6,000 years plus of evidence would be different to that,' he said.
Maria Cranford, a midwife in north Alabama, said that national standards provide midwives are trained and educated in the care of mothers and newborns through the first six weeks after birth.
'This includes performing newborn exams, administering newborn screens, critical congenital heart screenings with referral… and newborn screenings,' she said. 'All of which I'm taught students to do in clinical settings — not here in Alabama, because I'm legally not allowed to.'
Support for the amended bill came from the medical community, who said it would preserve medical standards.
Linda Lee, executive director of the American Academy of Pediatrics Alabama chapter, read a statement from Dr. Nola Jean Ernest, a pediatrician in Enterprise. Claiming there's no evidence that midwifery improves infant mortality rates, Ernest said that 'all further medical evaluation and care' should be performed by a medical provider.
'Lay midwives attending home births do not have the equivalent training or clinical experience as pediatricians or neonatologists,' Ernest wrote in the letter.
Danne Howard, deputy director of the Alabama Hospital Association, also supported the bill as it passed the Senate and defended notions that 'hospitals across the state have not abandoned labor and delivery.' Rural hospitals have faced financial struggle for years, which had led to some delivery units being closed around the state.
'Alabama Hospital [Association] supported the bill as it was passed by the Senate and look forward to additional work in years to come to see what other avenues that we can make great strides in improving access to care,' Howard said.
The committee approved the bill on a voice vote. The legislation moves to the full House.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
Abbott vetoes Texas THC ban
Gov. Greg Abbott on Sunday night vetoed the THC ban bill pushed by his fellow Republicans in the Texas Legislature. Why it matters: The move secures the future of the state's multibillion-dollar hemp industry and keeps those who rely on legal THC products with more options — for now. It also articulates a divide among Texas conservatives in how they view cannabis and how to address its rising popularity. Between the lines: Abbott waited to act less than an hour before the midnight deadline to veto bills. Driving the news: Senate Bill 3 sought to ban the possession, sale and manufacture of all THC products — including consumable delta-8 THC which Texas lawmakers legalized in 2019. Context: Delta-8 THC is a minor chemical variant of the main psychoactive ingredient in traditional cannabis and provides lesser psychoactive effects. It can be coupled with CBD, another hemp-derived compound used for pain relief and mental wellness. In 2019, Abbott signed the Texas farm bill, which partly legalized products containing small amounts of hemp-derived delta-8 THC, including edibles, beverages, vapes and traditional bud. Catch up quick: Last year, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick vowed that Texas would once again criminalize all forms of THC after claiming products were being sold with "unlimited THC" and marketed to children with "life-threatening" consequences. The Senate passed SB 3 26-5 in March, and the House followed suit with an 87-54 vote in May. Flashback: Thousands of veterans, business owners and THC proponents sent Abbott letters urging him to veto the bill. The big picture: The move comes as Abbott this weekend expanded the state's medical marijuana program, opening it up for people with chronic pain, traumatic brain injury, Crohn's disease and in palliative care, and as more states have loosened cannabis restrictions in recent years.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Republican representative's ectopic pregnancy clashes with Florida abortion law
A Florida Republican congresswoman is blaming fearmongering on the left for the reluctance of hospital staff to give her the drugs she needed to end an ectopic pregnancy that threatened her life. Kat Cammack went to the emergency room in May 2024 where it was estimated she was five weeks into an ectopic pregnancy, there was no heartbeat and her life was at risk. Doctors determined she needed a shot of methotrexate to help expel her pregnancy but since Florida's six week abortion ban had just taken effect medical staff were worried about losing their licenses or going to jail if they did. Cammack looked up the state law on her phone to show staff and even attempted to contact the governor's office. Hours later, doctors eventually agreed to give her the medication. Related: Women and men diverge more than ever on support for abortion rights, poll shows But Cammack, who opposes abortion and co-chairs the House pro-life caucus, told the Wall Street Journal she blames messaging from pro-abortion groups for delaying her treatment, which is not banned under Florida's restrictive statutes, who have created fear of criminal charges. Over a year later and once again pregnant and due to give birth soon, Cammack says the politics of the incident have stuck with her. 'It was absolute fearmongering at its worst,' Cammack told the publication, but acknowledged that abortion rights groups might interpret her experience differently and blame Republican-led, restrictive anti-abortion laws for the issue. 'There will be some comments like, 'Well, thank God we have abortion services,' even though what I went through wasn't an abortion,' she told the outlet. Florida's strict abortion ban, which took effect on 1 May 2024, makes abortions illegal after six weeks, when most people aren't even aware yet that they are pregnant. After months in which medical staff were concerned that the law's wording made emergency procedures illegal, the state's healthcare agency issued official guidance to 'address misinformation' on permitting an abortion in instances where the pregnant person's life and health are in danger. Cammack said she hoped that going public with her experience would help opposing political groups find common ground. Related: Democrats introduce bill that aims to protect reproductive health data 'I would stand with any woman – Republican or Democrat – and fight for them to be able to get care in a situation where they are experiencing a miscarriage and an ectopic' pregnancy, she said. Abortion rights activists say the law created problems. Florida regulators say ectopic pregnancies aren't abortions and are exempt from restrictions, but Molly Duane, with the Center for Reproductive Rights, told the Wall Street Journal the law doesn't define ectopic pregnancy, which can be difficult to diagnose. Alison Haddock, the president of the American College of Emergency Physicians, told the outlet care in early pregnancy is a 'medically complicated space' and that doctors in abortion-restricted states worry 'whether their clinical judgment will stand should there be any prosecution'.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
How the Senate megabill could backfire on conservatives
A provision in a key Senate committee's version of the GOP megabill will backfire against Republicans by forcing red states to consider doing exactly what Republicans don't want them to: expand Medicaid, the CEO of the South Carolina Hospital Association told POLITICO. Republicans have sought to shelter the 10 conservative states that have declined to expand Medicaid to cover more low-income people, as Obamacare encourages with generous federal subsidies. But the Senate bill, in an effort to find the savings needed to extend President Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts, would still blow a hole in the budgets of Palmetto state hospitals by reducing what insurers who contract with the state to provide Medicaid services can pay them. States and Washington share the insurance program's costs. 'It affects the viability of the whole system,' said Thornton Kirby, chief executive of the South Carolina Hospital Association, which estimates the Senate proposal will cost the state over $2.3 billion annually. 'If you take away this alternative way to balance the budget, you leave us with only one path…Medicaid expansion,' Kirby said. The Senate is rushing to complete its version of a bill that would enact Trump's agenda using a procedure that requires only a simple majority vote. Trump wants it done by July 4, but with the slim margins in both houses of Congress, the industries affected by the bill are hoping to peel off votes to save themselves from cuts. Republicans can lose no more than three votes in either chamber as long as Democrats remain united in opposition. To make the case that the restrictions on so-called state-directed payments need to go, the hospital association is leaning on three home state Republicans with clout: Sen. Tim Scott, who has a seat on the Finance Committee that has proposed the restrictions; Rep. Russell Fry, who's on the Energy and Commerce Committee that drafted the Medicaid provisions of the megabill the House passed last month; and Henry McMaster, the governor of South Carolina and, Kirby said, a personal friend. 'I don't want to put him in the hot seat,' Kirby said of McMaster. 'He doesn't want to see [Medicaid] upended.' Of Scott, Kirby said he's in touch at least every other day and that the senator and Trump ally 'has been a champion.' 'He understands…he doesn't want to go down that path' of Medicaid expansion, Kirby added. The three Republicans did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Expanding Medicaid could help replace the revenue the Senate provision would take away because it would make many more people — South Carolina now has one of the nation's higher uninsured rates at 9 percent — eligible for the program. Under Obamacare, the federal government picks up 90 percent of the cost for the new enrollees. Under the Finance Committee proposal, state-directed payments to hospitals serving Medicaid patients would fall by 10 percent each year until the total payment rate is only 100-110 percent of the Medicare payment rate. In South Carolina, the current payment rate is more than twice the rate paid by Medicare, the federal health insurance program for elderly people. Hospitals in states that have expanded Medicaid would take an additional hit under the Senate proposal. The Finance Committee would lower the provider tax rate that the 40 states that have expanded Medicaid can levy on hospitals from 6 percent to 3.5 percent. States have used the taxes to boost their federal matching funds, which they have then sent back to hospitals in higher reimbursements. The Senate would freeze the tax rates in states like South Carolina that haven't expanded Medicaid, but would not require them to lower them. The version of the megabill the House passed would freeze the rates for all states, a plan Kirby was willing to accept. On Friday, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) urged GOP leaders to strike the Finance Committee language on Medicaid, warning the crackdown won't clear the House. Republican senators hope to pass their version of the bill next week after which the House would need to pass it before Trump could sign it into law.
