An investigative report which explored the organization known as Freebirth Society was recently published by The Guardian. Through independent research and interviews, the series of articles and podcast episodes examine and condemn Freebirth Society’s leaders as well as the influence that FBS has had on women around the world.

As someone who has been involved in birth culture since becoming a mother nearly eight years ago, as well as someone who has freebirthed, my interest in the release of this report was piqued.

I have no personal association with FBS nor its founder and leaders, Emilee Saldaya and Yolande Norris-Clark. I have also never paid for or participated in any courses or memberships affiliated with them. My exposure to FBS has consisted of listening to the podcast as well as finding myself in agreement with some of Saldaya and Norris-Clark’s written work in regards to birth philosophy, as I happen to hold some of the same views concerning autonomy, freedom, and the systemic harm routinely perpetrated in obstetrics. I have found the podcast stories of women giving birth on their own terms and claiming motherhood in their own power - free from any interference - to be heartening; and Saldaya’s tongue-in-cheek humor, unapologetically blunt commentary, and often shocking way of speaking her mind to be very amusing.

I am a certified childbirth educator through Childbirth International (CBI) and a mother of five children. I have had a handful of diverse birth experiences, each of which has played a part in forming the lens through which I now view birth.

These experiences include a preterm classical “special scar” cesarean in a hospital after a diagnosis of severe preeclampsia, a home birth VBAC with midwives who are Old Order Amish, an unassisted home birth (unplanned and the result of an eighty-five minute precipitous labor), a midwife-attended home birth that included a shoulder dystocia and retained placental membrane, and lastly, an intentional unassisted birth or “freebirth” (I deliberately chose to give birth without anyone other than myself present).

But I wasn’t always this way. There was once a time when I, like most people, would probably have been perplexed and unsettled by the idea of freebirth. Knowing who I used to be and also being aware of the general societal view of birth, I was mostly unsurprised by the widespread revulsion towards freebirth and the ensuing witchhunt of freebirthing women in the wake of The Guardian’s report.

Across the internet in the past months, freebirthing women have been depicted as gullible victims who are impulsively swept up in popular trends, wealthy and privileged women seeking drama and attention, or menacing cult members who are religiously devoted to the purported doctrine of FBS. Though I won’t deny the potential existence of such characters, these surmisings are so out of touch with reality that I can’t help but find them comical (if not also derogatory).

In an opinion piece for The New York Times titled Why the Freebirth Movement’s Popularity Threatens Public Health, Jessica Grose refers to freebirthing women as “bonkers.” Suggesting that women who freebirth are also susceptible to being targeted by certain political agendas, Grose explains to us that women freebirth because they are suspicious of the medical system and think they can only trust their own research.

In videos uploaded to their YouTube channels, obstetricians and social media influencers Danielle Jones and Shannon Clark also bestow us with their opinions of freebirthing women. “Sorry, I just can’t take this seriously,” Jones says in her video titled The Truth About ‘Free Birth’ (A Doctor’s Warning). “I just find it really dripping with, ‘I am so privileged that I’m bored and I don’t know what to do with myself so I’m going to put myself and the baby I’m carrying at risk for no reason.’” In a separate video titled Beware of the Free Birth Society! Shannon Clark compares FBS to a cult. She says, “How can anyone scream ‘big pharma,’ and ‘modern obstetrics,’ and all the B.S that they do - how bad we are as OB/GYNs - when this crap is going on. I realize that people have been traumatized in the hospital, but they’ve also been traumatized in birth centers and home births.”

Selfish, reckless, crazy, and stupid are but a small sampling of some milder descriptors recently designated to women who freebirth, with others calling freebirthing women a “new level of unhinged,” and even accusing us of child sacrifice. A prevailing opinion is that Freebirth Society’s founders should be imprisoned - or at least institutionalized.

Villainizing women who have the audacity to make choices that fall outside the realm of socially acceptable norms is nothing new. Such women have in fact recurrently been falsely represented and misunderstood throughout history. Still, I have felt compelled to share my perspective with the intention of casting a new light on the subject as someone who considers myself a defender of freedom and an advocate of normal birth.

The Obstetric Model (The Inverse of Normal Birth)

A basic truth we must first acknowledge is that freebirth is just birth.

Freebirth is birth in its rawest state. It is birth without the involvement of others. Freebirth is what happens when a pregnant woman does not choose to involve a medical model in the delivery of her baby.

Birth is every woman’s birthright.

Birth is owned by women.

It is not an enigmatic event that requires the assistance of a certified OB/GYN in order to take place.

Birth happens on airplanes. It happens in restaurant bathrooms. It happens in moving cars flying down highways.

Women have been giving birth to their own babies for as long as there have been women.

Freebirth is as old as time.

Ironically, freebirth precedes even the earliest ancient formations of cults and high control groups. There is absolutely nothing innovative or new about a woman allowing her body to release her baby in the privacy of her own home in the absence of obstetric surveillance. Those who would reduce the instinctive, primeval act of normal birth to a modern fad or a fringe trend are displaying profound ignorance of womanhood, childbirth, biology, and life at large.

Everyone who currently resides on this planet today is alive because of freebirth. For millennia, and up until very recent history, freebirth was the way of our foremothers. Although it is true that from ancient times laboring women were attended by midwives, they were typically of the authentic sort that FBS champions. Authentic midwives who, true to the etymology of the word “mid-wife,” (meaning “with-woman”) served and tended to women during their births, sometimes gaining knowledge and skill through experience or apprenticeship, though not necessarily so. This concept differs entirely from the modern phenomenon of hospital midwives who have appropriated the title by way of the obstetric nursing profession.

If there is any form of birth that could be reasonably compared to a radical movement, it would be the obstetric model. Which, beginning only a few generations ago, effectively convinced the female populace that we cannot perform a basic bodily function without the assistance of trained personnel.

Be that as it may, complications and birth emergencies are certainly real. They have the potential to cause life-altering disabilities as well as death. In such instances, a timely response by a capable person can be lifesaving. The allure of receiving access to prompt emergency care is unquestionably a factor in why many women choose to participate in the obstetric system at all.

Regrettably, nearly every routine practice within the obstetric model destroys the necessary components of normal mammalian birth. It isn’t only that women have been poorly treated or even traumatized by mainstream medicine, but that the very premise of the obstetric model itself is in complete and total conflict with the biological function of birth.

The Guardian reports that Saldaya and Norris-Clark have taught that freebirth is actually safer than hospital birth. In a manner of speaking, this is true. The incompatibility that the obstetric model has with normal birth means that when a woman chooses to engage with the medical birth system, a new set of risks are introduced. The labor and birth she will have in a hospital setting under obstetric management is not the same labor and birth she would have had outside of it.

A series of coordinated, sometimes nearly imperceptible sequences make up the phases of labor, birth, and the early postpartum. Even the most seemingly unimportant functions and behaviors hold significant value and have a specific purpose in propagating the safety and wellbeing of both mother and baby.

From start to finish, the standard practices that constitute the obstetric model are at odds with this process. Under the obstetric model, rather than a woman having the opportunity to follow her labor’s instinctual flow, she is disconnected from her own bodily senses and internal cues by way of placating drugs. Her inner knowing is suppressed and replaced with the suggestions or directions of authority figures. In addition to her being in what is likely a somewhat intimidating and unfamiliar environment, her mobility is also likely restricted - if not by force, then probably at least by way of IV lines and machinery entanglements. Very often synthetic hormones or medications are administered, each with their own potential impact on her labor. The cumulative effect of all this interference will, as a matter of course, often lead to stalled labor, malpositioning, or fetal distress. The obstetrician must then step in to remedy that which was likely only ever set in motion by the whole absurd ordeal to begin with.

Consequently, the mother may be subjected to having her genitals surgically incised without her true consent. Or her baby violently removed from her body with forceps or vacuum extractor. Maybe she will even be strapped to an operating table to undergo a major abdominal surgery which will leave her affected for the rest of her life. And make no mistake, the impactful and foundational first moments of the baby’s life and the mother’s postpartum will also be obtruded upon. Instead of a mother being granted her right to interact with her newborn upon his or her birth, the baby is often immediately whisked away by a stranger instead.

Can you imagine any other mammal tolerating such odd and abnormal behavior? Notably, we observe certain universal behaviors in primates and other mammals (whose births are not usually interfered with in the way that human births are). These five behaviors, as described here by elder midwife Sister Morningstar, include the mother looking, vocalizing, touching, holding, and mouthing her newborn in the moments after the birth. When a human mother is not disturbed and is allowed to experience the sanctity of those first moments with her baby, she too will subconsciously and instinctively engage in these five behaviors. Like a chain reaction, this primal response of discovering and stimulating her baby offers protection and promotes normal recovery from birth.

Mothers who give birth under a medical model, however, will have their baby handled or “delivered” by someone else during and immediately after the baby’s emergence from her body. The umbilical cord will often be unnecessarily severed before the placenta is even out, cutting the baby off from his or her still-circulating blood. Even the seemingly harmless routine of the nurse placing a hat on the newborn’s head can interfere with the mother’s hormones by creating an unnecessary barrier and inhibiting the exchange of pheromones.

The order of nature has a way of working quite efficiently when left to function by design. But when something that is meant to be messy and primitive is subdued and constrained within a clinical environment, as we observe with the obstetric model, it can no longer be expected to function the same way. Sometimes things still work, though always much less efficiently and often with significant consequences. In nearly every case, it would have been better off left alone.

There is certainly a spectrum to the level of harm inflicted by the medical birth system, and by no means will every woman who chooses to engage with it share these experiences. Yet this is the reality for a great number of women. Many of whom feel disempowered, violated, and depressed after their births, with such sentiments often bringing about feelings of self-doubt, resentment, and anger. This is no way to enter into motherhood.

For many of us, birth is experienced as a normal biological function; something more akin to our monthly cycle or sexual intimacy than to a medical event. Choosing to allow that process to unfold in a secluded environment where one feels comfortable and safe is a reasonable option. This doesn’t mean that those of us who choose to freebirth are oblivious of the risks. Quite the contrary - women who freebirth are often exceptionally aware of what risks are associated with their choice - and still find those risks preferable to associating themselves with the obstetric model.

At the end of the day, who is really safer? The woman who surrenders herself and her baby to a system that puts them in unnecessary jeopardy at practically every turn, yet is equipped to resolve an emergency; or the woman who stays home and allows physiological labor to take place, yet is farther away from medical help should a natural emergency occur?

Not everyone will have the same answer to this question, and that’s all right. There is no way to give birth that is devoid of risk. No birth is risk free. Each woman must decide for herself which set of risks she finds personally acceptable. It is my belief that women are capable of thinking for themselves, and that they should have the respect and privacy to do so without the hysteric ridicule of strangers.

But why freebirth? Why not just have a home birth with a midwife?

For some, birth is experienced as a very personal and sacred spiritual journey. It requires total surrender and a summoning of strength through reflection into the deepest parts of inner self. The presence and energy of another person in such a space is simply not always welcome. Even a well-meaning whisper into a woman’s ear can break her spell of intuitive laboring. Not everyone is willing to consent to the potential effects of permitting the close proximity of someone else during what is such an intimate and hallowed event.

Not to mention the fact that many attendants who advertise themselves as natural birth supporters actually approach birth with medical methodology and are therefore not entirely different from someone practicing within the obstetric field.

Another ridiculous inaccuracy perpetuated by the media is that women who have “wild pregnancies” do not receive any prenatal care. This is but another ill-effect of the indiscretion demonstrated by those who do not actually seek to understand yet are more than willing to falsely inform the public about the choices other women make.

A woman who chooses to have a wild pregnancy is not necessarily a woman who makes no effort to take care of herself. If truth be told, it is possible for a woman having a wild pregnancy to have better “prenatal care” than a woman who is rushed in and out of a ten minute appointment with an obstetrician she has never met before. Wild pregnancies can include a woman making tremendous effort to prioritize her health, even choosing to utilize aspects of the medical system if she so desires. Sometimes this is done individually and sometimes it is done with the company of a familiar wise woman or a skilled midwife, even if that midwife is not asked to be present during the birth.

On Implicit Misogyny

In addition to the fundamental issue that the obstetric model is the inverse of normal birth, I would argue that from its very inception as a division of medicine, obstetrics has been steeped in the disparagement of women. From J. Marion Sims, to Twilight Sleep, to shackling women to hospital beds, to the modern era’s less overt forms of patronization, intimidation, coercion, subjugation, and abuse, laboring women have been and continue to be treated with inferiority.

In a FBS podcast episode titled If The Hospital Doesn’t Know Your Legal Rights - Do You Really Have Any? Hermine Hayes-Klein, a maternity rights lawyer, says this. 

“It’s obstetric culture. It’s this widespread lack of comprehension of patient rights… which is based on these sort of pre-feminist, early twentieth century and earlier concepts of the female and her relationship to the traditionally male obstetrician… Culturally there is this assumption that we can’t trust women. That childbirth can only be understood by doctors. And that the little lady couldn’t possibly understand enough to be able to make a decision about her care.”

Not only is this bias still alive and well in obstetrics, but it has also been disturbingly apparent amidst the recent public discussions of freebirth; exposing the implicit misogyny within many of freebirth’s critics. Even The Guardian’s report itself is subtly woven with underlying verbiage that calls to mind the stereotyping and shaming of women.

In one example, the authors relate the tale of Saldaya’s first labor - but with an interesting spin. Referring to when Saldaya briefly transferred to the hospital before returning home and giving birth to her baby, the authors write, 

“Privately, friends say she was shaken – as she’d transferred to hospital, it wasn’t a true freebirth. But publicly she claimed victory.”

Speaking to my years of involvement in birth culture, I can say with certainty that this concept of hierarchical birth as presented by The Guardian is virtually non-existent in the mentalities of the women I have known. It has been my experience that women who decide to give birth unassisted do so for a myriad of personal reasons and simply wish to exercise their freedoms in peace. They rarely draw attention to themselves (with the exception of connecting with other women in birth-talk spaces). They certainly are not basing their major life decisions on the chance they might claim some special title.

There is undoubtedly an element of captivation when it comes to the euphoria and self-assurance experienced as a natural effect of undisturbed birth, often causing women to want the same thing for themselves. But this is completely unrelated to the idea of executing a decision with the intent of gaining external recognition.

The Guardian’s choice of wording could actually be a clue that reveals the authors’ own implicit biases and perceptions of women through the implication that women are motivated to make choices based on what attention they might receive. That they might “forge a new, heroic identity as a freebirthing mother” (as mentioned elsewhere in the article). Please pardon my laughter!

In the first episode of The Guardian’s podcast, Saldaya’s physical appearance is reported on with persuasive description. Set to eerie background sounds reminiscent of music from a horror film, the script reads, 

“The crown on her head has a base of sculpted roses from which extend long golden spikes. She’s naked, wearing only a white robe which is opened to show her baby bump. It’s a beautiful image but there’s something unsettling about it. It’s a bit… culty? Like she’s the leader of all pregnant women.”

Firstly, it is impossible to be both naked and wearing a robe. (Was she naked - or wasn’t she?) By placing emphasis on her supposed nudity, the listener is left with a distinct impression. They want us to know that Saldaya is the type of woman who would pose naked in photographs. (Cue gasps.)

My own opinion of the photos was that Saldaya looked radiant, confident, and comfortable in her own skin. By exposing her pregnant belly (a symbol of fertility) she was embracing and showcasing her femininity. Never have I thought of her as my leader. Certainly not “the leader of all pregnant women.” How could she be, when her message has always been the opposite - that women are their own leaders. As for the crown, can’t a girl have a little fun and wear a crown during Solstice at a women’s festival? But what do I know. The Guardian informs us that “it’s a bit culty.”

Referring to Saldaya and Norris-Clark, The Guardian says, “They acknowledged there were scenarios that could be life-threatening, though presented them as very rare, and said it was a woman’s choice how to have her baby and whether to transfer to hospital. Yet they spoke with such confidence and apparent credibility that many women trusted information they only later discovered was medically unsound.”

Here we actually see Saldaya and Norris-Clark be accused of speaking with confidence. It was bad enough that they spoke up against the obstetric system, and that they did as they pleased during their own pregnancies and births. But to tell other women that they too can make their own choices? And to have the audacity to share their thoughts and opinions with confidence?

You better not even think about wearing a crown or showing a little skin!

One anonymous obstetrician who was interviewed for a BBC article titled Medics Warn of Dangers of Freebirths said, “I just feel like freebirthing and allowing women to take that sort of risk with themselves, their bodies and their baby, is risking their baby dying and them potentially dying in that very unsupervised environment. I think it’s reversing back to the Middle Ages.”

What I find most striking in this statement is that the obstetrician suggests that anyone other than the woman herself might possibly have the authority to allow (or by inference, not allow) her to give birth the way she chooses to. Not only should women (maybe) not be allowed to give birth unsupervised, but according to the The New York Times piece, women who choose to freebirth are also a threat to public health.

By this point, the thing putting me in mind of the Middle Ages is the brazen outrage towards the kind of women who don’t ask permission and who dare to live free.

According to Saldaya, the FBS podcast began as a way to create a space for women to speak freely and build an online archive by sharing their stories of freebirth, which she found difficult to access herself at the time. Having ceased to attend births as a doula within the obstetric system and then pregnant with her first child, Saldaya was unwilling to submit herself and her baby to a medicalized model of birth. In a FBS episode intro, Saldaya says, “It was and is imperative to me to carve out a space where women could feel safe and supported in exercising our human rights of reproductive choice and intuitive mothering.” She continues, “There is no right or wrong. There is only what is right for each of us.” As the podcast grew and gained in popularity, FBS evolved into an organized space that provided a platform for like-minded women to connect and share their birth stories with one another.

During a discussion with Norris-Clark and three other freebirthing women in a FBS episode titled The Honest Truth About Freebirth (Society), Saldaya says this, 

“I respect women and I respect their choices. And I trust women to make their own choices. I would obviously make a lot of different decisions than a lot of other women. I would not go get three c sections in a row. But I would fight to my death to support a woman to make that choice.”

Speaking of her first baby’s birth later on in the same episode, Saldaya continues, “I did choose to use the system at a time when I was actually in transition, and I learned a lot, and I love my birth story. And I very willingly and vulnerably put it out as an episode and have been completely transparent about it because so many people I have seen try to reduce our message and this movement and these choices as some sort of adolescent rebellion and that we’re anti everything. And that we’re anti doctor and anti hospital. I am in no way anti anything. I am for women making their own g**damned choices. And that is what this whole thing is about.”

Say what you will about FBS. But a woman whose life’s work is based upon the idea that women should be free to make their own decisions - and professes a passion for defending their right to make choices she would not personally make - is quite literally diametrically opposed to any legitimate definition of a cult leader.

On Evidence Based Medical Advice

“It's emphasized throughout our online course that this isn't the totality of learning, and that there absolutely are risks. And that engaging with the medical system if you feel called to is absolutely appropriate and an important thing to do.” - Yolande Norris-Clark, The Honest Truth About Freebirth (Society)

A central point within The Guardian’s report is the accusation that many FBS claims conflict with evidence-based medical advice (highlighted as number one of their Five Key Findings). This point is repeatedly emphasized and reinforced throughout the report, as though it is the smoking gun that will unveil just how unhinged the “freebirth movement” is. But this is not a novel revelation.

It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to recognize that the very act of freebirth conflicts with medical advice. Women who choose to freebirth are, for whatever individual reasons they may have, uninterested in what the medical birth model has to offer. Therefore, such women are naturally going to convene in spaces where medical advice is not the focus. If a woman desires to evaluate evidence based medical advice, then by all means, she should seek out appropriate and reputable source material. What she should not do, is consume content from an organization that promotes freebirth and expect to be met with medically founded information.

While contemplating the concept of seeking advice from those without medical credentials, I was reminded of my own experiences in pregnancy and birth. For three of my births, I chose to engage with unlicensed midwives who did not have formal medical training but rather years of exposure to birth and traditional midwifery. It was for this precise reason that I sought them out - I did not want a medical midwife in my birth space.

Likewise, Saldaya and Norris-Clark have been consistent in volunteering the fact that they hold no medical credentials. Although some of Saldaya’s interactions may have been inadvisable, it is up to the individual to consider the background and qualifications of the person they are consulting for advice, and to discern whether the information they are absorbing is applicable in their individual situation. It is also important to take into account that no one person has all the answers, and that everyone is capable of getting things wrong.

The Concepts of Freedom and Responsibility

Yet another complaint on the seemingly floor length scroll of accusations leveled against FBS is that they promote an extreme version of freebirth - a version so extreme that even those who normally support the idea of freebirth take issue with FBS’s dogmatic approach. We are told that women are made to feel less-than if they do not adhere to every statute that FBS declares law.

While Saldaya and Norris-Clark are certainly both firmly rooted in their beliefs, (and passionate about them) their overarching message has always been that women actually are - and should remain - free to make their own choices.

On the FBS podcast, Saldaya and Norris-Clark sometimes speak to the idea of making decisions based on external pressure and fear. Perhaps there are some who interpret their message to mean that anyone who chooses to engage with the medical system must be doing so out of fear and are therefore under the judgement of FBS. But such an interpretation would contradict countless statements made over the years by both Saldaya and Norris-Clark, who have always maintained that women should engage with the medical system if, when, and to what degree they feel so inclined.

So hostaged is the public by obstetric ideology that if a woman doesn’t unflinchingly follow every demand of the obstetric model, attending every routine prenatal appointment, participating in every scheduled ultrasound; if she doesn’t choose to give birth in an authorized facility under the observation and management of a certified OB/GYN or approved “midwife,” she is a danger to herself and others. One variation from the socially acceptable way to give birth, and she should probably be sent to the mad house away from polite society.

Sorry, who are the dogmatic ones again?

FBS offers women another message. It is a breath of fresh air in what is otherwise an echo chamber of what we are constantly told is the right way and the wrong way for women to give birth. FBS tells women that actually, you don’t have to succumb to pressure or fear. Actually, you can do whatever you want.

Have your baby in a hospital if you want to. Or don’t. You can give birth in your bathtub, in the forest, or on your neighbor’s front porch. What matters is that you decide what you allow when it comes to your body, your baby, and your birth. Does that make you responsible for the choices you make? To be blunt, yes. This is what it means to be self-governing.

When you live a life of freedom, you are not outsourcing responsibility to others. To rely on another person, or a system, for the outcome of your birth means that you will inevitably relinquish some level of your own agency in exchange for the sense of security that comes with submission. Most women find this to be an acceptable arrangement, and there is nothing wrong with that. The rest of us, however, do not.

Hermine Hayes-Klein brilliantly summarizes the concept of responsibility during her FBS interview:

“What is the doctor’s responsibility? What is the midwife’s responsibility? If they frame their responsibility as guaranteeing the outcome, then they are psychologically positioned to want to control everything that happens, so that they can do what they think best for ensuring that outcome. But that is part of the hubristic power grab of the medical professional - of healthcare professionals. You’re not responsible for the outcome. You can’t be responsible for the outcome. You’re not God. What you’re responsible for is doing your job in a non-negligent way. Offering the services that you have been trained and licensed to offer, and then if those services are accepted, providing those services in a way that is not negligent - you’re not drunk - you’re paying attention to what you’re doing. And you do it in a non-violent way that upholds your patient’s healthcare rights. And that’s your responsibility. But when anybody talks about responsibility as if it is the outcome - you’re being led down a path in which the woman has no authority, and that path is wrong.” - Hermine Hayes-Klein, If The Hospital Doesn’t Know Your Legal Rights - Do You Really Have Any?

Media outlets have framed FBS as having brainwashed women into mindlessly pledging themselves to dangerous doctrines. As if FBS just sprouted up out of the blue nine years ago and spawned the shocking concepts of autonomy, self-responsibility, and the right to decline medical interventions. But this is an incorrect and extraordinarily closed-minded view. The world is actually a rich and diverse place full of billions of people with a vast array of backgrounds, values, and personal convictions. FBS hasn’t introduced any new concepts. Saldaya and Norris-Clark just so happen to have opinions that differ from the mainstream, and to have garnered attention for offering their beliefs on the Internet. You don’t have to like it, and you don’t have to agree. But we are all entitled to publicly share our views, even if those views are unpopular or untrue.

In her video Beware of the Free Birth Society! obstetrician Shannon Clark briefly addresses death. As she reads aloud part of The Guardian’s report regarding the police being called to a freebirth if a baby were to die, Clark quips with a contemptuous smirk, “Because they have to plan for that, right?”

I find it concerning that an obstetrician would so flippantly make such a bizarre comment, given the fact that everyone who interacts with birth should absolutely prepare for the possibility of death.

To live is to contend with death.

Death is part of life. It affects, and ultimately claims, each one of us in due time.

A mother and her baby have a singular bond unlike any other. For that reason, I believe that a mother, above everyone else, has her baby’s best interest at heart.

As much as we may wish it weren’t so, it is impossible for anyone to choose a path that guarantees the outcome of a living baby. Perhaps that outcome is more likely in a medical setting, but women still have the right to decide for themselves what path they will choose.

Regardless of its intended purpose, The Guardian’s rousing narrative has succeeded in circulating even more false information and inciting even more vitriol towards the less than one percent of women who prefer to give birth by themselves. To say the very least, it is disappointing to think of all the time and resources that could have been spent in drawing attention to issues that might have actually affected positive change.

Women who freebirth do not need to be feared, nor do we need to be rescued. We are intelligent, rational, aware, capable, and confident women who are embracing our power and holding the line in the preservation of normal birth.

Respectfully, leave us alone.

Image source: Anonymous

Note: The views expressed here do not exclusively represent the views of Materia+ and governing entities.