Sample 1

The first part shows the original article, and the link where it came from. This is followed by my editing sample.

Link: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695254580/Midwifery-measure-delivered-to-House.html

The latest iteration of a bill that involves just 16 Utah midwives but has had the attention and often the aggravation of lawmakers for three years in a row was approved Tuesday morning in the Senate.

SB93, which was passed by the Senate 24-4, now moves to the House and likely faces a rocky reception.

The bill adds regulation to the state licensing granted to 16 direct-entry midwives, who have uncompromisingly argued that it is a veiled effort by the state licensing division, with tacit approval of the medical establishment, to get rid of them altogether.

Opponents say because they are following the pioneer-era tradition of apprenticing rather than undergoing certified teaching courses to become midwives, they have put under suspicion anything that would be written into law by the bill.


Legitimacy through licensing was the goal three years ago when the Direct-Entry Midwife Act was approved. The process of writing the bill into Utah Code became problematic because the act used the term "normal birth" when the phrase is not defined.


That has led to direct-entry midwives practicing beyond the scope of their training and increasing risk to mothers and infants in their care, say proponents of the bill.


"I wish they hadn't asked for licensing," Sen. Margaret Dayton, R-Provo and SB93 sponsor, said Tuesday during the bill's third reading in the Senate. "But with licensing comes regulation, as with a group or business in the state."


The bill in no way affects certified midwives — those who have been through a certified education program — and only clarifies the terms of practice for those who enter the profession directly as apprentices, she said.


Two complaints of midwives practicing beyond their scope have been filed, according to the state Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing. Although one of the complaints involved a hospital transfer, both of the complaints were dismissed as unfounded.


Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake, said in explaining why he voted against the measure that it was the process more than the content that he found objective.


"What's happening here is we're being asked to legislate the details that should have but weren't worked out in the normal rules process" of writing the original act into state code," McCoy said. "There should have been more good-faith negotiation and collaboration."
McCoy and other lawmakers say that representatives in the medical establishment weren't on hand although they were notified of the rule-making. Now, three years later, they realize the midwives might have too much leeway and the state might face liability it doesn't want.


Dayton, who used to be a nurse and whose husband is an OB/GYN, said midwives must realize that with state license comes practice parameters, just like any other state-licensed occupation.


"Hospitals and doctors do not want the patients that do not want to be there," she said. "They acknowledge that people have other choices. There has never bee a move by the hospitals or this Legislature to go after the in-home birthing community."


Edited version

A Utah bill that seeks to regulate the midwife profession was approved by the Senate, recently, after having been rejected for three years in a row.

The Utah State Senate passed SB93 on a 24-4 vote. The bill, which has generated a lot of controversy, is a follow up to the Direct-Entry Midwife Act which was passed three years ago.
The Midwife Act allows direct-entry midwives, who underwent midwifery education, but did not go through a nurse training program, to have state licenses. SB93 will provide more specification and rules on the tasks that direct-entry midwives can perform.


SB93 seeks to address a number of issues. First, the Midwife Act includes the term, “normal birth,” a phrase which is not defined in the Utah Code. Second, there were allegations of direct-entry midwives practicing beyond the scope of their training.


Two complaints were filed alleging this, according to the state Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing. Both complaints, one involving a hospital transfer, were dismissed.


Some 16 midwives argued that SB93 was designed by the state licensing division, with tacit approval of the medical establishment, to harass direct-entry midwives in order to get rid of them.


SB93 applies to midwife apprentices


SB93 will not affect midwives who have already undergone a certified education program. However, it will clarify the terms of practice for those who start out as midwife apprentices, Sen. Margaret Dayton, R-Provo, a sponsor of the bill, said.


"I wish they hadn't asked for licensing. But with licensing comes regulation,” Dayton, a former nurse who is married to an OB/GYN, said. She added that midwives must realize that just as with any other state-licensed occupation, midwifery must be subject to regulation.


Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake, said he voted against the bill because of the process by which it was made, rather because of its content. "We're being asked to legislate details that should have [been], but weren't, worked out in the normal rules [of] process. There should have been more good-faith negotiation and collaboration [before writing the Direct-Entry Midwife Act].”


McCoy (and other lawmakers) denied that the medical establishment participated in the rule making even if they were informed of the process. He added that midwives are given too much leeway, which may leave the state open to liability.


Dayton said, "Hospitals and doctors acknowledge that people have other choices. There has never been a move by the hospitals or this Legislature to go after the in-home birthing community."