Look Out Crunchy Moms, Arizona State Senator is Targeting Home Births! (Nanny of the Month 4-14)

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Look Out Crunchy Moms, Arizona State Senator is Targeting Home Births! (Nanny of the Month 4-14)

HD Video Download

America's control freaks are coming down on hoarders in Houston and folks who vape and drive in Upstate New York, but look out crunchy moms, this time nanny of the month zeroes in on the Arizona politician who's cracking down on home births!

About a minute and a half.

Follow Nanny of the Month on Twitter (@NannyoftheMonth) and submit your nominees for next month!

Nanny of the Month is written by Ted Balaker (@tedbalaker) and produced by Balaker and Matt Edwards (@MattChrisEd). Edited by Edwards. Opening graphics by Meredith Bragg.

To watch previous episodes, go here.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV's YouTube channel for notifications when new material goes live.

Comments

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

Don't interfere with natural selection!!!!

[Fist of Etiquette]

This one doesn't seem as egregious as previous month nannies. But then, I don't know nothing about birthing no babies.

[Drake]

There outta be a law!

[HazelMeade]

I'd really like to see them lock up a mother who has just given birth illegally at home.

[Paul Spomer]

Seriously. It won't happen, though it's absurd they're even reserving the right to try.

[njolsson]

They will wait until a child dies in childbirth at home. Then they will prosecute.

[Rufus J. Firefly]

I'm with FOE. This one didn't elicit enough pounding on the table.

[Rufus J. Firefly]

Likely because of ignorance.

[Spoonman.]

SLD, but home births are a really stupid idea. My daughter had an episode of SVT immediately after birth (she is completely fine now at almost 6 months) which they were able to treat her for almost immediately.

[Certified Public Asskicker]

Eh, pregnancy is not an illness. Humans have been successfully delivering babies outside of a hospital for...well, thousands of years.

Yes, there are circumstances such as yours where medical attention is necessary. However, most births involve a lot of unnecessary medical intervention. The problem too with a lot of pregnancies are that women (TIWTANLW, PATRIARCHY!) do not prepare well enough.

If you planned on running a marathon, you would train for it. Yet, birthing a baby, which I am told is the hardest thing most women do in their lives, is prepared for by sitting around waiting for it to happen (they call it resting). Work out, stretch that groin, and get ready to push!

[Zeb]

Stupid is a bit strong. How often does one go wrong? If you are prepared and everything is going well, not too much. If you insist on a home birth knowing that you have potential problems, that might be stupid. But it's not as if there are no costs or potential problems with going to the hospital. People get sick at the hospital all the time. It's not that great of a place to be if you don't have to be.
I'm not going to make any judgement of a mother with a healthy pregnancy who wants to give birth at home.

[Medical Physics Guy]

Conclusion from an anecdote. Birth outcomes are much better in countries that predominantly use midwives rather than medicalise every birth. Granted that's correlation not causation but it's better than anecdote.

[craiginmass]

Please educate yourself. Look up Ina May Gaskin and her record over thousands of births.

Anecdotes are not how statistics are formed. Hospital births are, in fact, much more dangerous for numerous reasons - foremost among them:

Infections
Incredibly high % of Caesarians

The USA is actually pretty bad when it comes to infant mortality. The reason that these folks are against home births are the usual - they want a monopoly, they want to deliver during business hours and not miss their golf game, etc.

[Rich]

Under the new city law, neighbors would call police and officers would make a welfare check. The hoarder could then be fined $500 a day if they do not cooperate with efforts to clean up their home and get some help for themselves.

Under the new national law, neighbors would call police and Homeland Security would make a welfare check. The potential terrorist could then be fined $500 a day if they do not cooperate with efforts to clean up their act and get some help for themselves.

/tinfoil hat

[Zeb]

How about people mind their own damn business? Or if you are really concerned, go knock on your crazy neighbors door and ask if they need any help getting their shit together. And if they tell you to fuck off, then fuck off as long as they aren't creating a danger or significant nuisance for anyone else.

[OneOut]

A welfare check with a SWAT team who shoots the family poodle so the officers can make it home safe that day.

The Democrat controlled City of Houston just took another step forward this week.

They passed a City ordinance to protect the civil rights of it's citizens.

If you suspect your employer is doing anything that may be negatively affecting you , now you only need to file a complaint against him and the city begins an investigation where the mean old business owner must prove that he fired you, or didn't promote you because you're black/brown/female and not because you didn't deserve it. Or did deserve it when fired.

The burden of proof goes to the business and not the complainer.

[Huh?]

I have had one home birth and one birth center birth. Both were great. Every women should have access to a birthing location where they feel comfortable. For someone with a high risk pregnancy that place is probably a hospital. For me, hospitals are far too dirty and the employees are too ready to tap your spine and wheel you done the hall for your c-section. I'll pass.

[Ron]

Unfortunately you can't argue with a democrat when they say republicans need to stay out of bedrooms and any other of our personal affairs. Of course with Obama care the comment rings true for democrats as well.

[theheat]

Planned home births attended by trained midwives are just as safe as hospital based births. Just b/c one has a homebirth, doesn't mean there is no medical equipment available (unless of course one chooses to not have a qualified attendant on hand, which is probably stupid). The US is somewhere around 50th out of the developed nations when it comes to infant and maternal mortality rates, so the "must have your baby in a hospital" status quo isn't really working. Why people want to give birth in a place where people go to die is beyond me.

[space junk]

I was born at home.

My parents wanted to be comfortable (as much as possible at the time) during my birth. It is a choice based on medical needs and personal comfort level.

And look at me! Aside from the nervous twitch and foaming at the mouth, I turned out fine.

Politicians should stay out of it. The next thing you know they will be trying to create some law that makes it punishable with jail time if the woman doesn't take her prenatal vitamins as prescribed by bureaucrats.

[SQRLSY One]

"The next thing you know they will be trying to create some law that makes it punishable with jail time if the woman doesn't take her prenatal vitamins as prescribed by bureaucrats." GAWD Dang it, Space Junk, PLEASE do NOT go putting ideas into their heads! And PLEASE, what-EVER you might do, do NOT suggest that the Worship of Government Almighty should be MANDATED, because, well, um, then, if we did THAT, fer Chriss-sakes, TAX collections themselves would become RELIGIOUS activities, prohibited to the sphere of activities permitted to Government Almighty, as deciphered by the Cunt-situational amendment concerning the separation of Church and Satan? In short, if TAX collections are interpreted as being in support of the new-fangled, now-fashionable flat-out WORSHIP of Government Almighty, then tax collections, per se, become a RELIGIOUS activity, which Government Almighty, Cunt-Stitutionally, MUST forswear against itself! Else, see, if tax collected money is used to serve Government Almighty, which is WORSHIPPED by so many of us, then the "wall of separation" between Church and Satanic State has been breached. ?

[SQRLSY One]

Therefore, lest Utter Chaos and Destruction be unleashed upon us all? In the form of Government Almighty NOT loving us all day, every day, whether we want to be Loved by Our Superiors, or not? For fear of breaching that sacred wall? Can you IMAGINE the fate of us all, to be ABANDONED by our BETTORS? Taxes can no longer be collected, say, because it furthers the interests of the those who worship Government Almighty? I beseech Thee, CEASE and DESIST in thy petty picking against Our Bettors, lest ALL of Benevolent Rule of Our Moral Superiors should be rent asunder, and utter chaos should rule the land! If Government Almighty is NOT going to be allowed to LOVE us all more than we love ourselves, then WHO, I ask you, WHO is going to LOVE us?!?!?!

[Mmsndobson]

I was an RN for 8 years, 2 of which were on a busy OB ward. I believe government should not intrude on someone else's freedom to choose where they deliver their baby. There are a couple things that pregnant women and the baby's father should consider though: 1. The risks involved with delivery anywhere. Under current laws there is a statute of limitations to sue the obstetrician and/or midwife of 18 years for the parents. The child involved has none, that is they can sue anytime during their lifetime. This law, I believe, is so constraining for all involved that , just like many laws, it diminishes the patient's and the medical professionals' liberties and places a distrust in the patient/provider relationship. The term thrown around in medicine is defensive medicine. Do these laws really decrease negligence? 2. Are parents willing to assume some of the risks?

I believe and would argue that the litigious laws for parents, to essentially assume no risk for the delivery of their baby, inhibits their freedoms greatly already, even without a law like the one proposed in AZ. If you are not willing to fight for the statute of limitations for parents to be decreased or disappear, then proposed laws like AZs will always be there.