Rule 302, Birth and Trigon/Anthem (Glasscock) - and ACOG's Willett LeHew, MD

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Todd Gastaldo, Dec 16, 2003.

  1. RULE 302 IS FINALLY BEING CHALLENGED IN COURT See below.

    First things first...

    "It is established obstetric teaching that a narrow pelvic outlet predisposes to a difficult vaginal
    delivery..." --Frudinger et al. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2002;109(11):1207-12

    PREGNANT WOMEN: MDs are senselessly closing birth canals up to 30% by placing women semisitting and
    dorsal (on their backs/butts). It's EASY to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%:
    Just roll onto your side as you push your baby out - but see the two WARNINGS below...

    Attention: Virginia Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Program (staff and board members
    listed below): MDs are causing mechanical birth trauma! Please stop them!

    ANTHEM, INC.

    Attention: LARRY GLASSCOCK^^^, PRESIDENT & CEO ANTHEM, INC. (Anthem now owns TRIGON^^^)...

    Larry,

    MDs are KNOWINGLY senselessly closing birth canals up to 30%. See the simple PROOF in my Open Letter
    to Willett LeHew, MD below.

    Please simply STOP PAYING MDs who senselessly close birth canals up to 30%!

    Please start promoting homebirth and homebirth midwives. MDs libeled homebirth as child abuse. See
    the Rule 302 discussion below.

    ^^^Sent to Larry Glasscock via TOM SNEAD ([email protected]), PRESIDENT, VIRGINIA ANTHEM
    (formerly Trigon BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF VIRGINIA)

    ^^^Sent to Larry also via Anthem health fraud investigator MARY LOU SULLIVAN
    [email protected] - BTW, GREAT QUOTE Mary Lou - see below...

    (Carol Darden: Nice talking with you. Please do print this out for Tom.)

    Larry, I complained about the obvious MD birth crime in an Open Letter to the Virginia Department of
    Health Professions ([email protected]), writing:

    "I wish to file a complaint against MD-obstetricians. I don't want them punished - I just want them
    to stop closing birth canals..." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2078

    WILLIAM L. HARP, MD, Executive Director, Virginia Board of Medicine "responded" - ignored my
    complaint and said I needed to name an individual MD - so I did...

    See MD birth crime: Gastaldo names individual MD... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-
    list/message/2082

    Nothing happened. I'll cc Dr. Harp again - via [email protected]

    Attention: Virginia Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Program (staff and board members
    listed below)...

    The Virginia Board of Medicine has done NOTHING.

    Even the "chiropractic" board member ignored me...

    See Jerry Ray Willis, DC (Virginia Medical Board member) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-
    list/message/2099

    Since the Virginia Birth Injury Program helps babies who have suffered mechanical birth trauma...

    Please stop MD-obstetricians from *causing* mechanical birth trauma.

    NOTE: Virginia Birth Injury Advisor Willett L. LeHew, MD has likely been closing birth canals
    himself and may not act...

    Nonetheless...

    OPEN LETTER (instantly archived at: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2252)

    Willett L. LeHew, MD Member Board of Directors Virginia Birth-Related Neurological Injury
    Compensation Program 9100 Arboretum Parkway, Suite 365 Richmond, Virginia 23236 (via Sharon Payne,
    Deputy Director, Virginia Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Program, 804-330-2471 X 302
    [email protected])

    WILLETT,

    MD-obstetricians are knowingly closing birth canals up to 30%.

    SIMPLE PROOF...

    The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist's/ACOG's Shoulder Dystocia video purports to
    tell MDs how to OPEN the birth canal when baby's shoulders get stuck - which obviously means that
    MD-obstetricians know they are closing birth canals.

    IT GETS WORSE WILLETT: The ACOG method for opening the birth canal when baby's shoulders get stuck
    (PROPER McRoberts) - actually keeps the birth canal closed!

    See IMPROPER McRoberts can save tiny lives and tiny limbs... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-
    list/message/1308

    MD-obstetricians are knowingly causing mechanical birth trauma.

    Please take action to stop your fellow MD-obstetricians from closing birth canals up to 30%.

    Thanks,

    Sincerely,

    Todd

    Dr. Gastaldo [email protected]

    PS1 GRUESOME SPINAL MANIPULATION BY MDs...

    In addition to senselessly closing birth canals, MDs are gruesomely manipulating the tiniest spines
    - pushing and pulling - with birth canals senselessly closed up to 30%.

    Some babies are dying... OBs are killing an estimated six babies per DAY with vacuum-assisted spinal
    manipulation alone - with birth canals senselessly closed up to 30%...

    See USUAL MECHANISM (PS5) in my article, "Pregnant chiro patients: BIZARRE chiro legislation -
    babies be damned..." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2135

    MD-obstetricians CAUSE cephalopelvic disproportion (and failure to progress) - then perform c-
    sections BEcause of cephalopelvic disproportion (and failure to progress)!

    BEFORE MDs PERFORM C-SECTIONS...

    They chemically whip the uterus to contract VIOLENTLY - with birth canals senselessly
    closed up to 30%

    For details of this violent PUSHING spinal manipulation by MDs...

    See OXYTOCIN SCREAMING... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2242

    "Off label" CYTOTEC SCREAMING...

    Cytotec also makes the uterus contract violently...

    Cytotec is being used "off label" - never having been tested for use during labor...

    Not long ago, Cytotec manufacturer Searle wrote a letter to OBs "repudiating" the use of Cytotec.

    FDA *banned* Cytotec use in birth...

    OBs complained and "pressured" FDA to rescind the ban because Cytotec (Misoprostol) "was in such
    common use."

    The words in quotes are from Henci Goer's EXCELLENT article, "'Spin Doctoring' the Research."
    [Birth. (Jun)2003;30(2):124-29]

    See OBs causing 'short violent labors'/Semisitting birth is NOT physiological! (Attn: ICEA/Nurse
    Coleman) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2008

    MEDICAL BIRTH BAD FOR VAGINAS...

    MD-obstetricians are SLASHING VAGINAS en masse ("routine episiotomy") - surgically/FRAUDULENTLY
    inferring they are doing everything possible to OPEN the birth canal - even as they CLOSE the
    birth canal!

    Michael C. Klein, MD writes: "[E]pisiotomy is a deliberate second degree tear." [Birth. Letter.
    2002;29(1):74]

    Some MDs are still claiming (fraudulently) that their episiotomies are *preventing* severe tears
    clear to the anus when in fact MDs are CAUSING severe tears clear to the anus!

    In 1990 the National Institutes of Health researched the issue and found that deliberate tears by
    MDs (episiotomies) cause fifty times MORE severe tears (tears clear to the anus) relative to leaving
    the vagina alone.[Shiono et al. Obstet Gynecol 1990;75(5):765-70. In Klein et al. Online J Curr Clin
    Trials (Jul1)1992, Doc. No. 10]

    MDs are not only hospitalizing birth - they are using birth to hospitalize women AFTER birth!

    "The most common diagnosis for hospitalization among all women is trauma to perineum due to
    childbirth." http://www.ahcpr.gov/data/hcup/factbk3/factbk3.htm

    MDs are deliberately/senselessly traumatizing perinea - and calling it "childbirth." (!)

    This is not childbirth! This is MEDICAL birth - the largest insurance fraud!

    MALPRACTICE LIABILITY INSURERS...

    THE ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE...

    "1974...The St. Paul introduces the 'claims-made' policy for medical liability insurance."
    http://www.stpaul.com/wwwcorporate/content/aboutus/history.asp

    MALPRACTICE LIABILITY INSURANCE FRAUD?

    Back in 1996, I noted that Attorney/physician Harvey Wachsman [Lethal Medicine NY: Henry Holt 1993]
    reported that obstetricians were creating a phony malpractice liability insurance crisis that was
    "believed at the highest level of government."

    In his 1993 book, Wachsman offered some staggering figures to show that malpractice liability
    insurers are making an obscene killing writing insurance for obstetricians.

    Obstetricians appear to be getting something quite valuable in return - the ability to tell
    homebirth midwives that their malpractice liability insurance companies simply won't let them
    support homebirth....

    In effect then, the malpractice liability insurers thus insure that all maternity care business is
    routed to obstetricians.

    Obstetricians then have PLENTY of money for their malpractice liability insurance premiums AND a
    seemingly legitimate gripe at-the-ready for when they are asked why they are refusing to back-up
    homebirth midwives.
    http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=smm%24961229.14120%40cony.gsf.de&output=gpl\ ain

    See Vaginas and media silence: Insuring that malpractice occurs - babies be damned http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-
    list/message/1853

    See also: Birth postures of submission (also: Hysterectomy alternative: fibroid embolisation) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-
    list/message/2154

    ANTHEM "TOOK SERIOUSLY THE MALPRACTICE CONCERNS RAISED BY PHYSICIANS"

    Friday, July 11, 2003 Anthem, Ob/Gyns agree on reimbursement terms through '05 For consumers, the
    contracts help resolve growing fears that obstetricians in Cincinnati would stop delivering babies
    over their concerns about malpractice insurance...Anthem officials took action because they took
    seriously the malpractice concerns raised by physicians. By Tim Bonfield The Cincinnati Enquirer
    http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/07/11/loc_anthemdocs11.html

    Copied to Tim Bonfield [email protected]

    Apparently, the US General Accounting Office/GAO agrees with Dr. Wachsman that the malpractice
    liability insurance crisis is way overblown...

    ACOG birth-canal-closers are whining about GAO's report...

    "In essence, the recent GAO report tells the physicians who care for women and newborns that any
    liability insurance crisis is either imagined or, at best, is selectively affecting doctors but
    miraculously sparing their patients." http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr09-25-
    03.cfm

    ACOG seems to have a legitimate beef with GAO...

    "In measuring obstetrical care, the report focuses on newborn deliveries, and yet assesses
    access by evaluating Medicare utilization data, a completely inappropriate measurement of
    obstetric services since Medicare covers only 6,000 of the 4 million US deliveries a year."
    http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr09-25-03.cfm

    I didn't know MEDICARE is paying for 6,000 deliveries per year!

    A NOTE ABOUT MEDICARE: I notified HCFA Analyst Dorothy Honemann in 1997 about the MD birth crime.
    She did nothing.

    More recently, Diana Motsiopoulos, the designated Federal Official for Pres. George W. Bush's
    Medicare/Medicaid/CMS Practicing Physician Advisory Committee (PPAC) asked that I stop emailing her
    about the crime...

    See Feds (Motsiopoulos/CMS/PPAC/Pres Bush) to help babies? http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-
    list/message/2178

    I'll copy this to Motsiopoulos and PPAC/Medicare - via Keri Boston [email protected]

    Medicare Practicing Physician Advisory Committee - please advise Medicare to demand that MDs stop
    closing birth canals in those 6,000 deliveries per year. Advise Medicaid to do the same - even if
    you have no Medicaid advisory authority.

    Back to ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE...

    "1974...The St. Paul introduces the 'claims-made' policy for medical liability insurance."
    http://www.stpaul.com/wwwcorporate/content/aboutus/history.asp

    ST. PAUL! MDs are senselessly closing birth canals thereby CREATING malpractice liability (not to
    mention paralyzed arms, etc.)

    ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE SHOULD TAKE ACTION!

    ST. PAUL EMPLOYEES MIGHT EVEN **VOLUNTEER** TO STOP THE MD CRIME!

    "The St. Paul has a long tradition of corporate citizenship...[C]ountless volunteer hours [are]
    contributed by employees..." http://www.stpaul.com/wwwcorporate/content/Communities/welcome.asp

    I'll cc St. Paul employee (Chairman/CEO Jay S. Fishman) via: kim.o'[email protected] ;
    [email protected] ; david.be[email protected] ; [email protected] ;
    [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]

    A special thanks BTW must go to St. Paul fraud employee Steve Bodge, CIFI,SCLA,CFE for
    contacting me.

    Steve Bodge is an insurance fraud investigator - a Special Investigation Unit SPECIALIST...

    Steve Bodge St. Paul Fire and Marine 1409 Greenbrier Street, Suite 201 Charleston, WV 25311
    ( O) 304-340-4322 (Mobile) 304-482-6842 (Fax) 304-340-4314

    NOTE: Steve contacted me to tell me, in effect, that he will NOT be investigating. If anyone knows
    Steve, please thank him for me. Steve's "response" stimulated me to read about St. Paul
    introducing the "claims-made" policy for malpractice liability insurance. Steve refocused my
    attention on the **malpractice liability** aspect of the massive MD birth fraud...

    THE INSURANCE BUREAU OF CANADA/IBC...

    FORTUNATELY, the Insurance Bureau of Canada/IBC (220 Canadian general/property and casualty
    insurers) - is interested in PREVENTION of insurance fraud - "REGARDLESS OF WHO IS PROVIDING
    PAYMENT," as in,

    "Launch a permanent national effort on injury prevention (p. 3)...Improv[e] the flow of information
    to the public about health system performance and costs...There is...sound evidence of the need for
    the major funders of health care to work together to develop specific mechanisms to strengthen
    individual accountability for the proper use of health system resources, regardless of who is
    providing payment. (p. 9)" --RESTORING CONFIDENCE (The Insurance Bureau of Canada/IBC)^^^

    IBC says "major funders of health care" need to work together...

    IBC *is* a "major funder of healthcare" - IBC could take the lead!

    ^^^The article just quoted - RESTORING CONFIDENCE - is the Insurance Bureau of Canada's Sept. 2001
    submission to the The Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada and The Standing Senate
    Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology http://www.ibc.ca/pdffiles/publications/submissions/restoring_confidence-
    sept2001.pdf

    IBC should at least TALK to OTHER "major funders of health care" - for examp le the guys
    at Anthem...

    IBC should demand that Anthem's Tom and Larry stop paying MDs who close birth canals - on both sides
    of the border...

    IBC says:

    "Thirty million Canadians are the true owners of our health care system. As individual users, they
    need to have the information and the knowledge to make informed choices about their health care."
    (p. 22) --RESTORING CONFIDENCE (The Insurance Bureau of Canada/IBC)

    IBC's sentiments are my sentiments - EXACTLY!

    Similarly, Americans are the true owners of *their* health care system - with for-profit CEO's
    SUPPOSEDLY interested in quality of health care (see ACA/McAndrews quote below)...

    I'll cc IBC's Robert Cooke, Chairman and Stan Griffin President and C.E.O., via [email protected]

    NOTE: "IBC represents more than 220 member insurance companies. We work to improve the environment
    in which our members operate to the ultimate benefit of insurance consumers."
    http://www.fraudcoalition.org/newsmedia_president.asp

    THE NATIONAL HEALTH CARE ANTI-FRAUD ASSOCIATION

    WILL NHCAA HELP?

    WILL AHFI's HELP?

    On August 9, 2002, Bill Mahon, National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association (NHCAA) Executive
    Director, formally announced the membership role for the inaugural group of Accredited Health Care
    Fraud Investigators (AHFI's).

    A PHYSICIAN, A HOSPITAL - "the most common type of health fraud"...

    ANTHEM'S MARY LOU SULLIVAN, AHFI SAYS...

    "Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kentucky also provides a hotline number for members, according
    to Mary Lou Sullivan, the company's senior manager of special investigations...Sullivan said the
    most common type of health care fraud is billing for services not rendered...'That could be a
    physician, a pharmacy, a hospital - any type of health-care provider,' she said." --by Thomas Pack,
    a free-lance writer for Business First. Send comments on this article to [email protected]
    http://www.bizjournals.com/louisville/stories/2002/12/23/focus2.html?t=printable

    Mary Lou - MDs are LYING - then closing birth canals - sometimes KILLING - but always BILLING -
    fraudulently.

    Copied to Mary Lou Sullivan, AHFI

    Copied to AHFI Director of Investigation Support Mike Costello ([email protected])

    INSURERS - General *and* Health insurers: Please help benefit the TINIEST insurance consumers!

    Tell mothers before birth...

    PREGNANT WOMEN: You can allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up to 30% - just roll onto your
    side - or use kneeling or hands-and-knees or stand or squat - ANYTHING but semisitting or dorsal.

    WARN mothers:

    1. Most MD-obstetricians close the birth canal up to 30%^^^ even as they acknowledge that closing
    the birth canal FAR LESS can kill.
    2. Some MD-obstetricians will let you "try" "alternative" delivery positions BUT they will move you
    back to dorsal or semisitting (close your birth canal up to 30%!) for the actual delivery!

    ^^^NOTE: If the pubic arch is narrow, semisitting and dorsal likely close the birth canal MORE than
    30% in some women.

    According to Williams Obstetrics [2001]:

    "...With increasing narrowing of the pubic arch, the occiput cannot emerge directly beneath the
    symphysis pubis but is forced increasingly farther down...the ischiopubic rami. In extreme cases,
    the head must rotate around a line joining the ischial tuberosities [!] (p. 438)..."

    PROOF that MDs know they are closing birth canals:

    At my request, the authors of Williams Obstetrics *published* "my" biomechanics - but they left in
    their text the "dorsal widens" bald lie that first called my attention to their text.

    Here are the biomechanics that were added at my request to Williams Obstetrics:

    "It should be noted...that the increase in the diameter of the pelvic outlet occurs *only* if the
    sacrum is allowed to rotate posteriorly..."
    [3:285, *italics* in original]

    In a case of OBVIOUS NEGLIGENCE, the authors of Williams Obstetrics left in their text (in the same
    paragraph!) the "dorsal widens" bald lie that first called my attention to their text.

    For a discussion of OTHER obvious obstetric negligence - and how the 30% figure was radiographically
    derived - see http://home1.gte.net/gastaldo/part2ftc.html. My thanks to Prof. Dr. Moyses Paciornik,
    MD, Curitiba, Brazil, for calling my attention to this chiropractic emergency. See the Paciornik and
    Gastaldo letters in Birth [1992;19:230]

    FURTHER proof that MDs know they are closing birth canals (already noted)...

    ACOG's shoulder dystocia video purports to show MDs how to OPEN the birth canal maximally when the
    shoulders get stuck - which of course is an indirect admission that MDs are indeed routinely CLOSING
    birth canals...

    Unfortunately, the ACOG method for opening the birth canal (PROPER McRoberts) actually keeps
    it closed...

    See IMPROPER McRoberts can save tiny lives and tiny limbs... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-
    list/message/1308

    (ACOG = Amercian College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists - the obstetric trade union to which
    most MD-obstetricians belong.)

    IT'S NOT JUST ACOG...

    CANADA'S obstetricians are also closing birth canals...

    I warned the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) that semisitting closes
    the birth canal - but SOGC still apparently approves the following grisly bald lie:

    "The traditional lithotomy position commonly used in obstetric units can certainly be modified to
    obtain a semi-sitting posture and hence achieve the benefit derived from the upright position..."
    SOGC CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES POLICY STATEMENT No. 71, December 1998:53
    http://www.sogc.org/SOGCnet/sogc_docs/common/guide/pdfs/healthybegeng.pdf

    SOGC *also* still says (same document - p. 54): "[T]he traditional lithotomy position...should...be
    reserved for cases of operative delivery [vacuum/forceps]."

    Traditional lithotomy - like semi-sitting/semi-recumbency - CLOSES THE BIRTH CANAL!

    One does NOT pull on a baby's skull with the birth canal senselessly closed!

    PARDONS FOR MDs...

    As always, I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. MDs are just academic prime cuts forced
    through this culture's most powerful mental meatgrinder - medical school.

    PS2 BACK TO ACOG OF VIRGINIA'S WILLETT L. LEHEW, MD...

    Willett,

    The American Chiropractic Association/ACA lawsuit (against Trigon cum Glasscock's Anthem, currently
    on appeal) alleges that...

    As part of Trigon cum Anthem's Managed Care Advisory Panel/MCAP you and other Trigon cum Anthem MD
    advisors "collusively assembled and distributed scientifically distorted 'back pain guidelines' to
    more than 90% of the medical physicians in Virginia." http://www.chiroweb.com/trigon/trigon.pdf

    The American Chiropractic Association/ACA ALSO alleges that (as part of Trigon cum Anthem's Managed
    Care Advisory Panel/MCAP) you distorted AHCPR's spinal manipulation guidelines to stop MDs from
    referring to DCs for the type of spinal manipulation specifically called for in the AHCPR
    guidelines.

    Willitt, you are an obstetrician. You should be ashamed. Of all the Panel members,the OBSTETRIC
    member should have spoken out against the Panel's distortion of the AHCPR guidelines: Pregnant women
    - who often suffer low back pain - are *not supposed to take* the Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory
    Drugs/NSAIDS recommended by AHCPR - unless absolutely necessary!

    Pregnant women are advised to AVOID medication for fear of causing harm to their fetuses.

    Fortunately, a Danish study of over 50,000 women concluded that NSAID usage had no impact on the
    odds for birth defects, low birth weight babies, or preterm births...

    UNFORTUNATELY the same study found that taking NSAIDs increased the risk of having a miscarriage.
    http://www.pedsforparents.com/Articles/articles16.html (citing British Medical Journal,
    2000/12Volume 19, Number 9)

    Willett, ACA Attorney George McAndrews was surprised about something that also surprises me...

    McAndrews writes:

    "Surprisingly, Trigon's Chief Medical Doctor [William Bracciodieta, M.D.] testified that the quality
    of health care given was of no concern to Trigon:...Q. Does Trigon in any way try to evaluate the
    effects of its insurance coverages or lack of coverages on the healthcare provided to those that are
    insured by Trigon policies?...A. No. Again, that's not the business that we're in..." --Attorney
    George P. McAndrews www.amerchiro.org/pdf/trigon_appellants_brief.pdf

    QUESTION: Which is it Willett? Trigon-cum-Anthem CEOs? - or MDs? - or BOTH (!) - who think an
    insurance company should not "in any way try to evaluate the effects of its insurance
    coverages..." (?)

    Back to Trigon-cum-Anthem CEOs...

    LARRY GLASSCOCK, PRESIDENT & CEO ANTHEM, INC. (now owns Trigon)...

    via TOM SNEAD, PRESIDENT OF ANTHEM (formerly Trigon) BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF VIRGINIA

    Larry (and Tom),

    EMERGENCY!

    You are paying MD-obstetricians to senselessly close birth canals and GRUESOMELY manipulate most
    babies' spines!

    (ALL spinal manipulation is gruesome with the birth canal senselessly closed.)

    Please STOP PAYING MD-obstetrician who senselessly close birth canals!

    STOP PAYING for gruesome MD spinal manipulation of BABIES...

    JUST THINK... By explicitly excluding this MD spinal manipulation "benefit," Anthem will save PLENTY
    of money which can then be used to compensate Virginia chiropractors for Trigon cum Anthem's "acts
    of extortion, discrimination, and fraud." (McAndrews, p. 61)

    Anthem will also have plenty of money to restore the 40% cut Trigon made in chiropractic
    reimbursement for spinal manipulation...

    AND Anthem will have plenty of money to inform Anthem insureds across the country that pregnant
    women are not supposed to take NSAIDS - that spinal manipulation is available to them.

    Of course, ALL Anthem insureds - pregnant or not - should be made aware that the chiropractic spinal
    manipulation benefit is available!

    On a personal note, when I was in spinal adjusting practice, I found that pregnant women were SO
    easy to adjust - and so grateful - many hugs!

    The British Gray's Anatomy may still reference the British MD who manipulated spines following birth
    with dramatic relief of the severest back pain in some cases.

    WILK v. AMA - and PREGNANCY...

    There was some interesting chiropractic/birth testimony in Wilk v. AMA (the trial that first
    outlined the conspiracy and preceded ACA's current lawsuit against Trigon-cum-Anthem)...

    According to Chester A Wilk [1995]...

    Orthopedic surgeon and AMA Trustee Irvin Hendryson, MD informed AMA General Counsel Robert B.
    Throckmorton that, at the University of Colorado, he (Hendryson) had observed that chiropractic
    adjustments were very helpful to women in the third trimester of pregnancy.

    According to Wilk [1995], Dr. Hendryson's 1966 letter indicated that pregnant women were able to
    carry and deliver their children with less discomfort if they received chiropractic adjustments.
    [AMA Trustee Hendryson's 1966 letter to AMA General Counsel Throckmorton was Plaintiff's Exhibit
    241 in Wilk v. AMA. Cited in Wilk CA. Medicine, Monopolies and Malice. Garden City Park, NY:
    Avery. 1995:159]

    AMA ignored Hendryson's 1966 letter...

    Wilk [1995] notes something interesting happened at trial:

    "As this evidence was revealed, one of the attorneys for the defense [AMA] fairly sneered at the
    idea that a woman who had received chiropractic adjustments might have an easier time during
    childbirth. At this, Judge Getzendanner looked up and pointed at him, her index finger wagging
    slowly from side to side...and cut him short. Dryly, she reminded him that *he* had never had to
    give birth...The defense counsel...promptly sat down." [Wilk
    3:1]

    NOTE: American Chiropractic Association/ACA General Counsel George McAndrews (and Ryan) apparently
    refer to the same scene:

    "Juries may understand, as did Judge Getzendanner, that expectant mothers cannot wait four or five
    days [after delivery and discharge] before consulting skilled chiropractors..." [McAndrews, Ryan.
    "Hospital Monopolization May Be Next Legal Target." ACA Journal Sept. 1988]

    Juries might be *especially* understanding once they are informed that MDs are routinely closing
    birth canals up to 30% (!) - and lying about it. (!)

    MDs are also lying about epidurals...

    According to former WHO consultant Marsden Wagner, MD:

    "There is...an epidemic of epidural use in this country now. Women are being lied to and told that
    this is safe. The data contradicts this. Epidural causes somewhere between 4 and 10 times as much
    forceps or vacuum births and causes between 2 and 4 times as many cesareans. Since forceps, vacuum
    births, and cesareans all carry significant risks for both the woman and the baby, these are not
    benign procedures..."

    GASTALDO NOTES: MDs are pulling on tiny spines with birth canals senselessly closed up to 30%!!

    Some babies are dying... OBs are killing an estimated six babies per DAY with vacuum-assisted spinal
    manipulation alone - with birth canals senselessly closed up to 30%...

    See USUAL MECHANISM (PS5) in my article, "Pregnant chiro patients: BIZARRE chiro legislation -
    babies be damned..." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2135

    MD-obstetricians CAUSE cephalopelvic disproportion (and failure to progress) - then perform c-
    sections BEcause of cephalopelvic disproportion (and failure to progress)!

    BEFORE MDs PERFORM C-SECTIONS...

    They chemically whip the uterus to contract VIOLENTLY - with birth canals senselessly
    closed up to 30%

    For details of this violent PUSHING spinal manipulation by MDs...

    See OXYTOCIN SCREAMING... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2242

    Marsden Wagner, MD writes further...

    "...Every year women die just from the epidural procedure itself. The epidural is a very tricky
    procedure and one that can be life-threatening if the tiniest slip is made.

    "The American public does not know that women die from epidural anesthesia. One of the biggest
    problems in the United States is that the medical profession has stonewalled the information on
    pregnancy and birth. It is very difficult for the public to get true information...

    "...Will American obstetricians willingly change? I'll answer this by asking another question. Why
    should they? They have all the money and power...'The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology,
    for the most part, has been passive in the face of the epidemic of cesarean births. The conservative
    and self-serving stance of this organization is illustrated by an extraordinary statement made
    recently by the former president of this College: "Home birth is child abuse in its earliest form."
    [Wagner M quoted in Gaskin IM. Interview with Marsden Wagner author of Pursuing the Birth Machine
    [ACE Graphics 1994]. Birth Gazette 1995;11(4):6-12. Birth Gazette is no longer avaible at the OHSU
    medical library.]

    WHAT?!

    "HOMEBIRTH IS CHILD ABUSE IN ITS EARLIEST FORM..." (?!) --Former ACOG president quoted by Marsden
    Wagner, MD, see above

    WHY is the insurance industry ignoring this yet unpunished libel?

    Larry and Tom - I hope you're both still reading...

    You may be able to DRASTICALLY cut health insurance costs - just by finally compensating for this
    unpunished MD libel - by promoting homebirth and INDEPENDENT homebirth midwives...

    SOME HISTORY...

    In California in 1949, independent homebirth midwifery LICENSURE was ended quietly - by the same
    1949 legislation that ended the Medical Practice Act drugless practitioner licensing mechanism
    for DCs...

    To be sure, both DCs already licensed as DPs by the Medical Board - and independent midwives already
    licensed by the Medical Board - were allowed to keep practicing - but there was no longer any
    mechanism to LICENSE new ones...

    KEY POINT: In Oregon, the licensed midwifery statute explicitly states that a midwifery license is
    NOT REQUIRED.

    Similarly, a midwifery certificate was NOT REQUIRED in California. More on this key point below.

    Whereas DCs had their own licensing board by the time the DP mechanism for licensure was ended -
    independent midwives had no licensing board...

    BUT THEY DIDN'T NEED ONE!

    As in Oregon today, a midwifery license was NOT REQUIRED in California - though MDs and MD-funded
    law enforcement - and the judiciary - VERY creatively danced around this point - arresting/harassing
    independent midwives for years - the ultimate harrassment perhaps being the California Supreme
    Court's 1974 Bowland decision in which the then-brand new Roe v. Wade decision was used to in effect
    equate birth with abortion to deny Californians access to independent midwives. The Bowland court
    even cited a law passed AFTER the midwives were arrested - to justify its bizarre conclusion. See my
    Open Letter to the Medical Board of California, reproduced below.

    Bottomline, in 1949, licensure of new independent HOMEBIRTH practitioners (both DCs and midwives)
    was gone from the Medical Practice Act!

    CHIROPRACTIC OBSTETRICIANS PRACTICED MIDWIFERY - **NOT** MEDICAL/SURGICAL OBSTETRICS...

    THE 1922 CHIROPRACTIC INTEGRATION...

    Fortunately, the 1922 CHIROPRACTIC Practice Act was an INTEGRATION of the various types of DC
    practitioners - including drugless practitioners/DPs...

    In 1998, then-immediate-past California Republican Party Chairman Michael Schroeder, Esq. wrote of
    this "integration"...

    "In 1948, by initiative, Section 5 of the Chiropractic Act was amended to increase [from 2,400 hours
    to 4,000 hours] the number of hours of training required to obtain a certificate to practice
    chiropractic....

    "[In 1949], the Legislature was satisfied that the integration of the straight/chiropractors and the
    mixer/drugless practitioners/naturopaths had been properly completed, so it abolished the separate
    classification of 'drugless practitioner'..."

    Quote is from Schroeder M. March 17, 1998 "Vitamin" letter to the California Chiropractic Board.

    Attorney Schroeder failed to mention that the same 1949 legislation abolished independent midwifery
    licensure...

    I say again though: A midwifery license was NOT REQUIRED in California - though MDs and MD-funded
    law enforcement - and the judiciary - VERY creatively danced around this point - arresting/harassing
    independent midwives for years - the ultimate harrassment perhaps being the California Supreme
    Court's 1974 Bowland decision in which the then-brand new Roe v. Wade decision was used to in effect
    equate birth with abortion to deny Californians access to independent midwives.

    Sorry to repeat this point but - the fact that California midwives did not need a license to
    practice - just like Oregon midwives do not today need a license - is crucial.

    Also noteworthy is the fact that - just as pregnancy and childbirth are not medical conditions in
    Oregon today - so too with California - until - stare decisis - the 1974 Bowland decision
    transmogrified pregnancy and childbirth into medical conditions.

    Atty Schroeder is the former Chiropractic Board attorney and former attorney for the California
    Chiropractic Association who authored RULE 302...

    RULE 302 IS BEING CHALLENGED - FINALLY...

    Former law professor and dean David Prescott - now also a DC - has filed a lawsuit challenging
    Schroeder's Rule 302...

    Here are the particulars...

    David Prescott Bar # 44092 VERITAS JUSTICE and BIOETHICS INSTITUTE 22365 El Toro Road, Suite 109
    Lake Forrest, California 92630
    (714) 649-0661

    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

    NO: CGC-03-419378

    SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, and WRIT OF MANDATE

    GC 11350, CCP 1060, 1085, 1086, CCP 526

    LAURENCE TAIN, D.C.; DONALD NIELSEN, D.C.; ROBERT BITTERS, D.C.; STEPHANIE WATTENBERG, D.C.; and
    LORI PRESCOTT, D.C. Plaintiffs/Petitioners

    v.

    STATE BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS; CALIFORNIA ACUPUNCTURE BOARD; THE COUNCIL ON CHIROPRACTIC
    EDUCATION, INC.; and DOES 1 to 20 Defendants/Respondents

    Attorney Prescott writes on behalf of TAIN et al.: "Plaintiffs concede that chiropractors were not
    entitled to perform obstetrics, or childbirthing, pursuant to the provisions of the Chiropractic Act
    as first enacted in 1922." (p. 9) http://www.promedlaw.com/2nd%20am.%20compl-final-pdf.pdf

    I believe Attorney Prescott is wrong. In 1922, obstetrics (as practiced by
    DCs) was NOT childbirthing (midwifery)!! Obstetrics was MEDICINE - and childbirthing (midwifery) was
    NOT medicine - by law - right there in the Medical Practice Act - until 1993!

    Furthermore, childbirthing/midwifery licenses/certificates were NOT REQUIRED - although California's
    MD-funded law enforcement officers - and the California judiciary - have strained mightily to
    conceal this fact.

    JUST like in Oregon today - childbirthing was NOT the practice of medicine!

    DCt. DD Palmer, Founder of chiropractic, defined obstetrics as MIDWIFERY - and indicated that DCs
    should attend births - to be able to PREVENT disease
    [1910:789]...

    Furthermore, as indicated above, Schroeder himself notes that the 1922 Chiropractic Initiative Act
    was an INTEGRATION...

    This 1922 chiropractic integration included drugless practitioner DCs who in effect practiced
    MIDWIFERY - in accord with the teachings of the Founder of chiropractic...

    Attorney Prescott quotes the drugless practitioner section of the Medical Practice Act in his second
    amended complaint in TAIN v. STATE BOARD...

    (Note the text pertaining to the EXCEPTION for severing the umbilical cord)...

    "From 1913 to 1922 all persons seeking to lawfully practice as a chiropractor, naturopath, osteopath
    or other nonallopathic practitioner had to become licensed as a drugless practitioner...The scope of
    practice for drugless practitioners under the 1913 MPA was defined as follows: ยง 8. . . . ; second,
    a certificate authorizing the holder thereof to treat diseases, injuries, deformities, or other
    physical or mental conditions without the use of drugs or what are known as medicinal preparations
    and without in any manner severing or penetrating any of the tissues of human beings EXCEPT SEVERING
    OF THE UMBILICAL CORD, which certificate shall be designated drugless practitioner's certificate..."
    (emphasis added) http://www.promedlaw.com/2nd%20am.%20compl-final-pdf.pdf

    In 1986, Attorney Prescott noted that the 1948 ballot argument is not being used as an aid to
    interpreting California's Chiropractic Initiative Act of 1922...

    And the case that Mr. Schroeder called the "seminal" chiro case [Fowler 1938] turned on a
    ballot argument!

    Fowler - clearly stated that ballot arguments may be used to interpret statutes - "we must assume
    they are read" - or words to that effect...

    Yet Mr. Schroeder, custodian of Rule 302 materials, didn't even *mention* the 1948 ballot argument
    in his 1998 "vitamin" letter to the Board, Bob...

    Attorney Prescott writes in the TAIN complaint:

    >>The 1948 amendment increased the prescribed curriculum for a chiropractic
    license from 2400 hours to 4000 hours and allowed for up to 17% of the 4000 hours to be electives.
    (Exhibit C1, p. 14) The argument against the 1948 ballot measure provided, in part:

    "Any part of the 17 per cent of four thousand hours or 680 elective hours could be used to teach
    medicine, surgery and/or obstetrics. There is no provision to prevent the 5000 chiropractors, now
    licensed, (without training in such subjects) from practicing in these fields." (Emphasis in
    original; see Exhibit C1, p. 15)

    The proponent'xs ballot argument did not disagree that the electives could be used to increase the
    practice rights of chiropractors. (see, e.g., Legislature of the State of Cal.v. Eu (1991) 54 Cal.3d
    492, 504-506)<<

    NON-SPINAL ADJUSTMENTS CAN PREVENT MD BIRTH CRIME...

    "Chiropractic Education...include...OBSTETRICS..." --American Chiropractic Association/ACA
    Chairman James Edwards, DC and Cynthia Vaughn, DC http://www.jamesedwards.com/educate.htm
    (emphasis added)

    "Obstetrics is the art of midwifery...If the accoucheur is a Chiropractor, he can adjust...thereby
    preventing disease." --Dr. DD Palmer, Founder of Chiropractic [1910:789]

    NOTE: DD often adjusted without touching the spine - EDUCATIONAL ADJUSTMENTS.

    This email is an educational adjustment...

    Chiropractic physicians: You don't need to attend births again - you don't need to practice
    obstetrics or midwifery - to ADJUST to prevent disease!

    Furthermore, it is UNETHICAL for DCs to fail to take simple action to PREVENT that which they charge
    to treat...

    The American Chiropractic Association/ACA says that: 1) "[t]he chiropractic profession recognizes
    that...birth trauma, may be [a] common primary cause...of illness in children" and 2) that birth trauma-
    caused illness "can have a direct and significant impact on not only spinal biomechanics, but on
    other bodily functions.....Ratified by the House of Delegates, July 1994."
    http://www.amerchiro.org/about/policies.shtml

    One of the stated Objectives of ACA's Council on Chiropractic Orthopedics is:

    "Shar[ing] knowledge with all doctors of chiropractic for the benefit of the public and the
    profession..." http://www.ccodc.org/council.htm

    Hopefully, the following ACA Council on Chiropractic Orthopedics officers will urge ACA to
    immediately forward broadcast this email to ALL DCs for whom ACA has email addresses.

    ATTENTION: ACA Council on Chiropractic Orthopedics President GARY L. CARVER, D.C. 4409 Sterling Ave.
    Kansas City, MO 64133-1854 816-358-5100 Fax 816-358-6565 [email protected]

    ATTENTION Vice-President LEO J. BRONSTON, D.C. 1122 Saint Andrew St. La Crosse, WI 54603-2934 608-782-
    2225 608-781-2495 [email protected]

    ATTENTION Secretary Harold Tondera, DC9119 South Gessner, #201Houston, TX 77074713-988-3223fax - 713-988-
    5643 [email protected]

    ATTENTION Treasurer Dale Hungtington, DC700 W SunsetSpringdale, AR 72764-5434 - 479-751-8154fax -
    479-751-5362 [email protected]

    ATTENTION Immediate Past President ROGER A. RUSSELL, D.C. 715 Mall Ring Circle Suite 205 Henderson,
    NV 89014-6657 702-990-2225 Fax 702-990-7711 [email protected]

    ATTENTION A.C.A. Liaison Officer LINDA L. ZANGE, D, C., 3633 West Lake Ave. Glenview, IL 60025 847-724-
    2340 Fax 847-724-2356 [email protected]

    Again, one of the stated Objectives of ACA's Council on Chiropractic Orthopedics is:

    "Shar[ing] knowledge with all doctors of chiropractic for the benefit of the public and the
    profession..." http://www.ccodc.org/council.htm

    Harold Tondera, DC: Do you think ACA is so mired in politics that ACA can't be moved to help protect
    the tiniest chiropractic patients from gruesome MD spinal manipulators?

    How about you, Floyd?

    Copied to:

    Floyd Larcher, DC, DABCO President American Board of Chiropractic Orthopedists/ABCO Avila Beach, CA

    (via ABCO Exec. Dir. Paul G. Smith, DC, MA, DABCO [email protected] and [email protected], fax 702-222-
    9095 1680 E. Flamingo, Ste. A, Las Vegas, NV 89119)

    My understanding from previous conversations with Attorney Prescott is that he believes that
    legislative and judicial activity subsequent to 1922 makes it possible for the California State
    Board of Chiropractic Examiners to create further TRAINING opportunities which WILL (in the future)
    allow DCs to engage in "childbirthing" and "obstetrics."

    I still disagree with Attorney Prescott - if for no other reason than - obviously, DCs can compete
    quite well in NORMAL childbirth - quite SAFELY - with MDs who are knowingly closing birth canals.
    Stated "legally" - it makes NO sense that DCs should NOT be able to break the law if MDs are to be
    allowed to break the law!

    I say AGAIN: A midwifery license was NOT REQUIRED in California. MDs and MD-funded law enforcement -
    and the judiciary - VERY creatively danced around this point - arresting/harassing independent
    midwives for years. The ultimate harrassment perhaps was the California Supreme Court's Bowland
    decision which in effect equated birth with abortion and cited a law passed AFTER the midwives were
    arrested - to justify its bizarre conclusion.

    Again, sorry to repeat this point but - the fact that California midwives did not need a license to
    practice - just like Oregon midwives do not today need a license to practice - is crucial.

    Also noteworthy is the fact that just as in Oregon today pregnancy and childbirth are not medical
    conditions - so too with California - that is until - stare decisis - the 1974 Bowland decision
    changed that - using Roe
    v. Wade!

    If Attorney Prescott is TRULY interested in the safety of California mothers and babies during
    "obstetrics" - in addition to his present legal exertion - he will immediately use his legal
    expertise to petition California courts to stop MDs from senselessly closing birth canals and
    slashing vaginas.

    Attorney Prescott is also a DC. He knows biomechanics. MDs are slashing vaginas en masse -
    surgically/fraudulently *pretending* to be doing everything possible to open birth canals - even as
    they close birth canals. DO something! Today!

    If a court is to finally acknowledge that the Calif. Bd of Chiro. Examiners has the power to create
    childbirthing TRAINING opportunities...

    I do hope Attorney Prescott will not forget to ask the court to explicitly mention HOMEBIRTH and
    experienced independent homebirth MIDWIVES as the appropriate place for the Calif. Chiro. Bd to look
    for TRAINERS.

    It is a FACT that forcing midwives to train in hospitals in the current medico-legal climate is NOT
    the best way to learn MIDWIFERY and HOMEBIRTH skills.

    It's probably because...

    As Marsden Wagner, MD^^^ once said:

    "Chiropractic physicians are conceivably closest in philosophy to the midwives due to their training
    in the non-use of drugs...If a nurse or [medical] physician desires to practice midwifery, then it
    is necessary for each to [undergo one year or more of training] to literally 'unlearn' the
    pathological vision to get the proper perspective of normality."

    ^^^Marsden Wagner, MD served for 15 years as the director of women's and children's health for the
    World Health Organization. The quote above appeared in Wagner's amicus brief in the Peckman
    midwifery case and was published in NAPSAC News Spring 1991 by the InterNational Association of
    Parents and Professionals for Safe Alternatives in Childbirth, Rt. 1, Box 646, Marble Hill, MO
    63764 USA.

    How ever things play out in the ongoing Rule 302 drama...

    It is going to take a LONG time for DCs to regain the drugless practitioner cultural authority
    (and potential) they sold out the back door via CREES and ultimately by hiring Mike Schroeder to
    write Rule 302.

    KEY FACT #1: Schroeder's Rule 302 - the regulation being challenged in TAIN - was in effect
    "judicially rubberstamped" by 10 MD-obstetricians...

    KEY FACT #2: Schroeder's Rule 302 explicitly prohibited California DCs from the DRUGLESS
    PRACTITIONER UMBILICAL CORD EXCEPTION!

    THINK ABOUT IT: Under Schroeder's Rule 302, MDs can close birth canals, gruesomely manipulate spines
    - and sever spinal nerves^^^ - and DCs can't even sever umbilical cords!

    ^^^That's right! With birth canals senselessly closed, MDs sometimes pull so hard they rip spinal
    nerves out of tiny spinal cords!

    Worse, SUPPOSEDLY (according to a man calling himself Schroeder), California DCs cannot tell
    pregnant women that MDs are closing birth canals!

    SOMETHING ain't right!

    COINCIDENCE... Back around 1991, a man calling himself Mike Schroeder, attorney for the Calif.
    Chiro. Board told me it was not within the Calif. scope of chiropractic practice to tell pregnant
    women that MDs are closing birth canals. (This is a big part of the reason I am now unlicensed by
    choice: After talking with this man calling himself Schroeder, I realized my chiropractic license
    was denying me freedom of speech. Why should I pay a chiro board to deny myself freedom of speech as
    MDs close birth canals and gruesomely manipulate most babies' spines? I believe Schroeder's lawsuit
    was a "SLAPP" suit designed to chill my freedom of speech about former California Republican Party
    Chairman Schroeder.)

    FURTHER COINCIDENCE... After I discussed Schroeder's Rule 302 on the Dziuba/Cronshaw "unmoderated"
    chiro-list, I was SUED by Schroeder for one million dollars.

    NOTE: At about the time Schroeder sued me, I was CENSORED from chiro-list by Frank Dziuba - and this
    happened right after chirolist administrator Paul Cronshaw, DC told me "unmoderated means
    uncensored - anything goes." THAT was bizarre - logically speaking!

    Recently, at about the time Schroeder's Rule 302 was challenged in court by TAIN et al., Cronshaw
    retired from chiropractic and his censored chiro-list was moved from Dziuba's server - by two new
    censors - Dubin and Zaleski...

    Cronshaw wrote to me: "Please do not bring my name up again on the Internet. I am no longer the
    administrator of Chirolist. I have retired from chiropractic and Chirolist is now administrated by
    Drs. Dubin and Zaleski."

    On the same day, Dubin censored me: "I have unsubscribed Todd Gastaldo from the Chirolist...Thank
    you all for the private emails I have received regarding this individual...Seems like it is
    pretty unanimous, and no one wants to read Todd's rants over and over and over and over ad
    nauseum...Call it censorship if you wish, I prefer to preserve the bandwidth for issues that we
    can do something about."

    (NOTE: The first time I was censored - by Dziuba - see above - Dubin *protested* my censorship!)

    See also: 'Closed vagina' never discussed/Louis XIV viewed vagina at birth... http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-
    list/message/2240

    Dubin says he is censoring because: "I prefer to preserve the bandwidth for issues that we can do
    something about."

    Will someone please ask Bob about preserving width in birth canals and stopping MDs from gruesomely
    manipulating most babies' spines at birth!?

    There is NOTHING (except maybe a Schroeder-mediated, judicially-rubberstamped MD/DC political deal
    called Rule 302) stopping Bob Dubin, DC (fmr two-time CCA President) from calling for chiro trade
    unions and DCs to protest MDs closing birth canals/gruesomely manipulating most babies' spines...

    Canada's JIM DOREE, PT recently lied just like former chiro-list administrator Cronshaw is lying:

    "...PTHER
    • ...is unmoderated...[T]here are no moderators. There never have been any
      moderators..." http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/pther/message/27700

      PT "leaders" are ignoring the massive MD birth crime - just like DC "leaders."

      I think PTs joined with MD-obstetricians to - in effect - judicially rubberstamp Schroeder's Rule
      302. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

      DCu. DD Palmer, Founder of chiropractic indicated that chiropractic was, in part, obstetrics - which
      he defined as MIDWIFERY [1910:789]...

      KEY POINT: California's supply of LICENSED independent midwives was cut off by the same 1949
      legislation that strangled the supply of California's LICENSED drugless practitioner/chiro
      obstetricians...

      As noted above, independent midwives - most of them unlicensed because there was no way for them to
      become licensed - repeatedly introduced licensure legislation but were repeatedly defeated in
      committee by lobbiests for
      DCv...

      Independent midwives only THOUGHT they needed licenses - but they didn't! It was all a hoax!

      In 1992, a two-year British government study exposed the fact that there was never any evidence for
      organized medicine's blanket homebirth is child abuse libel...it had all been a hoax...

      In 1993, a homebirth midwifery licensure bill was HIJACKED and rewritten to finally get rid of the
      part of the 1917 midwifery section of the Medical Practice Act that remained after the 1949 MD-
      legislative strangulation mentioned above...

      In the hijacked 1993 law, MDs demanded "physician supervisors" knowing that no "physician
      supervisers" would be found...

      I wrote about this anti-competitive MD behavior in a June 26, 1999 email to the Medical Board of
      California...

      Midwife Alison Osborn - one of California's most experienced INDEPENDENT midwives - got licensed
      under the new law - couldn't find a physician supervisor - and thereby ran afoul of the law.
      Ultimately, an administrative law judge found in Alison's favor - but to my knowledge the
      Medical Board did not accept the judge's findings - so the findings only apply to Alison. Most
      all of California's homebirth midwives STILL practice in legal limbo. Someone please correct me
      if I'm wrong.

      June 26, 1999

      Medical Board of California 1426 Howe Avenue, Suite 54 Sacramento, CA 95825-3236

      Attn: Jennifer Walz. (Ms. Walz, please forward this to whomever has the e-mail addresses of the
      Board Members.) [email protected]

      Re: Midwifery licentiate Alison Osborn - a victim of MBC violating its own Mission

      Dear Board Members:

      The Medical Board is failing "to protect consumers through proper licensing" - violating its own
      Mission Statement...

      At a 1994 Midwifery Committee meeting, I noted that California physicians had lobbied for "physican
      supervision" of midwives - "instead of a more collegial relationship" - "so as not to issue an
      invitation to homebirths." [Vivian Dickerson, MD representing 1500 California obstetricians. Quoted
      in Ob.Gyn.News Sept. 15, 1993] http://www.goodnewsnet.org/legal_legislative01/mbcjun1b.htm

      At that 1994 meeting, I noted there was NO science to back up the California physicians' anti-
      homebirth subversion. There was never any evidence for organized medicine's mass libel of homebirth
      as "child abuse" (Homebirth "child abuse" was the headline of the Oct. 1, 1977 Ob.Gyn.News;
      obstetrician Vivian Dickerson's 1993 libel of homebirth - see above - was "nicer" libel - but libel
      just the same.)

      I demanded that the Board not spend the $70,000 loan from the taxpayers (for implementation of the
      1993 midwifery bill) until the Board found the homebirth "physician supervisors" that California
      physicians had insisted upon. (OBVIOUSLY, California physicians wouldn't have lobbied for
      homebirth "physician supervisors" unless there were plenty of homebirth "physician supervisors" to
      be found, right?)

      At that same meeting, a lobbiest for Doctors' Company, retired appellate judge Gordon Cologne, told
      the Midwifery Committee that there are few if any homebirth "physician supervisors" to be found
      because malpractice liability insurers won't cover planned homebirths.

      A couple of years later, when I found out that most licensed homebirth midwives were unable to find
      physician supervisors, I notified Ob.Gyn.News - which then did a story on the subject. [Ob.Gyn.News
      Sept. 15, 1996]

      I say AGAIN: In 1993, California physicians lobbied "physican supervision" into the law - "instead
      of a more collegial relationship" - "so as not to issue an invitation to homebirths." [Vivian
      Dickerson, MD representing 1500 California obstetricians. Quoted in Ob.Gyn.News Sept. 15, 1993]

      Obviously, the Medical Board knowingly wasted the $70,000 taxpayer loan - failing "to protect
      consumers through proper licensing" - thus violating its own Mission Statement...

      Who was at the helm of the Medical Board Midwifery Committee?

      None other than California Medical Association member Thomas "Overdose" Joas, MD was at the helm.

      "Overdose" Joas is a nice, self-deprecating sort (he's the one who told us they call him
      "Overdose")...

      But he is a treacherous sort when it comes to properly licensing the homebirth midwives that his
      trade union (CMA) has been stomping all these years...

      Some key points in California midwifery history...

      Immediate-past California Republican Party Chairman Michael Schroeder, Esq. has (perhaps
      unknowingly) written an account of an important midwifery-related event...

      In 1949, [writes Schroeder], the California legislature "abolished the separate classification of
      'drugless practitioner'...[and thereby]...completed the integration...[of the straight/chiropractors
      and the mixer/drugless practitioners/naturopaths]...begun in 1922 with the passage of the
      Chiropractic Act..."

      [Schroeder M. March 17, 1998 "Vitamin" letter to the California Chiropractic Board. Atty Schroeder
      is the former Chiropractic Board attorney and former attorney for the California Chiropractic
      Association who, wittingly or unwittingly, ignored the only relevant California statute and thereby
      helped 10 MD-obstetricians regulatorily prohibit DCs from doing something which explicitly by
      statute is NOT the practice of medicine.]

      DCw. Schroeder failed to mention in his 1998 "Vitamin" letter that the California legislature's
      ostensibly benevolent chiropractic/naturopathic/drugless practitioner "integration" involved
      getting rid of "drugless practitioner" licensure applications *and* "midwifery" licensure
      applications in California. Existing DPs and midwives could continue to practice - but no more
      could be licensed...

      Whereas Drugless Practitioners (NDs and DCs licensed under the Medical Practice Act) could get
      licensed under the Chiropractic Act; midwifery was strangled and slowly died because of these
      ostensibly benevolent "integration completion" efforts of the California Legislature in 1949 -
      coupled with simultaneous efforts by MDs to establish the specialty called obstetrics...

      Then, in the late 60s, there was a resurgence of public interest in homebirth and homebirth midwives
      - even midwives in hospitals...

      In 1971, Levy published an article which indicated in effect that the California Medical
      Association (CMA) had killed an experimental nurse-midwifery program knowing that the nurse-
      midwives were saving lives. [Levy et al. Reducing neonatal mortality with nurse-midwives. Am J
      Obstet Gynecol 1971;109(1):50-8]

      Then, in 1972, the California Medical Board's attorney (the Attorney General) told the bald lie
      alluded to above, saying that the experimental nurse-midwifery program would not be possible because
      it was a crime to practice midwifery without a certificate...

      The Medical Board attorney's bald lie is set off by these symbols **********:

      "Since the board of medical examiners cannot issue certificates to practice midwifery, and, since
      ****this section [2052 B&P Code] makes it a misdemeanor to practice midwifery without a
      certificate****, the board may not authorize the practice of midwifery in any experimental program."
      55 Ops.Atty.Gen. 353,9-22-72. In West's Annotated Business and Professions Code, Section 2052,Notes
      of Decisions.

      In fact, the only relevant statute - Article 24 of the Medical Practice Act - explicitly noted that
      attending normal births and severing umbilical cords was NOT the practice of medicine. Also, as was
      later recognized (but not acted upon) by the the California Supreme Court (see below), midwifery
      certificates were not required by Article 24...

      Which brings me back to the Bowland case...

      In 1974, the Attorney General arrested "lay" midwife Alice Elizabeth Bowland (and others) for doing
      "MORE than purport to practice midwifery" (Bowland at 634, emphasis added) ...

      Bowland et al. initially lost - but on appeal an appellate court ruled (correctly) that the practice
      midwifery was not the practice of medicine...

      In 1976, the appellate ruling in Bowland was appealed to the California Supreme Court...

      The Court ruled (obviously erroneously; see below) that midwives ARE practicing medicine.

      Here is how it worked...

      The Court observed (but ultimately ignored) the FACT noted above that the midwifery statute clearly
      indicated that attending normal births and severing umbilical cords was NOT the practice of
      medicine - i.e., according to California statute, midwives are "not authorized to practice medicine
      and surgery."

      The appellate court (mentioned above) - the one that preceded the California Supreme Court in the
      Bowland matter (Court of Appeal, First District, Molinari, P.J.), initially held that pregnancy was
      NOT a "physical condition" treatable only by MDs... ("[the] phrase 'or other mental or physical
      condition'...refer to such conditions only as they arise from or are related to statutory
      criteria of any ailment, blemish, deformity, disease, disfigurement, disorder or injury." [126
      Cal.Rptr. 858; 54 Cal.App.3d 753])

      Then, on revisiting the issue, Judge Molinari hedged: "a pregnant woman is not sick or
      afflicted...[p]regnancy is, however a physical condition" [Molinari PJ. 129 Cal.Rptr. at 702]

      Subsequent to Judge Molinari's appellate hedging, the California Supreme Court [in Bowland]
      EXPLICITLY decided that conditions treated by medical doctors do NOT have to arise from or be
      related to statutory criteria of any ailment, blemish, deformity, disease, disfigurement, disorder
      or injury, in order to be considered a "physical condition" treatable only by M.D.'s.

      Here are the exact words of the Bowland decision [134 Cal.Rptr. 630]:

      1) "the term 'physical condition'...seems readily to encompass pregnancy and childbirth" [at 634];

      2) "the prohibition against unlicensed persons treating a 'physical condition' was intended to
      encompass the practice of midwifery" [at 636]; and

      3) "it is clear that the practice of midwifery without a certificate [of medical training - TDG] is
      prohibited [at 638]."

      WHAT?!!!

      It was "clear" to the Bowland Court that the practice of midwifery without a certificate was
      prohibited?

      Clear as mud...

      Here is a summary to this point...

      Based on a 1972 bald lie told by a California Attorney General who in 1974 arrested a FEW midwives
      allegedly "doing more than purport to practice midwifery," the California Supreme Court STRAAIINED
      into existence its 1976 decision that ALL "lay" midwives in California (even those NOT purporting to
      do more than practice midwifery) were practicing medicine without a license.

      The Bowland Court in effect ruled that uncertificated persons wishing to attend cases of normal
      childbirth now had to earn both a nursing license and a "physician supervised" nurse-midwifery
      certificate.

      The Bowland Court also in effect ruled that California women desiring homebirths either had to
      accept medically trained, physician supervised nurse-midwives - or labor alone - even given the fact
      (acknowledged by the Court) that "assistance by an unlicensed person may be safer than self-
      delivery." [Bowland at 638] (!)

      Furthermore said the Bowland Court, an unskilled "husband, friend or relative" may offer "verbal
      reassurance, soothing massage, or assistance"; but may NOT

      "recognize the development of certain problems that may occur...[or]...cut the umbilical cord."
      [Bowland at 636, emphasis added]

      Before I get to the Bowland Court's STRANGEST sentence, it is important to
      repeat/reemphasize/embellish upon the following key point...

      At 634, the Bowland Court held that case law suggests that the statute defining the practice of
      medicine "may be fairly read either to include or to exclude normal pregnancy and childbirth."

      The Bowland Court noted also at 634 that the 1917 midwifery statute explicitly authorized midwives
      to attend normal deliveries, and noted further that the 1917 statute defined midwifery as NOT the
      practice of medicine or surgery - AND (also at 634) the Court suggested that the wording of statutes
      prohibiting the uncertificated practice of medicine should be construed to mean that midwifery is
      NOT prohibited by these statutes.

      Which brings me (finally) to the [Bowland] Court's (very next) STRANGEST sentence:

      "The People allege, however, that in the matter before us plaintiffs did MORE than purport to
      practice midwifery." (at 634, emphasis added)

      So how did the Bowland Court ultimately jump its own logic track and determine: 1) that "the term
      'physical condition'...seems readily to encompass pregnancy and childbirth" [at 634]; 2) that "the
      prohibition against unlicensed persons treating a 'physical condition' was intended to encompass the
      practice of midwifery" [at 636]; and 3) that "it is clear that the practice of midwifery without a
      certificate is prohibited [at 638]?"

      The Bowland Court falsely claimed to employ "harmony," writing:

      "It is well established that a specific provision should be construed with reference to the entire
      statutory system of which it is a part, in such a way that the various elements of the overall
      scheme are harmonized. (Merrill
      v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1969) 71 Cal.2d 907, 918, 80 Cal.Rptr. 89, 458 P.2d 33)"

      Everyone wants courts to construe statutes so that they are "harmonized," but this is NOT what the
      California Supreme Court did in Bowland. In fact, the Bowland Court quite UNharmoniously "forgot" a
      key 1913/1917 sequence of events which ultimately relates to the "pregnancy is a physical condition"
      "reason" the Bowland Court gave for prohibiting California women from being attended by unlicensed
      midwives...

      The Bowland Court wrote:

      "As we have concluded that normal childbirth, while not a sickness or affliction, is a 'physical
      condition' within the meaning of the second part of the Business and Professions Code section 2141
      [now 2052 - TDG]...it is clear that the practice of midwifery without a certificate is
      prohibited..."

      **Was** it clear that the practice of midwifery without a certificate is prohibited??

      Again, clear as mud.

      In 1917, the state (via the medical profession's lobby) was [not AUTHORIZING] midwifery. Instead,
      the state (via the medical profession's lobby) was RESTRICTING midwives to attending normal births -
      and AUTHORIZING certificates - NOT requiring them. The state (via the medical profession's lobby)
      was using the powers of the state to keep midwives from using "boys toys," i.e., drugs and surgery.
      ("Boys toys" phraseology is Midwife Faith Gibson's.)

      Consider this: If in 1917 "normal childbirth" had been a 1976 California Supreme Court Bowland-style
      "physical condition," the 1917 midwifery statute would have simultaneously authorized and prohibited
      the practice of midwifery!

      It is KEY to remember that, in 1917 - even after passage of the midwifery certification statute -
      uncertificated persons could still attend normal births and could sever umbilical cords - NO
      CERTIFICATE NECESSARY.

      This is why the most the "abortion equals birth" Bowland Court could say was that the Medical
      Practice Act "appears" to be specifically intended to prohibit uncertificated persons from engaging
      in the practice of midwifery...

      It bears repeating (yet again) that the Bowland Court improperly breezed passed critical points by
      stating that the Attorney General was alleging that "plaintiffs did MORE than purport to practice
      midwifery." [at 634, emphasis added]

      Bowland was about women who allegedly did MORE than practice midwifery!!

      The Bowland Court used this shaky case to straaaiiin into existence a rather muddy but, stare
      decisis, a rather effective way to force California women to labor unattended - or hire only
      physicians or medically supervised birth attendants.

      One of the Court's preposterous "justifications" for this action (not as preposterous as "abortion
      equals birth") was that, two years AFTER Bowland et al. were arrested, the Legislature passed a law
      authorizing licensure of medically supervised midwives!

      NOTE: Most of these medically supervised midwives - CNMwives - ended up hissing at their homebirth
      sisters - and hissing at homebirth - from comfy hospital perches....
      http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/acnmhome.html

      The Bowland Court - totally oblivious to the existence of the homebirth midwives' non-MD model of
      maternity care - petulantly complained that this new CNMwifery law - passed AFTER Bowland et al.
      were arrested (!) - would be without effect "unless the practice of midwifery without a certificate
      be considered a violation [of the statute prohibiting the unlicensed practice of medicine]."
      [Bowland at 635]

      The California Supreme Court - with the help of the MD-owned malpractice liability insuranc
     
    Tags:


Loading...