These women are responding to a press release by the College of Midwives of B.C. The College seems to think that birthing women are too vulnerable to choose who they want to attend their birth. This sparked the discussion at the Birth Protest Rally, Nov 28, 2012 in Vancouver BC.
Parents, grandparents, children and birth rights activists picketed the College of Midwives offices on Nov. 28, 2012. The College of Midwives conducts secret investigations and flagging operations to undermine the alternative birth workers in the province. By sending negative press releases and spreading half-truths and innuendo, they attempt to claim a monopoly on who shall attend births in the province.
From the film “Freedom for Birth”: — “One of the home birth mothers supported by Ms Gereb (Agnes Gereb, Hungarian midwife) decided to take a stand.
When pregnant with her second child, Anna Ternovsky took her country (Hungary) to the European Court of Human Rights and won a landmark case that has major implications for childbirth around the world.
Toni Harman, one of the filmmakers says, “the “Ternovsky vs Hungary” ruling at the European Court of Human Rights in 2010 means that,. . . now in Europe, every birthing woman has the legal right to decide where and how she gives birth. . .
. . .And across the world. . ., it means that if a woman feels like her Human Rights are being violated because her birth choices are not being fully supported, she could use the power of the law to protect those rights. With the release of “Freedom For Birth”, we hope millions of women become aware of their legal rights and so our film has the potential to spark a revolution in maternity care across the world. In fact, we are calling this the Mothers’ Revolution.”
Added on June 17 2013: EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS Fact Sheet
Under Article 37 § 1(c)of the Convention
Ternovsky v. Hungary
The applicant complained about being denied the opportunity to give birth at home, arguing that midwives or other health professionals were effectively dissuaded by law from assisting her, because they risked being prosecuted.
(There had recently been at least one such prosecution.)
The Court found that the applicant was in effect not free to choose to give birth at home because of the permanent threat of prosecution faced by health professionals and the absence of specific and comprehensive legislation on the subject, in violation of Article 8
Right to respect for private and family life.