Minnesota Law Review

Note, Born (Not So) Free: Legal Limits on the Practice of Unassisted Childbirth or Freebirthing in the United States

Unassisted childbirth, also known as “freebirthing”—in which a woman intentionally gives birth without the aid of a physician or midwife—is gaining increased media attention in the United States and abroad. Proponents of the practice boast of its beauty, safety, and legality. Yet, the legal framework of unassisted childbirth is unclear. No statutes forbid freebirthing explicitly, but some states have forced women to seek professional care at the end of pregnancy, and, moreover, some women have suffered legal consequences when their child was injured as a result of an unassisted labor. This Note analyzes two legal frameworks that apply to freebirthing: the state’s interest in the well-being of viable fetuses and a parent’s legal duty to provide medical care for children.

Ultimately, the state may prohibit freebirthing based on its compelling interest in the life of a viable fetus. Nonetheless, this Note argues that the state should not do so because such a prohibition would be impossible to enforce and would create an undesirable disincentive for freebirthers to seek prenatal care. It instead proposes that enforcement of the general parental duty to provide medical care to children is a preferable framework for addressing bad outcomes of planned unassisted births. The duty to provide medical care creates a positive incentive for freebirthers to seek both prenatal care and specific guidance on basic child birthing skills. Moreover, waiting until the child is born to criminalize the mother’s conduct avoids the unnecessary risk that a court will find the mother’s privacy and autonomy interests paramount to the state’s interest in a viable fetus.

:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1]F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]