My Destiny Midwife

A Sister Ministry Agency of Daughters of Destiny International

Spiritually Midwifing Kujichagulia (Self-Determination)

Dr. Maulana Karenga, professor of Africana Studies at California State University in Long Beach, CA, answered his call in 1966 to spiritually midwife the resilience and the multiplicities of strength embedded within the marginalized African-American living in the United States of America. The byproduct of his engagement, Kwanzaa, is an African American and Pan-African holiday celebrated throughout the African Diaspora and the world.1 The principles that govern the expression of Kwanzaa can be likened to Chanukah (Hanukkah), a Jewish festival marking the Jewish Temple rededication with the kindling of eight (8) lights from December 25th through January 2nd. Within Kwanzaa, there are seven (7) principles (the Nguzo Saba in Swahili) “which contribute to building and reinforcing family, community and culture among African American people as well as Africans throughout the world.”2 Fashioned by Dr. Karenga to be building blocks that reinforce and empower, “the Nguzo Saba stands at the heart of the origin and meaning for Kwanzaa.”3

To pave a bridge along a path not easily traveled by the majority, the minority (or the marginalized) in given societies have proven to be embedded with a resilience mandated for those who do not just survive, rather thrive. The second Swahili principle, Kujichagulia (Self-Determination), celebrates “the journey to define, name, create and speak for oneself and African peoples collectively.4 The standard of learning the principal philosophy and communal sacrament of Kwanzaa formed a construct from which I answer another call to yet another marginalized  people –  certified professional midwives.

The notion that a woman is the definer and thus carrier of life is a staple within most societies and throughout dispensational engagement. Yet, midwifery (at its core) revolutionized familial preferences and professional prestige to provide a common denominator for anyone seeking to promulgate: I have a right to define, name, create and speak for myself; and so do we all! By God’s design, I have yielded to the construct that bridges Dr. Karenga’s sacrament of Kwanzaa for African peoples with those who, like Peter Chamberlen, answer the call to midwifery and advocacy to midwife a movement that leads to the establishment of organizations purposed to empower the certified professional midwife (Singingtree, 2010, p. 240).

There is something greater than ourselves that compels male counterparts to engage and advocate territories silently deemed FWO: For Women Only. In secrecy, Dr. Chamberlen invented and utilized obstetric forceps in his practice (Singingtree, 2010, p. 240). Upon the demise of his grandson, the invention was discovered and utilized by other maternal caregivers to foster vaginal births in women with contracted pelvises (Singingtree, 2010, p. 244-245). Whether “for professional advancement and personal gain”, or just an act of communal professional disobedience amidst surmounting disdain concerning further medical advancement, byway of midwifery, Dr. Chamberlen and Madame Le Boursier Du Courdray (the notable French midwife who designed teaching aids to assist in demonstration exercises regarding delivery and fetal positions) had to embody the second principle of the Nguzo Saba — Kujichagulia (Singingtree, 2010, p. 235). Upon Dr. Chamberlen exercising his right to  Kujichagulia,  there was a surge in the medical and social acceptance of male physicians in birth. A world, void of his legacy, would be one that would alter the lives of those with whom I currently engage in our ministierial midwifery agency.

Today, the journey of the midwife is similar to the experiences shared by Dr. Chamberlen and Madame Le Bousier Du Courdray and their contemporaries such as Daphne Singingtree, CPM and Holly Powell Kennedy, CNM. Although technology has advanced, universal standards within the general midwifery community evidences divides concerning accreditation and federal legalization. This is representative in the two (2) aforementioned distinctions. For some, Singingtree is not deemed learned-enough, liability-free enough, disciplined-enough, trained-enough, or even equal to Kennedy. Singingtree is considered a Certified Professional Midwife, who by her own admonition chose “a path of careful planning and responsibility” (Singingtree, 2010, p. 165). Moreover, a chosen lifestyle, philosophy and a path of service (Singingtree, 2010, p. 154).

In our present American society, the boundaries of civil liberties and the security of inalienable rights provided to us by the United States Constitution are being tested and tried. Nevertheless, the fundamentals of our right to choose a health care facility, insurance company and maternal care provider is one that is becoming more and more strained and challenging. In the strides taken by midwifery organizations to produce standards such as the MMC and the Core Competencies for Basic Midwifery Practice, a listing of principles compiled by MANA on October 3rd, 1994, these standards can be reckoned to the first Midwives’ Act of 1902. (Singingtree, 2010, p. 282). This legislature created “a licensing board and standards for professional midwives (Singingtree, 2010, p. 282). Similarly to the late nineteenth (19th) century and early twentieth (20th) century, there is a divide, not just among advocates for maternal care equality versus advocates of maternal care status quo, but internal divides that posture midwife against midwife: friend against friend. As a result of the Midwives’ Act of 1902, Singingtree revealed that the role of the handywoman (a female domesticated worker by day who is a midwife by season and a caregiver of the dead by night), traditional birth attendant (an individual who served as a midwife trained by other midwives in the community of maternal care progenitors), and the emerging professional midwife (an individual entering into the maternal care arena with limited or no prior experience) experienced tension much like the that of CPM and the CNM of today (Singingtree, 2010, p. 286).

Kennedy, in her means to do a comparative study of midwifery of old and midwifery of modern age, proposed, “Midwives should be seen as ‘instruments’ of care just as valuable than instruments of technology” (Kennedy, 2002, p. 1759-1760). With the consideration that both Singingtree and Kennedy recognize that the core of their servicing relies upon collaborative relationships within and within out the midwifery model of care giving, each has been called to a specific vein within the midwifery care model. As a CPM, Singingtree and her aspiring midwives are governed by the same principles as Kennedy and her aspiring nurse midwives. If so, what is the tension all about?    For some, the response is simple, while others would render a response that is quite enveloped. I proffer that the same outside influences governing most shifts in social conscience and how each individual views himself or herself within community, sets the stage for the care givers of that community to question themselves and their path to forge identity within that same community. Although the scope of a midwife’s role has been redefined and re-evaluated, it is the role of the midwife to discern what tools s/he has been called to use in practice. For the CPM, tools are yielded to a care model resting on birth as a sacrament in the life of every childbearing woman. This contrasts, the CNM who upholds that same reverence for the woman, her womb and her offspring; however, is inclined to merge her/his medical model of care with the core midwifery training.

In today’s maternity care system, there are indemnification concerns for the CPM not always shared with the CNM. Present liability concerns become even more disconcerting, when frustrated by regulations that re-draft and re-adopt professional benchmarks that regard regulatory measures to protect other care givers from lost wages paramount than the drafting and adoption of legislation that demands thorough evaluation of individual care givers. The CPM certification process drafted by MANA is another way in which the CPM choice, within midwifery, is given an opportunity to “equal” the opponents of such strides within local and federal government (Singingtree, 2010, p. 370-374). MANA established guidelines and requirements to protect the consumer, while still allowing the self-taught midwife to practice. Concerning liability, informed consent documents provide a defense against probable liability and/or malpractice suits. Singingtree (2010) stated, “Malpractice is determined by what is considered the standard of care in any given community” (Singingtree, 2010, p. 384). Singingtree (2010) further proposed that an essential component to the art of midwifery is being able to balance the standard of care instilled in the medical model with intuition and respect for the natural birth process and parents’ choices (Singingtree, 2010, p. 398).

While there is frustration, there is also a looming potential for the certified professional midwife. States that are on the forefront of this civil liberty and human right issue concerning maternity care, are becoming distant educators for states yet to amend or pass legislation in favor of the CPM or midwives in general. Within my home state of Georgia, CPMs such as Debbie Pulley meet diligently with the Midwifery Task Force of the Georgia Division of Public Health. The due diligence of such CPMs, for the causes and rights of certified professional midwives, and those yet to become a CPM, is a testament to Kujichagulia.  Pulley‘s honesty, as cited during a November 2008 meeting, reveals how her ability to listen (and not judge) her fellow caregivers (CNMs) made the difference. Pulley (2008) stated, “I made a wrong statement … I said that most CNMs don’t deliver in homes because they are afraid of prosecution… I spoke with my CNM colleagues and they explained that CNMs don’t deliver in homes because it does not pay” (GDPH, 2008, p. 2).

Women have the right to choose a male CNM. Women have the right to call-out the prejudice regarding gender inequality within the midwifery profession. Women have the right to choose natural healing measures, after life-changing medical procedures contributing to an improbable expectancy. Women have the right to exercise Kujichagulia. Women have rights, women should enforce their rights.

I have read journeys that incorporated loss and gain, advocacy, midwifery, education, and callings. Yet, within the wisdom well of this training center for destiny midwives (DMs) fullfiling divine destiny, we aspire to be CPMs (in iure) and DMs (in spiritu). On the cusp of change, we anticipate being historically embraced and rejected, for midwifery chose us (Singingtree, 2010, p. 143; 154). The initial midwife and creator of all, God, elected us.

Throughout the United States of America and the world, CPMs continue to answer their call to service. The principle of Kujichagulia is still relevant today, as it was in 1966, regardless of gender, race or creed. I have found that one’s origin of frustrated marginalization is the birthplace of Kujichagulia (self-determination): the very essence that equips one to become humanity’s servant on display – each day, by choice. Consequently, while on the road to define, name, create and speak for oneself, a CPM continues to experience the one tangible right purposed in it all: the right to be a CPM.

 

————————————–

1 The National Association of Kawaida Organizations. (2008). Kwanzaa: a Celebration of Family, Community and Culture. Retrieved from http://www.officialkwanzawebsite.org/karengabio.shtml

2-3 The National Association of Kawaida Organizations. (2008). Kwanzaa: a Celebration of Family, Community and Culture. Retrieved from http://www.officialkwanzawebsite.org/7principles.shtml

4 The National Association of Kawaida Organizations. (2008). Kwanzaa: a Celebration of Family, Community and Culture. Retrieved from http://www.officialkwanzawebsite.org/nguzosaba.shtml

5 Citizens for Midwifery. (2011). Background about the Midwives Model of Care: About the Definition. In Midwives model of care brochure. Retrieved from http://cfmidwifery.org/mmoc/brochure_text.aspx

6 Georgia Division of Public Health. (2008). Midwifery Task Force: Meeting Minutes. Retrieved from http://gamidwife.com/pdf/MTF102308.pdf

7 Kennedy, HP. The midwife as an “instrument” of care. American Journal of Public Health. 2002; 92: 1759-1760.

8 Singingtree, Daphne. (2010). Birthsong midwifery workbook (6th ed.). Eugene, Oregon: Eagletree Press

No Comments »

Midwives Model of Care (trademarked)

The Midwifery Task Force (2001) proffered the Midwives Model of Care TM (MMC) to be “a woman-centered model of care proven to reduce the incidence of birth injury, trauma, and cesarean section.”1 Copyrighted and trademarked in 2001, the MMC has emerged as a defining standard within the midwifery sector of the professional health care community. Its purpose is to steer legions of competent, forbearers of professional degradation and repudiation towards redemption byway of certification, legalization and competency standardization.

With the understanding that the MMC was a means to further the progress forged by advocates for midwifery options within the United States, its predecessor was the Core Competencies for Basic Midwifery Practice. MANA (1994), whose full organizational identity is the Midwives Alliance of North America, approved this standard, and subsequently, in May 1996, representatives from the principal midwifery organizations met to formulate a generic health service prudence that would govern each entity and its constituents.2 The chosen policy would serve as a recourse in response to the concerns raised by the health care community, in general, and its decision makers, specifically. This cohort included: the Midwives Alliance of North America (MANA), the North American Registry of Midwives (NARM), the Midwifery Education Accreditation Council (MEAC), and the Citizens for Midwifery (CfM).

According to the Midwifery Task Force (2001) the aforementioned cohort devised the MMC as propaganda purposed to:

  1. uphold the right of any woman and her family to exercise their right to procure a midwife, as a general health care option, void of misinformation and prejudice.3
  2. initiate and procure the healing of indifference among the two (2) midwifery professionals – the Certified Nurse Midwife (CNM) and the Direct-Entry/Lay Midwife (DEM/LM), also cited as the Certified Professional Midwife (CPM) – regarding what is essential in practice and what is the set of criteria produced from learned, self-guided care givers versus learned, profession-regulated care givers.4

Ultimately, the MMC is deemed a standard adopted by all maternity care providers. According to the Midwifery Task Force (2001), “the Midwifery Model of Care TM” includes:

  1. Monitoring the physical, psychological, and social well-being throughout child-bearing cycle.5
  2. Providing the mother with individualized education, counseling, and prenatal care, continuous hands-on assistance during labor and delivery, and postpartum support.6
  3. Minimizing technological interventions.7
  4. Identifying and referring women who require obstetrical attention.”8

In 2001, the Midwives Model of Care TM definition and its logo were trademarked and copyrighted by the Midwifery Task Force, a grassroots organization of consumers for midwifery care.9

 

———————————————————

1-4 Citizens for Midwifery. (2011). Midwives Model of Care Definition. In Midwives model of care brochure. Retrieved from http://cfmidwifery.org/mmoc/brochure_text.aspx

5-9 Citizens for Midwifery. (2011). Background about the Midwives Model of Care: About the Definition. In Midwives model of care brochure. Retrieved from http://cfmidwifery.org/mmoc/aboutdefine.aspx

No Comments »

Full From Within

My childhood memories are filled with Sears trips for my “fruit of the looms.” Oh how I laughed and focused on the television, as the apple, leaf, green and purple grapes appeared to move, talk and sing to my heart’s ring. Fruit of the Looms were the undergarments that never went out of style. They were the trusted brand for young-lings to seniors and many in between. As I reflect on my current store runs or online purchases, the trusted Fruit of the Loom brand is still a constant for me and my future generations. Click HERE to join me on Memory Lane. Don’t forget to comeback!

As a leader desiring to last, I seek the impetus for ingenuity that lasts for generations. In 1851 the Fruit of the Loom brand and company began in the New England state of Rhode Island with the purchase of Pontiac Mills. Subsequently, Mr. Robert Knight and his brother, Benjamin Knight, acquired the company through a sale from the newly elected senator, John Hopkins Clarke. In 1852 the brothers formed the B. B. and R. Knight Firm. With the support of investors, they established several manufacturing plants throughout the New England area. As the Knight brothers became involved in the banking and insurance industries, they built employee housing, mill villages, and donated funds to build various denominational churches for their trusted workers. Although industrious, it was Robert Knight’s exchange with his friend Rufus Skeel that made the difference in what would manifest from within his womb.

Mr. Skeel was the proprietor of a small shop in the seaside capital of Providence, Rhode Island. The pair had a friendship that could sustain business. Now that had to be God-ordained! (smile) Robert Knight contracted to sell Mr. Skeel their mill’s quality broadcloth. When the cloth was received by Mr. Skeel’s dry good store, his daughter (an aspiring artist) would paint images of apples and then apply them to the cloth. As a result, patrons created a market trend of “apples on cloth” that was associated with the Fruit of the Loom name. Both Mr. Knights concurred. Officially trademarked in 1871, the combination of business savvy, ingenuity, and God-ordained friendships made Fruit of the Loom the first branded apparel product in the United States.

As we embark on a journey to birth divine destiny, I humbly attempt to faith feed and empower you to manifest all God has entrusted to your womb. Yes, as a result of being effectively trained, you will behold women and men birthing the promises of God together. All of humanity is equipped to conceive, carry, birth and nurture God’s Will encapsulated in “tarry and travail” — the dynamic duo anointed to shift one into a sacred surrender. Conception is never sure until its verification.

Thirteen (13) or fourteen (14) days after conception, a primitive streak appears in the womb. This entity later develops into the fetus’ central nervous system. Upon the manifestation of such, conception can be verified and the signs of new life begin. The pre-embryo is now referred to as an embryo. This new stage of life is comprised of a very small cluster of undifferentiated cells. However, life — in its compacted beauty — is realized within the womb.

Embryo is derived from the Greek word embryon which means a young one; fruit of the womb; that which grows; and to be full from within. It is my hope that the fruit of your womb testifies that you indeed are pregnant with possibilities and greatness. Moreover, you are ready to accept the call of God on your life which is purposed to be the answer to every situation in your life.

Fruit of the Loom – a name that has been trusted by many generations since 1851 – bears resemblance to the biblical “fruit of the womb” term. Psalm 127:3 declares, “Don’t you see that [the fruit of your womb is] God’s best gift? The fruit of the womb is God’s generous legacy?”

Destiny midwives, let’s continue this legacy of fruitful wombs. Destiny midwives, be full within!

No Comments »