Committee refers certified‑midwife licensure bill to Judiciary, Finance and Civil Law Committee

The House Health Finance and Policy Committee on March 26 voted to refer House File 10‑10, the Minnesota Certified Midwife Act, to the Judiciary, Finance and Civil Law Committee after adopting an author’s amendment intended to clarify technical language.

Representative Agbaje, sponsor of the bill, said the measure establishes a licensure pathway for certified midwives — providers who complete graduate midwifery education and certification but would not be required to hold a prior nursing license. Supporters said creating a certified‑midwife pathway would expand the midwifery workforce, increase diversity among providers and help address “maternity deserts” in rural Minnesota.

Mandy Huber, a certified nurse midwife and board member of the Minnesota affiliate of the American College of Nurse Midwives, described the bill as an evidence‑based strategy to expand access. “Certified midwife licensure is the only policy Minnesota has not achieved yet,” Huber said, referencing the March of Dimes report included in committee materials. Huber and other witnesses said graduate midwifery education for certified midwives mirrors that for certified nurse midwives and that graduates complete equivalent midwifery clinical training and certification exams.

Obstetricians and professional organizations testifying in support said states that expanded midwifery access have reported lower cesarean and preterm delivery rates and stronger breastfeeding and birth‑weight outcomes. Dr. Siri Feibiger, representing the Minnesota section of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said, “States that have expanded midwifery care have lowered their cesarean and preterm delivery rates, and higher they have higher breastfeeding rates and higher birth weights.”

Supporters also told the committee that the University of Minnesota is prepared to begin a certified‑midwife educational program but will not start until licensure is established. Witness testimony included personal examples from prospective midwives who said requiring a prior nursing degree created long delays and additional cost to enter midwifery practice; one witness said it took nine years to complete the existing pathway.

Representative Liebling and others asked detailed questions about entry prerequisites, program length and the clinical scope of practice for certified midwives, noting the bill’s proposed scope largely mirrors certified nurse midwives’ scopes. Witnesses said graduate programs typically run two to three years, depending on degree level, and that certified midwives and certified nurse midwives complete identical graduate midwifery training cohorts at many schools.

The committee adopted the author’s A1 amendment (technical clarifications) and approved referring the bill, as amended, to the Judiciary, Finance and Civil Law Committee.

The bill’s supporters urged continued dialogue on supervision, clinical scope and any statutory safeguards members request. Proponents emphasized maternal‑health workforce shortages and racial disparities in maternal outcomes; they urged legislative action to expand the workforce and training pipeline.

Next steps: House File 10‑10 as amended was referred to the Judiciary, Finance and Civil Law Committee for further consideration.