Committee narrowly backs further study of midwifery scope; supporters cite patient choice while clinicians warn of risks

The committee split sharply over HB1010, a bill intended to expand maternity options and clarify what midwives may do outside hospital settings.

Supporters argued the bill removes barriers for patients seeking midwifery care and removes a legal incongruity in which people can access some reproductive services but not midwifery options in the state. Representative King said it was ‘‘incongruous’’ to restrict midwifery access while other reproductive choices are permitted, and noted the Legislature has ultimate authority over licensing councils.

Opponents — including Representative Nagel and Representative Murphy — raised "scope‑of‑practice" concerns: they argued the bill could require midwives to perform deliveries for which they lack training and could force hospitals or providers into risky practices. Several members urged that the midwifery council, not the Legislature, typically determines scope and that further stakeholder work is needed.

After debate the committee voted 8–7 to recommend HB1010 for future legislation. Supporters asked sponsors to refine language and provide guardrails for safety; opponents said they prefer a multi‑stakeholder, evidence‑based approach before statutory change.

Next steps: bill sponsors will revise language to address scope‑of‑practice questions and describe training and oversight mechanisms.

Representative quotes and attributions are drawn directly from committee discussion.