Health; licensure and regulation of community midwives; provide
SB 136 would repeal Georgia’s existing midwifery chapter in Title 31 and replace it with a new licensing and regulatory framework in Title 43 for “certified community midwives.” The bill creates the Certified Community Midwife Board, sets licensure qualifications, establishes renewal and disciplinary procedures, and defines the scope of practice for community midwives who provide prenatal, labor, delivery, postpartum, and limited interconceptual care, primarily in out-of-hospital settings.
The bill authorizes certified community midwives to perform a defined set of services, including taking histories, conducting physical exams, ordering certain tests, administering a limited list of medications and supplies, providing newborn care, and facilitating consultation or transfer when a pregnancy or birth becomes higher risk. It also requires informed consent disclosures, record retention, background checks, CPR certification, apprenticeship and training documentation, and board oversight. The bill expressly states that certified community midwifery is not the practice of medicine, nursing, or nurse midwifery, and it preserves parents’ right to choose where and with whom to deliver.
SB 136 would substantially change Georgia law by moving community midwifery from a repealed health-code chapter into a new professional licensing regime under Title 43. It would create a new regulated occupation, establish a state board, define authorized and prohibited acts, and add enforcement tools such as license denial, suspension, revocation, fines, cease-and-desist orders, and misdemeanor penalties for unlicensed practice. The bill also makes conforming changes to related statutes, including a reference in the Health Share volunteer provisions, and would affect midwives, pregnant clients, physicians, and other licensed healthcare providers involved in consultation or transfer of care.
Based on the bill text alone and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears supportive of formalizing and regulating community midwifery rather than leaving it unstructured. The bill is detailed and permissive in scope, suggesting an intent to recognize and legitimize the practice while adding consumer protections and state oversight. There is no documented vote history or transcript evidence of opposition or support in the supplied context.
The main points of potential contention are the scope of practice and the level of medical oversight. The bill allows out-of-hospital births and limited medication use, but it also restricts midwives from using forceps, vacuum extractors, epidurals, spinal or caudal anesthesia, most prescription drugs, and surgical delivery beyond emergency episiotomy and limited suturing. Another likely issue is liability and responsibility: the bill places primary responsibility on the certified community midwife even when physicians provide orders or emergency care, while also limiting provider liability for certain interactions. Finally, the apprenticeship pathway, board composition, and the bill’s explicit statement that community midwifery is not medicine or nursing could be debated by professional groups and regulators.