To amend sections 3701.351, 3702.30, 3702.301, 4723.01, 4723.02, 4723.03, 4723.06, 4723.07, 4723.08, 4723.271, 4723.28, 4723.282, 4723.33, 4723.34, 4723.341, 4723.35, 4723.41, 4723.43, 4723.431, 4723.432, 4723.481, 4723.483, 4723.487, 4723.488, 4723.4810, 4723.4811, 4723.50, 4723.91, 4723.99, 4731.22, and 4731.27 and to enact sections 5.2324, 3702.35, 4723.53, 4723.54, 4723.55, 4723.551, 4723.56, 4723.57, 4723.58, 4723.581, 4723.582, 4723.583, 4723.584, 4723.59, 4723.60, 4724.01, 4724.02, 4724.03, 4724.04, 4724.05, 4724.06, 4724.07, 4724.08, 4724.09, 4724.10, 4724.11, 4724.12, 4724.13, 4724.14, 4724.15, 4724.16, and 4724.99 of the Revised Code to regulate the practice of midwifery, to establish requirements for freestanding birthing centers, and to designate May 5th as the "Day of the Midwife."
SB438 creates a new licensing and regulatory framework for midwifery in Ohio. It establishes a new category of licensed midwife under Chapter 4724 and a new category of certified midwife under Chapter 4723, with separate application, education, certification, renewal, and discipline provisions for each. The bill also defines the scope of practice for certified midwives, licensed midwives, and traditional midwives; sets informed-consent requirements; and authorizes certain midwifery services in homes, hospitals, medical offices, and freestanding birthing centers. In addition, it designates May 5 as the “Day of the Midwife.”
The bill also revises hospital and facility law to accommodate midwifery practice. It prohibits hospitals from discriminating against qualified applicants for privileges solely because they are certified midwives, licensed midwives, or nurse-midwives, and it requires freestanding birthing centers to meet state quality standards, staffing, transfer-planning, and licensing requirements. The measure creates detailed rules for transfer of care to hospitals, reporting of adverse incidents and annual outcomes, and liability protections for emergency responders, hospitals, and midwives involved in transfers or adverse events absent willful or wanton misconduct. It also updates nursing-board and medical-board statutes to recognize certified midwives and to align collaboration, prescribing, discipline, and reporting rules with the new midwifery categories.
Overall, the bill appears to be framed as a professional-regulatory and access-to-care measure rather than a broad health-system overhaul. The text is expansive and highly detailed, suggesting an effort to standardize midwifery practice, clarify who may provide maternity care outside hospitals, and create oversight mechanisms for safety and accountability. The inclusion of explicit licensure pathways, reporting requirements, and facility standards indicates a strong emphasis on formal regulation and patient safety.
Because no committee transcript or vote history was provided, there is no recorded public debate in the supplied materials to gauge sentiment from hearings or floor action. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears generally supportive of midwifery practice and birthing-center access while also imposing substantial regulatory structure. The bill’s tone suggests an attempt to balance expanded practice authority with oversight, safety reporting, and physician collaboration requirements.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the scope of independent midwifery practice, the required collaboration with physicians for many services, the reporting and discipline regime for home births and adverse incidents, and the treatment of traditional midwives and nonhospital births. Stakeholders concerned with maternal safety, hospital oversight, or medical supervision may focus on the home-birth and transfer provisions, while midwifery advocates may focus on licensure recognition, hospital privilege protections, and access to out-of-hospital birth options.
SB438 would substantially amend Ohio’s health-professions and health-facility statutes by creating new licensure and regulatory systems for certified midwives and licensed midwives, revising the nursing board’s authority, and adding a new midwifery advisory council within the Department of Commerce. It would also require rulemaking on education, scope of practice, informed consent, transfer planning, adverse-incident reporting, and disciplinary procedures, while changing hospital privilege rules and birthing-center licensing standards. The bill affects midwives, physicians who collaborate with them, hospitals, freestanding birthing centers, emergency medical services, and state licensing boards.
No committee testimony or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from the legislative process in the supplied materials. From the bill text, the overall sentiment appears favorable toward legitimizing and expanding midwifery practice, but with a strong regulatory and safety framework. The measure reads as a compromise between access advocates and those seeking formal oversight, rather than as a deregulatory bill.
Likely areas of contention include whether midwives should be licensed through the nursing board or commerce department, how much physician collaboration should be required, and whether home births involving higher-risk situations such as VBAC, twins, or breech deliveries should be permitted. Another likely point of debate is the bill’s detailed adverse-incident reporting and discipline structure, which may be viewed by supporters as necessary accountability and by critics as burdensome or punitive. The treatment of traditional midwives and the extent to which nonhospital birth settings should be regulated may also draw differing views from medical, hospital, and midwifery stakeholders.