Further providing for definitions and for midwifery.
HB2520 amends Pennsylvania’s Medical Practice Act of 1985 to add a definition of “lay midwife,” meaning a traditional midwife, direct-entry midwife, birth worker, or similar person who supports a pregnant individual before, during, and after birth but is not licensed by the state. The bill then creates a new set of rules governing the conduct of unlicensed individuals providing lay midwifery services.
Under the bill, a person who is not licensed as a midwife may not hold themselves out as a licensed midwife, may not administer prescription medication in the practice of lay midwifery, and must obtain a written informed consent statement before providing services. That consent must describe the provider’s training and experience, disclose that the provider is not state-licensed, warn that prescription medication administration is unlawful, and include a written plan for handling medical issues and transferring the client to a licensed health care provider or facility if needed. The bill also requires the signed statement to be retained for at least four years.
The bill would amend the Medical Practice Act of 1985 by adding a statutory definition of lay midwife and by establishing new legal requirements and limits for unlicensed midwifery practice. It would not license lay midwives, but it would regulate certain aspects of their work by prohibiting misrepresentation, banning prescription drug administration, and imposing informed-consent and record-retention obligations. The bill also clarifies that, except for the specific unlawful conduct listed, lay midwives without a license are not considered licensed or regulated by the Commonwealth. A religious-sect exception is included for the informed-consent and retention requirements.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or formal support/opposition in the available materials. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to take a middle-ground regulatory approach: it does not ban lay midwifery, but it does impose consumer-protection and safety requirements. The overall tone suggests an effort to recognize the practice while setting boundaries around licensure, disclosure, and emergency planning.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the regulation of unlicensed birth workers, the prohibition on administering prescription medication, and the requirement for written informed consent and record retention. Supporters would likely view these provisions as necessary patient-safety and transparency measures, while opponents may argue they place burdens on traditional or direct-entry midwives and could limit access to out-of-hospital birth support. The religious-sect exemption may also be a point of interest because it narrows the reach of the informed-consent requirements in certain faith-based settings.