A woman at 39 weeks reports reduced fetal movement. She gets a non-stress test. Twenty minutes of tracing, a few accelerations, no decelerations. One clinician calls it reactive and sends her home. Another looks at the same strip and wants another twenty minutes. Neither is wrong, because there is no measurement being made. There is only a reading.

The non-stress test asks whether the fetal heart rate accelerates.

Reactive means two accelerations in twenty minutes.

That definition sounds objective.

The act of applying it is not.

When Blackwell and colleagues gave 154 fetal heart rate segments to three maternal-fetal medicine specialists and asked them to assign NICHD categories, interobserver reliability was moderate at kappa 0.45. For category III, the tracings we treat as the emergency, agreement was kappa 0.0. Not poor. Zero. The disagreement came down to whether variability was absent or minimal. These were subspecialists, not residents.

The finding is not an outlier. When six clinicians applied the 2015 FIGO guidelines to 151 tracings, proportions of agreement for overall classification ran from 0.54 to 0.67, and experience made no difference. That last detail deserves more attention than it gets. If more years on labor and delivery do not improve agreement, the variability is not a training problem. It is built into the task.

Most of this literature is intrapartum, because that is where the lawsuits are.

The antepartum reliability literature is thinner, which is itself part of the indictment. We have never seriously measured the reproducibility of a test we order millions of times a year.

An objective alternative has existed since the 1980s. Geoffrey Dawes and Christopher Redman built a computerized analysis at Oxford that returns a binary answer, criteria of normality met or not met, derived from a database of well over 100,000 traces and their outcomes. Its central output is short-term variation, the millisecond-level beat-to-beat difference that no eye can compute. TRUFFLE used a short-term variation of 3.5 milliseconds as an intervention trigger in early-onset growth restriction. Bhide and colleagues then examined 14,025 computerized assessments and found criteria unmet in roughly one of every sixteen.

Stillbirth was almost nine times more frequent in that group, odds ratio 8.78, 95% confidence interval 4.28 to 18.02. Exclude the cases with low short-term variation and the signal holds, odds ratio 7.62.

So here is the state of the evidence. We have a subjective test with documented agreement problems in the hands of subspecialists, and an objective test with a strong prognostic signal across 14,025 pregnancies.

The obvious next step is a trial. Now look at what the profession actually did.

The Cochrane review of antenatal cardiotocography includes six trials and 2,105 women in total. The comparison that matters, computerized versus visual interpretation, rests on two studies and 469 women. It showed a reduction in perinatal mortality, 0.9 percent versus 4.2 percent, risk ratio 0.20 with a confidence interval of 0.04 to 0.88 that nearly touches one. A 2021 systematic review found three randomized trials, 497 women, and a single antenatal stillbirth across all of them.

Four hundred sixty-nine women. That is the entire randomized evidence base for whether objective interpretation of the fetal heart rate saves babies.

For comparison, the ARRIVE trial randomized 6,106 low-risk nulliparous women to answer a question about the timing of induction, and the field changed its practice within two years. We found the money, the sites, and the will for that. We have never found them for this.

The consequence lands on the patient. A woman sent home after a reactive non-stress test believes a measurement was made.

What actually happened is that one clinician looked at a strip and formed an impression another clinician might not have shared. She was never told that. It is not in any consent conversation I have ever heard.

Conclusion

The algorithm is not the problem. Dawes-Redman received FDA clearance in March 2025, so in the United States the regulatory excuse is gone, and what remains is a purchasing decision and a research agenda nobody has demanded. The honest reading is this.

We built the backbone of antenatal surveillance out of a subjective judgment.

We have known for at least fifteen years that experienced subspecialists disagree about it, including on the category we call an emergency. And we never ran the trial that would tell us whether the objective version does better.

That is not a failure of technology or of regulators.

It is our failure.

A profession that can randomize six thousand women to settle a question about induction timing can randomize enough women to settle this one.

If you order non-stress tests, ask what your agreement rate with your partner would be on the last ten you read.

Then ask why nobody has ever measured it. ObGyn Intelligence is free, and it stays independent because paid subscribers keep it that way.

References

1. Blackwell SC, Grobman WA, Antoniewicz L, Hutchinson M, Gyamfi Bannerman C. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the NICHD 3-Tier Fetal Heart Rate Interpretation System. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(4):378.e1-5. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2011.06.086

2. Rei M, Tavares S, Pinto P, Machado AP, Monteiro S, Costa A, et al. Interobserver agreement in CTG interpretation using the 2015 FIGO guidelines for intrapartum fetal monitoring. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;205:27-31. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.08.017

3. Bhide A, Meroni A, Frick A, Thilaganathan B. The significance of meeting Dawes-Redman criteria in computerised antenatal fetal heart rate assessment. BJOG. 2024;131(2):207-212. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.17464

4. Grivell RM, Alfirevic Z, Gyte GML, Devane D. Antenatal cardiotocography for fetal assessment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(9):CD007863. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007863.pub4 [issue number pending RefVerify]

5. Baker H, Pilarski N, Hodgetts-Morton VA, Morris RK. Comparison of visual and computerised antenatal cardiotocography in the prevention of perinatal morbidity and mortality. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.05.048 [volume and pages pending RefVerify]

6. Lees CC, Marlow N, van Wassenaer-Leemhuis A, Arabin B, Bilardo CM, Brezinka C, et al. 2 year neurodevelopmental and intermediate perinatal outcomes in infants with very preterm fetal growth restriction (TRUFFLE): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2015;385(9983):2162-72. [pending RefVerify]

7. Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, Tita ATN, Silver RM, Mallett G, et al. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(6):513-523. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1800566 [pending RefVerify]

8. Huntleigh Healthcare. FDA 510(k) clearance granted for Dawes-Redman CTG Analysis. Press release, 24 March 2025.

A Swedish study published this week followed more than 3.6 million people born between 1987 and 2021. Of them, 975 had a recorded congenital infection in the group often called TORCH:

toxoplasmosis,

syphilis,

rubella,

cytomegalovirus (CMV), or

herpes simplex.

Children with a recorded infection were more likely to receive a diagnosis of intellectual disability or autism than children without one. The association remained when researchers compared siblings in the same family.[1]

That finding matters. But it does not mean that an ordinary fever during pregnancy causes autism. The researchers studied diagnosed congenital infections, meaning infections recorded in the child, rather than every infection a pregnant woman might have had. These were rare events, and the strongest finding was for intellectual disability.

In the main analysis, the rate of an autism diagnosis was about three times higher among children with a recorded congenital TORCH infection.

The association was stronger for autism with intellectual disability than for autism without it.

Yet the authors estimated that the recorded infections accounted for only about 0.034% of autism diagnoses in their study population.[1] A large increase in risk within a small group can coexist with a very small contribution to autism overall.

What the study can, and cannot, tell us

This is a strong observational study. Its size, long follow-up, and sibling comparisons make the results more persuasive than a simple comparison of unrelated children. The findings support what clinicians have long known: some infections that reach a fetus can cause serious harm to the developing brain.

Sibling comparisons cannot, however, prove that infection caused every later diagnosis. The study relied on clinical records rather than uniform infection testing of every newborn. It could not fully assess infections that were never diagnosed, identify exactly when each infection occurred, or tell us how much current prevention or treatment would change the measured outcomes.[1] In an accompanying editorial, pediatric infectious disease specialist Mark Schleiss also raised questions about how consistently congenital infections were established across the long study period.[2]

The practical lesson is therefore narrower, and more useful, than the headline “infection causes autism.” Prevent infections we can prevent, detect those we can test for, and treat those we can treat. These steps are justified by the known harms of congenital infection, regardless of whether they prevent a measurable number of autism diagnoses.

What you can do during pregnancy

1. Reduce exposure to CMV, especially if you care for young children.

CMV is common and often causes no symptoms. Young children can carry it in saliva and urine. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advises pregnant people to avoid sharing food, cups, utensils, or pacifiers with a child, and to wash their hands with soap and water after changing diapers or helping a child use the toilet. These are practical precautions, not a reason to avoid caring for or showing affection to your child. No precaution removes all risk.

There is currently no CMV vaccine available for routine use. Routine blood screening for CMV during pregnancy is not recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). If you have a suspected infection or an ultrasound finding that raises concern, ask your obstetric clinician about an individualized evaluation. A positive CMV antibody result needs careful interpretation; it does not by itself establish that a fetus is infected.

2. Prevent toxoplasmosis through food and soil precautions.

Cook meat thoroughly using a food thermometer. Wash produce, hands, knives, and cutting boards after contact with raw meat or soil. If possible, ask someone else to change the cat litter. If you must do it yourself, use gloves, change it daily, and wash your hands afterward. You do not need to give up your cat.

3. Make sure syphilis testing has been done, and repeat it when indicated.

Syphilis may have no obvious symptoms, but it can be passed to the fetus. In the United States, CDC guidance calls for testing at the first prenatal visit. Repeat testing at 28 weeks and at delivery is recommended for pregnant women in communities with high syphilis rates or with risk of acquiring syphilis during pregnancy. If a test is positive, prompt treatment and partner evaluation matter. Ask whether your testing is current, especially if you have a new exposure after your first test.

4. Check your rubella status.

The measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine protects against rubella, but it is not given during pregnancy. Prenatal care includes checking for rubella immunity. If you are not immune, discuss vaccination after delivery. Contact your clinician promptly if you are exposed to someone with rubella while pregnant. Before a future pregnancy, vaccination offers the chance to prevent this infection.

5. Tell your obstetric clinician about genital herpes or a possible new exposure.

This matters most when genital herpes is first acquired late in pregnancy, because prevention of neonatal herpes depends in part on avoiding a new infection and on planning care at delivery. If you or your partner has genital or oral herpes, discuss the specific precautions that apply to you. Report new genital sores, pain, or burning promptly, including when labor begins. People with a known history of genital herpes may be offered antiviral medication near the end of pregnancy.

These steps should be part of good prenatal care, not a test of whether an individual woman can keep every infection away. Clinicians and health systems are responsible for explaining risks clearly, providing timely testing, interpreting results correctly, and making treatment accessible.

The Swedish study adds evidence that rare, diagnosed congenital infections are linked to substantial risks for affected children. It does not explain most autism. Its most useful message for pregnancy today is concrete: take CMV hygiene seriously, practice food safety, check immunizations, complete recommended infection screening, and seek care promptly when an exposure or new symptom needs evaluation.

References

1. Sjöqvist H, Dalman C, Mataix-Cols D, Gardner RM, Karlsson H. Congenital TORCH infections and neurodevelopmental outcomes. JAMA Pediatr. Published online September 21, 2026. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2026.4229

2. Schleiss MR. TORCH infections in pregnancy and autism spectrum disorders. JAMA Pediatr. Published online September 21, 2026. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2026.4468

The mother reportedly developed measles late in pregnancy after other children in the family became infected. She became severely ill and went into labor approximately one month early. The newborn was not breathing at birth and could not be resuscitated. Testing after death detected measles virus.

The immediate cause of death, however, was determined to be hemorrhage from a lacerated spleen. Measles was listed on the death certificate as another significant condition. Whether measles caused or contributed to the splenic injury has not been established.

So we should not simply say, “This baby died from measles.”

But something extraordinarily important was demonstrated:

A pregnant woman developed measles, and her baby apparently became infected before birth.

Measles can cross the placenta.

And that is something not only obstetricians, but everyone who is pregnant, considering pregnancy, or caring for pregnant women should understand.

Measles is not just a childhood disease

Measles, also known as rubeola, is caused by the measles virus (MeV), a highly contagious RNA virus in the genus Morbillivirus. It is one of the most contagious human infections.

Measles (Rubeloa) is not rubella. The similar names, rubeola and rubella, can cause confusion, but they are caused by different viruses and have different effects in pregnancy.

• Rubella, sometimes called German measles, is caused by the rubella virus and can cause congenital rubella syndrome, including characteristic fetal malformations.

• Measles (rubeola) is caused by measles virus and is not associated with a comparable congenital-malformation syndrome, although maternal infection can cause serious maternal and pregnancy complications and can be transmitted to the fetus.

Among susceptible people exposed in close-contact settings, approximately 9 of 10 may become infected. Measles virus spreads through the air in respiratory particles and can remain infectious in an enclosed space for up to approximately two hours after an infected person has left.

Pregnant women who get infected with measles are among those at increased risk for serious complications. Maternal measles has been associated with pneumonia, hospitalization, pregnancy loss, stillbirth, low birth weight, and preterm delivery. Maternal deaths have also been reported.

The quality of the pregnancy evidence deserves some caution. Measles has fortunately become uncommon in highly vaccinated populations, so much of our evidence comes from older observational studies, outbreaks, and case reports rather than modern prospective trials.

A 2020 systematic review identified 29 studies describing 420 pregnancies complicated by measles. Pneumonia was reported in 17.9% and prematurity in 13.4%. These numbers should not be presented to an individual pregnant woman as her contemporary absolute risk because the cases spanned more than 70 years and very different health-care environments.

The conclusion is nevertheless clear:

Measles during pregnancy is not benign.

Can measles infect the fetus?

Yes.

The CDC specifically recognizes that measles can be transmitted from a pregnant woman to her fetus.

When infection occurs before birth, the newborn may develop congenital measles. Traditionally, this has been recognized when a characteristic febrile rash illness develops during the first 10 days of life.

Congenital measles can be severe. Reported complications include pneumonia, encephalitis, and death.

There is another important concern. Infants infected with measles very early in life may have an increased risk of developing subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, or SSPE, a rare but devastating progressive neurologic disease that can appear years after the original infection.

The Pennsylvania case therefore illustrates an important biological fact even though the precise contribution of measles to the newborn’s death remains uncertain:

Maternal infection can become fetal infection.

Does measles cause birth defects?

Here we need to distinguish measles (Rubeola) from rubella.

They are not the same disease.

Rubella infection, particularly early in pregnancy, can cause congenital rubella syndrome, with abnormalities including congenital heart disease, hearing impairment, and eye disease.

Measles has not been shown to produce an analogous, reproducible congenital-malformation syndrome.

The major documented pregnancy concerns are maternal illness, pregnancy loss, stillbirth, impaired fetal growth, premature delivery, and fetal or neonatal infection.

That distinction matters because “MMR” combines vaccines against three different viruses: measles, mumps, and rubella.

If measles is dangerous, why can’t a pregnant woman simply get the MMR vaccine?

Because MMR is a live attenuated vaccine.

It contains weakened forms of the viruses capable of stimulating immunity without producing the diseases caused by their wild-type counterparts.

Because of a theoretical risk from live vaccine viruses during pregnancy, MMR should not be administered during pregnancy.

CDC and ACOG recommend avoiding pregnancy for 28 days after MMR vaccination.

But this creates one of the most misunderstood facts about vaccination and pregnancy:

“Contraindicated during pregnancy” does not mean that MMR has been demonstrated to cause fetal abnormalities.

The recommendation is precautionary.

Indeed, when MMR or rubella-containing vaccines have inadvertently been administered during pregnancy, congenital rubella syndrome attributable to the vaccine has not been demonstrated in the accumulated surveillance experience.

Therefore, inadvertent MMR vaccination during pregnancy is not an indication for pregnancy termination.

Wild-type infection and vaccination are not biologically or clinically equivalent.

This is why immunity should be addressed BEFORE pregnancy

This may be the most useful message in this entire discussion.

Know whether you are protected against measles before becoming pregnant.

For most people, documentation of appropriate MMR vaccination provides presumptive evidence of immunity. Laboratory evidence of immunity or laboratory-confirmed previous disease can also establish immunity.

If a nonpregnant person lacks evidence of immunity, MMR vaccination can be given before pregnancy.

Then wait at least 28 days before becoming pregnant.

Once pregnancy has begun, that opportunity changes because MMR vaccination must generally wait until after delivery.

What if you are already pregnant and discover you are not immune?

Do not panic.

Do not get MMR during pregnancy.

Avoid exposure to people who may have measles or another unexplained febrile rash illness.

Measles is transmitted primarily through the air, not by ordinary skin contact. An infected person releases virus-containing respiratory particles when breathing, talking, coughing, or sneezing.

You can become infected by sharing the same indoor air, even without touching or speaking directly to that person.

Measles virus can remain infectious in the air of an enclosed space for up to approximately two hours after the infected person has left.

Transmission from contaminated surfaces is possible but is not considered the principal route.

Casually passing someone outdoors on the street is generally much lower risk because respiratory particles are rapidly diluted in outdoor air. Risk is substantially greater with prolonged or close contact and in enclosed, poorly ventilated spaces, such as a home, waiting room, classroom, public transportation, or other indoor gathering.

CAUTION: A person with measles can transmit the virus from approximately four days before through four days after the rash appears, so someone may be contagious before anyone realizes that the illness is measles.

If you are pregnant and lack evidence of measles immunity (you should REALLY know your immunity status) , do not knowingly enter a room or home occupied by someone with suspected or confirmed measles.

During an outbreak, pay attention to public-health exposure notices. If you learn that you were in the same indoor location as a person with measles during the infectious period, contact your obstetric clinician or public-health department immediately and before going to a medical facility. Do not wait to develop fever or a rash. Postexposure immune globulin may be indicated and is time-sensitive.

After delivery, MMR can be given, including while breastfeeding. Ideally, vaccination should occur before leaving the hospital so the opportunity is not lost.

What if a pregnant woman is exposed to measles?

This is time-sensitive.

Do not wait for the rash.

Contact your obstetric clinician or other health-care professional immediately and tell them about the exposure before arriving at an office, emergency department, or labor unit.

That last point protects other patients because measles is airborne and extraordinarily contagious.

A pregnant patient exposed to measles who lacks evidence of immunity should not receive MMR as postexposure prophylaxis.

ACOG currently recommends intravenous immunoglobulin, 400 mg/kg, within six days of exposure for susceptible pregnant patients.

Local or state public-health authorities should also be involved in suspected cases and significant exposures.

What about the baby?

A newborn whose mother develops measles around the time of delivery may have been exposed before birth, after birth, or both.

That newborn requires prompt pediatric and infectious-disease assessment.

ACOG recommends IV immunoglobulin postexposure prophylaxis for infants born to women with suspected or confirmed measles.

And an important misconception should be avoided: maternal measles does not automatically prohibit breast milk. ACOG states that there is no contraindication to breastfeeding solely because the mother has measles, although careful infection-control measures are necessary to prevent respiratory transmission.

One more important misconception: vitamin A

Vitamin A has received considerable attention during recent measles outbreaks.

Vitamin A is not a substitute for vaccination.

It does not prevent someone from acquiring measles.

Vitamin A may be used under medical supervision as supportive treatment in children with measles, particularly when deficiency is possible. But high doses of preformed vitamin A can themselves be harmful during pregnancy.

Pregnant women should therefore not begin high-dose vitamin A supplementation because they have been exposed to measles unless specifically directed by an appropriate clinician.

The lesson extends beyond pregnancy

There is a larger reason everyone should understand this.

A newborn cannot choose to be vaccinated against measles.

A fetus obviously cannot be vaccinated.

And a susceptible woman who is already pregnant cannot simply receive MMR after exposure because the vaccine is contraindicated during pregnancy.

Their protection therefore depends partly on something that happens before pregnancy and partly on the immunity of the people around them.

Two doses of measles-containing vaccine are approximately 97% effective against measles.

That makes measles vaccination more than an individual decision when pregnancy and newborns are involved. High population immunity reduces the probability that measles reaches people who cannot yet receive the vaccine or cannot receive it at that particular time.

The five things worth remembering

1. Measles during pregnancy can be serious for both mother and pregnancy.

2. Measles can cross the placenta and infect the fetus. Congenital measles is real.

3. MMR prevents measles but should not be administered during pregnancy.

4. If you are planning pregnancy, this is the time to make sure your measles immunity is adequate.

5. If you are pregnant and exposed to measles, call your clinician immediately. Do not wait for symptoms. Effective postexposure intervention is time-sensitive.

The Pennsylvania newborn’s death is still being investigated, and we should resist claiming more about causation than the evidence establishes.

But we do not need uncertainty about the cause of that baby’s death to understand the larger lesson.

For decades, widespread vaccination made congenital measles something most obstetricians, pediatricians, and parents would never encounter.

As measles returns, some lessons that medicine had almost been able to forget have become important again.

Measles does not necessarily stop at the placenta. Prevention should begin before pregnancy.

Selected references

1. Congera P, Maraolo AE, Parente S, et al. Measles in pregnant women: a systematic review of clinical outcomes and a meta-analysis of antibodies seroprevalence. J Infect. 2020;80(2):152-160.

2. Ogbuanu IU, Zeko S, Chu SY, et al. Maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes associated with measles during pregnancy: Namibia, 2009-2010. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(8):1086-1092.

3. Atmar RL, Englund JA, Hammill H. Complications of measles during pregnancy. Clin Infect Dis. 1992;14(1):217-226.

4. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) Vaccination and Management of Obstetric-Gynecologic Patients During a Measles Outbreak. Practice Advisory. Updated May 2025.

5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Clinical Overview of Measles. Updated 2026.

A recent post on LinkedIn by emergency physician Phindile Erika Chowa, MD highlighted an uncomfortable reality: most maternal deaths occur after delivery, yet our traditional postpartum care model often leaves women without routine clinical contact for weeks.

Her solution is sensible.

Move the first postpartum visit earlier.

But I would argue that this still asks the wrong question.

The problem is not whether the first visit should occur at six weeks, three weeks, or even one week.

The problem is that we continue to expect a woman who has just delivered a baby to travel to us.

Many European countries abandoned that assumption decades ago.

Instead, postpartum care routinely includes home visits by midwives, community nurses, or public health nurses. The healthcare system goes to the mother during the period when she is most vulnerable.

The value extends far beyond checking a blood pressure.

A trained clinician can identify postpartum hypertension before it progresses to eclampsia. Wound infections can be recognized before they require hospitalization. Breastfeeding problems can be corrected before mothers give up. Depression and anxiety can be detected before they become crises. Questions that might otherwise lead to emergency department visits can be answered in the living room.

This is not simply an earlier visit.

Subscribe now

It is an entirely different philosophy of care.

The United States has focused on improving access to postpartum appointments, extending Medicaid coverage, and encouraging earlier follow-up for high-risk patients. These are worthwhile changes. But they remain clinic-centered solutions to a problem that occurs at home.

For decades, we have designed postpartum care around the convenience of the healthcare system rather than the reality of the postpartum patient.

A mother recovering from childbirth may be sleep deprived, caring for a newborn, recovering from surgery, managing older children, lacking transportation, or unable to find childcare. Every one of these factors reduces the likelihood that she will attend even an appropriately scheduled visit.

Share

The solution is not simply to move the appointment from week six to week three.

The solution is to redesign postpartum care around where mothers actually are.

Of course, healthcare financing differs substantially between Europe and the United States.

No European model can be imported wholesale. Or maybe it can?

But the underlying principle is universal:

the highest-risk weeks after birth deserve active surveillance, not passive availability.

Obstetrics has embraced fetal surveillance because waiting for symptoms is often too late.

Perhaps it is time to apply the same thinking to mothers.

Instead of asking, “When should she come back?”

We should be asking, “Why aren’t we going to her?”

I created a tool that is available 24/7 for those trying to find out if there is a problem: ObAlert.com

This is a critical evidence review of what actually prevents preterm birth, organized around a distinction the field routinely blurs: preventing preterm birth versus mitigating its consequences once it occurs.

It surveys the interventions offered for prevention — vaginal progesterone, cervical cerclage, the cervical pessary, 17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate, low-dose aspirin, omega-3 supplementation, screening and treatment of genital infection, and tocolytics — alongside the population-level data on preterm birth rates, the spontaneous-versus-iatrogenic split, and the durable racial disparity, and it sets each against the strongest interventions in the field (antenatal corticosteroids and magnesium neuroprotection) to make the prevention-versus-mitigation line explicit.

The research was conducted with the assistance of a large language model (Claude, running its Fable 5 model), used deliberately as a check on individual subjectivity rather than as an authority: every rate, effect size, and regulatory fact was then verified against primary sources — CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, PubMed-indexed randomized trials and individual-patient-data meta-analyses, Cochrane systematic reviews, and the Federal Register — with all references given in Vancouver format with real identifiers, established evidence distinguished from emerging and contested findings, and points of genuine uncertainty flagged rather than smoothed over.

The perspective throughout is a preventive-ethics one: where “reasonable to offer” has outrun the data, the paper says so.

Bottom line

Two interventions genuinely prevent spontaneous preterm birth, and only in narrow phenotypes: vaginal progesterone for a sonographic short cervix, and cerclage for a short cervix with a prior spontaneous preterm birth. Almost everything else adopted with enthusiasm — 17-OHPC, the Arabin pessary, screening-and-treating bacterial vaginosis, periodontal treatment, antioxidant vitamins — has failed to replicate, been withdrawn, or was never real. Meanwhile the US rate is higher than a decade ago (10.41% in 2024 versus a 2014 low of 9.57%), the Black–White gap is unmoved at roughly 1.6-fold, and the growth sits in late-preterm, largely iatrogenic delivery. The obstetric wins of the last thirty years — antenatal steroids, late-preterm steroids, magnesium neuroprotection — are all damage control. None of them stops a preterm birth.

The population reality

In 2024 the preterm rate was 10.41%: early preterm (<34 weeks) 2.72%, late preterm (34–36 weeks) 7.69%.

The critical structural fact is that early preterm has barely moved for a decade while the entire rise sits in late preterm — the window dominated by clinician-initiated delivery, not by failure to arrest early spontaneous labor. About two-thirds of preterm births are spontaneous (preterm labor plus PPROM) and one-third medically indicated, and the share of indicated late-preterm delivery has grown. The disparity is durable and does not track income: non-Hispanic Black 14.86% versus non-Hispanic White 9.49% in 2024, and Black was the only group with a significant year-over-year rise.

What actually works — and only here

Vaginal progesterone and cerclage are roughly equivalent for the short-cervix-plus-prior-sPTB phenotype on indirect comparison, so the non-invasive option reasonably goes first. The honest weakness underneath: the pivotal cerclage trial (Owen 2009) missed its own primary endpoint; the indication rests on the IPD meta-analysis and the <15 mm subgroup, not a single positive trial. EPPPIC, the definitive synthesis (31 trials, 11,644 women), put vaginal progesterone at RR 0.78 (0.68–0.90) for PTB <34 weeks in high-risk singletons, with benefit concentrated where the cervix is short, and explicitly questioned efficacy in women without a short cervix.

What collapsed or was oversold

17-OHPC (Makena) is the emblem. Meis 2003 showed recurrent PTB <37 weeks falling 54.9% to 36.3% (RR 0.66), on the strength of which the FDA gave accelerated approval in 2011. The confirmatory PROLONG trial was flatly null: PTB <35 weeks 11.0% versus 11.5%, RR 0.95 (0.71–1.26). EPPPIC put the pooled 17-OHPC singleton effect at RR 0.83 (0.68–1.01), crossing 1.0. The FDA formally withdrew Makena and eight generics in April 2023. Women received weekly intramuscular injections for a decade for a drug that, on confirmatory testing, did nothing.

The Arabin pessary is the same story. Goya 2012 was spectacular — spontaneous birth <34 weeks 6% versus 27%, OR 0.18. It did not replicate: Nicolaides’s 932-woman NEJM trial was null (OR 1.12), and SMFM now recommends against it in singletons. And a long list never worked: treating asymptomatic bacterial vaginosis (RR 0.88, despite eradicating the BV); periodontal treatment (OPT, flatly null); vitamin C/E. Antibiotics for preterm labor with intact membranes are not merely useless — the ORACLE II seven-year follow-up found more cerebral palsy. That one is a do-no-harm line, not a neutral negative.

The distinction the field blurs: prevention versus mitigation

The interventions with the strongest evidence in all of preterm medicine do not prevent a single preterm birth. Antenatal corticosteroids cut neonatal death, RDS, and IVH — and move birthweight essentially zero, because they do nothing to the timing of birth. Late-preterm steroids (ALPS) reduce respiratory morbidity — applied, with some irony, to the very iatrogenic late-preterm deliveries driving the rate up. Magnesium sulfate protects the brain of a baby who is going to be born early regardless. These are triumphs, and every one is damage control. Conflating them with prevention lets the field claim progress on a number it has not moved.

Tocolytics: a bridge to mitigation, not prevention

Tocolytics belong in this section, not the prevention column — and they are its weakest entry, because their only proven job is to buy a 48-hour-to-7-day window for the interventions that actually help the neonate. Every class delays birth versus placebo; none has proven independent reduction in neonatal mortality or serious morbidity. The 2022 Cochrane network meta-analysis (122 trials, 13,697 women) found all six classes probably delay birth but left the effects on neonatal and perinatal mortality uncertain; Haas’s earlier network meta-analysis found no clear neonatal RDS benefit of any agent over placebo. The benefit to the baby comes entirely from what is done during the window — completing antenatal corticosteroids, magnesium neuroprotection, and in-utero transfer to a NICU — not from the tocolytic. ACOG restricts tocolysis to short-term prolongation (≤48 h) for exactly those purposes, does not recommend maintenance tocolysis, and cautions against tocolysing contractions without cervical change.

The European pattern is worth stating precisely, because it is often read as evidence the US is missing something. Heavy European use — especially of atosiban (Tractocile) — reflects licensing and tolerability, not superior outcomes. Atosiban is EMA-approved and a European mainstay; the FDA declined it in 1998 and never approved it. The pivotal placebo-controlled trial (Romero 2000) missed its primary endpoint (median 25.6 vs 21.0 days, P=.6), with benefit only at ≥28 weeks, and carried a safety signal — pooled Cochrane data show more births <28 weeks (RR 3.11, 1.02–9.51) and more infant deaths to 12 months (RR 6.13, 1.38–27.13) in the atosiban arms, though confounded by more very-early-gestation women randomized to atosiban. Head-to-head, atosiban and generic nifedipine were equivalent: APOSTEL III (Lancet 2016) found composite adverse perinatal outcome 14% vs 15%, RR 0.91 (0.61–1.37). Heavy European atosiban use is therefore not evidence of a prevention tool the US missed; it is a licensing divergence plus a preference for a better-tolerated drug, over a class that on both continents has never improved the outcome that matters.

The modest and the emerging

Low-dose aspirin genuinely lowers preterm birth, but modestly and mostly as a co-benefit of preeclampsia prevention (ASPIRIN trial PTB <37 weeks 11.6% versus 13.1%, RR 0.89). There is an unresolved tension: an IPD meta-analysis found the antiplatelet effect on spontaneous PTB carried by parous women and null in first pregnancies, so it should not be oversold. Omega-3 is the live question: Cochrane found early PTB <34 weeks RR 0.58 across 70 trials, but the well-nourished ORIP population showed nothing and a signal toward LGA/post-term. The reconciliation is baseline DHA status, pointing toward test-and-treat in low-DHA women rather than universal supplementation. Group prenatal care, despite the enthusiasm, was null for preterm birth on intention-to-treat in the CRADLE trial; the publicized dose-response benefit is confounded by who attends.

Counterpoint: Romero’s prediction-and-prevention paradigm

The strongest affirmative case against the population-failure framing is Roberto Romero’s. His position is that prevention has not failed because the tools fail, but because we do not deploy them systematically: universal transvaginal cervical-length screening of all singleton pregnancies, with vaginal progesterone for the short cervix identified. On his reading, the population rate has not fallen because most health systems never adopted universal screening, so the effective progesterone he validated (his individual-patient-data meta-analyses) reaches only a fraction of the women it could help. He has argued explicitly that spontaneous preterm labor can be predicted and prevented, and that inaction — not the intervention — is the failure. This is the serious counter-argument, and any contrarian piece should engage it directly. The rebuttal is empirical and narrow: universal screening plus progesterone addresses the short-cervix pathway, which is a minority of spontaneous preterm birth, and even full uptake would not touch the late-preterm iatrogenic growth that dominates the recent rise. Both things can be true — his paradigm is the best available primary prevention, and it is still not enough to move the population number.

My read, and the ethics of it

Primary prevention of preterm birth has largely failed at the population level, and the honest response is to say so rather than recycle interventions that do not survive confirmatory testing. This is a preventive-ethics problem as much as a scientific one. A decade of weekly 17-OHPC injections is what happens when accelerated approval substitutes for a confirmatory trial and the profession treats “reasonable to offer” as a standing license. The informed-consent implication is direct: a woman with a prior preterm birth and a normal cervix should be told plainly that, after Makena’s withdrawal, there is no proven drug for her — that serial cervical-length surveillance with treatment if she shortens is a monitoring strategy, not a prevention guarantee. The field should stop selling mitigation as prevention, concentrate the real prevention tools on the phenotypes where they work, and be honest that for most women at risk we do not yet have an answer. That is not defeatism. It is the precondition for looking in the right place.

Caveats

The strongest, cleanest claims are the CDC rates, the Makena withdrawal, EPPPIC, and the steroid and magnesium mitigation effects.

Genuinely contested or emerging: progesterone in twins with a short cervix (a moderate-quality signal, RR ~0.69, not a settled indication); the aspirin parity discordance; and omega-3’s dependence on baseline DHA.

This review is organized around intervention efficacy for prevention; it does not attempt Romero’s mechanistic corpus (intra-amniotic infection and sterile inflammation, the preterm parturition syndrome, amniotic-fluid sludge, the cervical microbiome), which is cause-and-mechanism rather than intervention, and which explains why several of the negatives above behave as they do.

References

1. Osterman MJK, Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Driscoll AK, Valenzuela CP. Births: final data for 2024. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2026;75(2). [rates confirmed from NVSR PDF]

2. Martin JA, Osterman MJK. Describing the increase in preterm births in the United States, 2014–2016. NCHS Data Brief No. 312; 2018.

3. Goldenberg RL, Culhane JF, Iams JD, Romero R. Epidemiology and causes of preterm birth. Lancet. 2008;371(9606):75-84. PMID: 18177778.

4. Fonseca EB, Celik E, Parra M, Singh M, Nicolaides KH. Progesterone and the risk of preterm birth among women with a short cervix. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(5):462-9. PMID: 17671254.

5. Hassan SS, Romero R, Vidyadhari D, Fusey S, Baxter JK, Khandelwal M, et al. Vaginal progesterone reduces the rate of preterm birth in women with a sonographic short cervix (PREGNANT trial). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(1):18-31. PMID: 21472815.

6. Romero R, Conde-Agudelo A, Da Fonseca E, O’Brien JM, Cetingoz E, Creasy GW, et al. Vaginal progesterone for preventing preterm birth and adverse perinatal outcomes in singleton gestations with a short cervix: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(2):161-80. PMID: 29157866.

7. Berghella V, Rafael TJ, Szychowski JM, Rust OA, Owen J. Cerclage for short cervix on ultrasonography in women with singleton gestations and previous preterm birth: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(3):663-71. PMID: 21446209.

8. Berghella V, Ciardulli A, Rust OA, To M, Otsuki K, Althuisius S, et al. Cerclage for sonographic short cervix in singleton gestations without prior spontaneous preterm birth: IPD meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50(5):569-77. PMID: 28295722.

9. Conde-Agudelo A, Romero R, Da Fonseca E, O’Brien JM, Cetingoz E, Creasy GW, et al. Vaginal progesterone is as effective as cervical cerclage to prevent preterm birth in women with a singleton gestation, previous spontaneous preterm birth, and a short cervix: updated indirect comparison meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(1):10-25. PMID: 29630885.

10. Owen J, Hankins G, Iams JD, Berghella V, Sheffield JS, Perez-Delboy A, et al. Multicenter randomized trial of cerclage for preterm birth prevention in high-risk women with shortened midtrimester cervical length. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(4):375.e1-8. PMID: 19788970.

11. EPPPIC Group. Evaluating Progestogens for Preventing Preterm birth International Collaborative (EPPPIC): meta-analysis of individual participant data. Lancet. 2021;397(10280):1183-94. PMID: 33773630.

12. Meis PJ, Klebanoff M, Thom E, Dombrowski MP, Sibai B, Moawad AH, et al. Prevention of recurrent preterm delivery by 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(24):2379-85. PMID: 12802023.

13. Blackwell SC, Gyamfi-Bannerman C, Biggio JR Jr, Chauhan SP, Hughes BL, Louis JM, et al. 17-OHPC to prevent recurrent preterm birth in singleton gestations (PROLONG). Am J Perinatol. 2020;37(2):127-36. PMID: 31652479.

14. US Food and Drug Administration. Final decision on withdrawal of Makena (hydroxyprogesterone caproate) and eight ANDAs following public hearing. Federal Register. 2023 May 15;88(93). [order signed April 6, 2023]

15. Goya M, Pratcorona L, Merced C, Rodó C, Valle L, Romero A, et al. Cervical pessary in pregnant women with a short cervix (PECEP): an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012;379(9828):1800-6. PMID: 22475493.

16. Nicolaides KH, Syngelaki A, Poon LC, Picciarelli G, Tul N, Zamprakou A, et al. A randomized trial of a cervical pessary to prevent preterm singleton birth. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(11):1044-52. PMID: 26981934.

17. Brocklehurst P, Gordon A, Heatley E, Milan SJ. Antibiotics for treating bacterial vaginosis in pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(1):CD000262. PMID: 23440777.

18. Michalowicz BS, Hodges JS, DiAngelis AJ, Lupo VR, Novak MJ, Ferguson JE, et al. Treatment of periodontal disease and the risk of preterm birth (OPT). N Engl J Med. 2006;355(18):1885-94. PMID: 17079762.

19. Rumbold A, Ota E, Nagata C, Shahrook S, Crowther CA. Vitamin C supplementation in pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(9):CD004072. PMID: 26415762.

20. Kenyon S, Pike K, Jones DR, Brocklehurst P, Marlow N, Salt A, et al. Childhood outcomes after prescription of antibiotics to pregnant women with spontaneous preterm labour: 7-year follow-up of the ORACLE II trial. Lancet. 2008;372(9646):1319-27. PMID: 18804276.

21. McGoldrick E, Stewart F, Parker R, Dalziel SR. Antenatal corticosteroids for accelerating fetal lung maturation for women at risk of preterm birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;12:CD004454. PMID: 33368142.

22. Gyamfi-Bannerman C, Thom EA, Blackwell SC, Tita ATN, Reddy UM, Saade GR, et al. Antenatal betamethasone for women at risk for late preterm delivery (ALPS). N Engl J Med. 2016;374(14):1311-20. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1516783. [PMID not independently re-verified]

23. Doyle LW, Crowther CA, Middleton P, Marret S, Rouse D. Magnesium sulphate for women at risk of preterm birth for neuroprotection of the fetus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(1):CD004661. PMID: 19160238.

24. Hoffman MK, Goudar SS, Kodkany BS, Metgud M, Somannavar M, Okitawutshu J, et al. Low-dose aspirin for the prevention of preterm delivery in nulliparous women with a singleton pregnancy (ASPIRIN). Lancet. 2020;395(10220):285-93. PMID: 31982074.

25. van Vliet EOG, Askie LA, Mol BWJ, Oudijk MA. Antiplatelet agents and the prevention of spontaneous preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129(2):327-36. PMID: 28079785.

26. Middleton P, Gomersall JC, Gould JF, Shepherd E, Olsen SF, Makrides M. Omega-3 fatty acid addition during pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;11:CD003402. PMID: 30480773.

27. Makrides M, Best K, Yelland L, McPhee A, Zhou S, Quinlivan J, et al. A randomized trial of prenatal n-3 fatty acid supplementation and preterm delivery (ORIP). N Engl J Med. 2019;380(11):1035-45. PMID: 31509674.

28. Crockett AH, Chen L, Heberlein EC, et al. Group vs traditional prenatal care for improving racial equity (CRADLE). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022. [intention-to-treat null; design paper PMID: 28403832]

29. Romero R, Conde-Agudelo A, El-Refaie W, Rode L, Brizot ML, Cetingoz E, et al. Vaginal progesterone decreases preterm birth in women with a twin gestation and a short cervix: updated IPD meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49(3):303-14. PMID: 28067007.

30. Romero R, Nicolaides KH, Conde-Agudelo A, Tarca AL, Hassan SS. Spontaneous preterm labor can be predicted and prevented. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021;57(1):15-18. DOI: 10.1002/uog.23565. [author position/opinion; DOI verified]

31. Wilson A, Hodgetts-Morton VA, Marson EJ, Markland AD, Larkai E, Papadopoulou A, et al. Tocolytics for delaying preterm birth: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;8:CD014978. PMID: 35947046.

32. Haas DM, Caldwell DM, Kirkpatrick P, McIntosh JJ, Welton NJ. Tocolytic therapy for preterm delivery: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2012;344:e6226. PMID: 23048010.

33. Romero R, Sibai BM, Sanchez-Ramos L, Valenzuela GJ, Veille JC, Tabor B, et al. An oxytocin receptor antagonist (atosiban) in the treatment of preterm labor: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with tocolytic rescue. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182(5):1173-83. PMID: 10819855.

34. Flenady V, Reinebrant HE, Liley HG, Tambimuttu EG, Papatsonis DN. Oxytocin receptor antagonists for inhibiting preterm labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(6):CD004452. PMID: 24903678.

35. van Vliet EOG, Nijman TAJ, Schuit E, Heida KY, Opmeer BC, Kok M, et al. Nifedipine versus atosiban for threatened preterm birth (APOSTEL III): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10033):2117-24. PMID: 26944026.

36. Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice Bulletin No. 171: Management of Preterm Labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(4):e155-64. PMID: 27661654.

37. US Food and Drug Administration. Drug Safety Communication: new warnings against use of terbutaline to treat preterm labor. 2011.

A woman at 19 weeks arrives for her anatomy scan. She has brought her partner. She has the gender reveal planned for Saturday. The sonographer takes longer than usual. She asks twice whether everything is okay. The sonographer says the doctor will come in to talk. The doctor comes in and begins explaining what she found. The patient hears the first sentence and stops hearing the rest.

Subscribe now

That moment, when a normal pregnancy becomes a pregnancy with a diagnosis, is among the most demanding in all of perinatal medicine.

What happens in the next hour and the next 72 hours determines how a patient navigates a decision that is among the most consequential of her life.

The clinical system was not designed for that moment.

And the AI tools now entering prenatal diagnosis counseling have not reckoned with what it actually requires.

What the Moment Requires

Empathy in this room means recognizing the shock and being moved by it. Compassion means acting on that recognition: slowing down, checking what the patient has actually heard, deciding what information should come now and what should wait, and making clear that this is the beginning of a supported process and not the delivery of a verdict. Those are clinical judgments, not communication techniques.

Major structural fetal anomalies are identified in approximately 2 to 3 percent of pregnancies screened with detailed anatomy ultrasound.

The range is wide: from conditions compatible with normal life requiring postnatal surgery, to conditions incompatible with survival, to conditions whose prognosis is genuinely uncertain. What all of them have in common is that the patient was not prepared. No prenatal appointment prepares a woman for this conversation.

Research on patient experience after anomaly diagnosis consistently finds that what patients remember most is not the information they received but how they received it: whether the clinician was present to their shock, whether they were given time, and whether they felt the clinician cared about what the diagnosis meant for their specific lives.

Those are measures of compassion, not empathy.

Free readers see above. Paid subscribers continue below.

Read more

r/BabyBumps

Reddit is where patients go at 2 a.m. when scared. I monitor dozens of communities for clinically meaningful posts: dangerous myths, gaps between belief and evidence, stories guidelines cannot capture. This series -- ObGyn Intelligence on Reddit -- dissects them against the literature, because ObGyns who ignore social media ignore the most unfiltered window into what patients think, fear, and do between appointments.

Summary

A newly pregnant Reddit user is planning to attend a friend’s wedding in Paris at 30 weeks. Her husband is in the wedding party. She wants to know if a 9.5-hour nonstop flight -- or an 18-hour trip with a layover -- is safe at that stage of pregnancy.

Forty-nine people weighed in. Most said the nonstop flight is probably doable for a low-risk pregnancy, with OB clearance, compression socks, aisle seat, and refundable tickets. Several shared their own experiences flying internationally in the third trimester -- ranging from fine to miserable. A few said to skip it or send the husband alone. A small number raised important points most people miss: airline policies vary, many require a doctor’s letter after 28 to 30 weeks, travel insurance often excludes pregnancy, and a preterm birth abroad could cost tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket.

The rest of this post is for paid subscribers.

Read more

Reddit is where patients go at 2 a.m. when scared. I monitor dozens of communities for clinically meaningful posts: dangerous myths, gaps between belief and evidence, stories guidelines cannot capture. This series -- ObGyn Intelligence on Reddit -- dissects them against the literature, because ObGyns who ignore social media ignore the most unfiltered window into what patients think, fear, and do between appointments.

Summary

A first-time mother at 9 weeks and 6 days went for her first ultrasound expecting routine news. Instead, she left with three diagnoses in one visit: a bicornuate uterus, vanishing twin syndrome, and a subchorionic hematoma. She turned to Reddit for support and got it -- over 87 comments, mostly from people who had been through the same thing and delivered healthy babies. The community rallied around her with reassurance, personal stories, and a few important clinical warnings. The top comment had 526 upvotes. Her post got more than 1,300. This was not a rare anxiety spiral. It was a community filling a gap that the exam room left open.

The rest of this post is for paid subscribers.

Read more

Twin pregnancy means two fetuses share one uterus. Clinically, that sounds simple. Medically, it is one of the most complex situations in obstetrics. The key fact many patients never hear early enough is this: twin risk is not determined by the number of babies. It is determined by how the placenta is shared.

The first steps after twins are diagnosed is to determine the “chorionicity”.

Obstetricians therefore do not begin twin care by counting fetuses. We begin by identifying chorionicity, meaning how many placentas and how many amniotic sacs exist.

This is ideally determined by ultrasound at 11 to 14 weeks, because later the membranes become harder to interpret.

There are three biologic types of twins.

Dichorionic–diamniotic (di-di).
Each fetus has its own placenta and its own amniotic sac. This includes almost all fraternal twins and about one third of identical twins. The fetuses are physiologically separate. The risks are mainly those of uterine over-distention: preterm birth, maternal hypertension, and growth differences. These are the lowest-risk twins.

Monochorionic–diamniotic (mono-di).
The twins share one placenta but have separate sacs. This occurs when an embryo splits slightly later. Because the placenta is shared, blood vessels connect the twins. That single feature changes everything. One twin can transfuse blood to the other. This produces twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome, growth restriction of one twin, or sudden deterioration of both.

Monochorionic–monoamniotic (mono-mono).
The rarest form. One placenta and one sac. There is no separating membrane. The umbilical cords can entangle and compress. These pregnancies are uncommon but among the highest risk in modern obstetrics.

Coinjoined twins are part of MonoMono twins and are jopined anywhere on their bodies.

Monitoring follows directly from biology.

For di-di twins, surveillance resembles intensified singleton care.
• Anatomy scan at 18–22 weeks
• Growth ultrasound about every 4 weeks beginning at ~24 weeks
• Third-trimester antenatal testing around 32–34 weeks
• Delivery usually at 38 weeks if uncomplicated

For mono-di twins, the placenta requires active surveillance.
• Ultrasound every 2 weeks starting at 16 weeks
• At each visit: amniotic fluid in each sac and bladder filling
• Doppler assessment when concerns arise
The purpose is early detection of twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome and selective growth restriction. If TTTS develops, fetoscopic laser treatment may be needed. Delivery typically occurs around 36–37 weeks.

For mono-mono twins, monitoring becomes preventive rather than reactive.
• Ultrasound every 1–2 weeks in mid-pregnancy
• Intensive fetal surveillance in the third trimester
• Many centers hospitalize around 26–28 weeks for daily monitoring
The reason is cord entanglement, which cannot be predicted by growth scans. Planned cesarean delivery is usually recommended around 32–34 weeks before sudden cord compression occurs.

One important counseling point: twin monitoring is not about doing more ultrasounds for reassurance. It is about watching for specific pathophysiology unique to each placental type. A mono-di pregnancy can look normal one week and show early transfusion syndrome two weeks later. A mono-mono pregnancy can have normal growth and still face acute cord compromise. The schedule is designed around the biology of those risks.

Twin pregnancy therefore requires an early question at the first ultrasound:
not “Are both babies healthy?” but

“How many placentas are there?”

Once that is answered, the rest of prenatal care follows logically. The monitoring plan, visit frequency, and delivery timing are not arbitrary. They are a direct response to how the fetuses share circulation inside the uterus.

A woman has preeclampsia. She delivers. Her baby goes to the NICU. She goes home two days later with a blood pressure cuff and instructions to follow up in six weeks.

She does. Her blood pressure is better. Her doctor says she looks great. She moves on.

Ten years later, she is tired all the time. Her ankles swell. Her doctor orders labs. Her kidney function is seriously impaired.

Nobody made a mistake. Nobody missed an obvious sign. The system did exactly what it was designed to do. That is the problem.

The Connection We Are Not Making

Preeclampsia, preterm birth, and delivering a baby that is small for gestational age are not just pregnancy complications. They are warning signals for what comes next, specifically, for the kidneys.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) can develop silently, over years, with no symptoms until it is advanced. Pregnancy complications are among its most powerful predictors. And almost no one is connecting these dots at the postpartum visit.

Women with preeclampsia face a 5-fold greater risk of end-stage renal disease, the point at which the kidneys fail and dialysis or transplant becomes necessary. If that preeclampsia was preterm, the risk rises to 9-fold.

CKD is the 9th leading cause of death in women. It disproportionately affects women. And it is almost entirely absent from postpartum care guidelines.

The Guidelines Know. The Clinics Do Not.

The 2024 KDIGO guidelines, from the leading international nephrology organization, explicitly list preeclampsia as a high-risk condition requiring CKD screening. Nephrology societies have made this clear.

ACOG and primary care guidelines focus postpartum follow-up on blood pressure, lipids, and glucose. Kidney function is not there.

The result is a gap between what nephrology recommends and what obstetrics delivers. And women fall through it.

What the Numbers Show

In a Swedish cohort study of more than 170,000 pregnancies, only 20% of women with preeclampsia had kidney function tested in their first postpartum year. Only 10% had urine albumin tested, the most sensitive early marker of kidney damage.

In the Geisinger Health Study, only 31% of women had kidney function checked within 6 months of delivery.

Yet when women were systematically evaluated postpartum in a French-Italian multicenter study, 19% had newly diagnosed CKD. The expected rate in women of childbearing age is around 3%.

We are not finding CKD in these women because we are not looking for it.

Two Tests. A Few Dollars. Years of Difference.

The screening is not complicated or expensive. Two tests cover it: a GFR -- glomerular filtration rate, already included in a standard basic metabolic panel -- and a urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, known as uACR.

These tests are ordered every day in every clinic. They cost almost nothing. They are just not being ordered for these women, after these pregnancies.

Early CKD is manageable. Blood pressure control slows progression. Certain medications protect kidney function. Lifestyle changes matter. None of this is possible if the diagnosis is never made.

This Is Not a One-Time Postpartum Check

A woman who had preeclampsia at 32 does not need one kidney test at her 6-week visit and then nothing. She needs her pregnancy history to follow her.

At her annual physical at 40. At 45. At 55. Every time a clinician sees her, the question should be on the table: did you have preeclampsia or a pregnancy complication? When were your kidneys last checked?

This is a lifelong conversation that pregnancy history must inform.

What Needs to Change

Awareness unlocks everything. When clinicians understand this connection, they order the right tests. When health systems understand it, they build it into protocols. When women understand it, they can advocate for themselves at any appointment -- at 10 weeks postpartum, at their annual physical, at 45, at 55.

They can walk in and say: I had preeclampsia. Have you checked my kidneys this year?

That sentence, said by an informed woman to any clinician, is enough to start the process. We just need women to know to say it.

My Take

I have spent decades studying what happens to women during pregnancy. I have watched postpartum care shrink to a single visit focused on contraception and blood pressure. I have seen what happens when the complexity of what pregnancy does to a body is treated as something that resolves at discharge.

It does not resolve. It echoes.

Preeclampsia is not a pregnancy problem that ends when the baby arrives. It is a signal that the body sends -- about the cardiovascular system, about the kidneys, about long-term risk -- and we are choosing, through inaction, not to read it.

The tests exist. The evidence exists. The guidelines exist -- in nephrology, if not yet in obstetrics. What is missing is the will to make postpartum care mean something beyond six weeks.

We can fix this. It starts with asking the right questions.

This week: a Doximity thread. Different platform, same unfiltered truth -- except now it is the doctors doing the talking.

Summary

A Philadelphia jury awarded $108.6 million to the family of a brain-injured child in a birth injury case against Jefferson Health. It is the largest med…

Read more

A California doctor is facing felony involuntary manslaughter charges. A two-day-old boy is dead. The cause of death was opioid toxicity from a drug that should never have been anywhere near a newborn during a routine circumcision. This case is a tragedy. It is also a teaching moment that every physician who performs procedures should read carefully.

What Happened

On February 27, 2024, Dr. Hong-An Jan performed a circumcision on two-day-old Charles Wang at his private clinic in Garden Grove, California. According to the lawsuit and court filings, instead of injecting Xylocaine (lidocaine), the appropriate local anesthetic for this procedure, the physician injected Demerol, a synthetic opioid painkiller classified as a Schedule II narcotic. The toxicology report confirmed high levels of Demerol. There was no lidocaine.

The infant became lethargic and unresponsive.

The physician examined him, told the parents this was a normal reaction, sent them home, and ordered no laboratory tests. The following day, Charles was pronounced dead at the hospital. The coroner ruled the cause of death as bronchopneumonia due to acute Demerol intoxication.

Dr. Jan pleaded not guilty in February 2026. His medical license has been suspended pending the outcome of the case.

PS: According to the report, the doctor earned his medical degree in 1967 which would have likely made him about 80 years old in 2024. Commercial airline pilots in the United States are prohibited from flying passengers after age 65 under FAA regulations Federal Aviation Administration — a rule aligned with international aviation standards and based on the straightforward premise that cognitive and physical performance decline with age, and that passengers deserve protection from that risk. Dr. Jan appeared to be in his 80’s when he performed the procedure that killed Charles Wang. There is no equivalent rule for physicians.

A pilot who is 80 years old cannot legally sit in the cockpit of a commercial aircraft.

A physician who is 80 years old can perform procedures on a two-day-old infant in a private office with no oversight, no co-pilot, and no mandatory competency review. Medicine has long resisted what aviation figured out decades ago: that experience and age are not the same thing, and that protecting the public sometimes means protecting it from practitioners who no longer recognize their own limitations.

What does the AARP say

Read more

Reddit is where patients go at 2 a.m. when scared. I monitor dozens of communities for clinically meaningful posts: dangerous myths, gaps between belief and evidence, stories guidelines cannot capture. This series -- ObGyn Intelligence on Reddit -- dissects them against the literature, because ObGyns who ignore social media ignore the most unfiltered window into what patients think, fear, and do between appointments.

Summary

Four Reddit posts from r/homebirth -- posted within the last 1-2 years -- describe what happened when planned home deliveries went wrong. You never get that information from midwives.

The mothers had different backgrounds and different midwives, but their stories share a troubling pattern: prolonged, complicated labors managed outside the hospital without timely escalation, followed by neonatal distress, NICU admissions, and in one devastating case, the death of a newborn son at three days of life.

Across all four accounts, women describe feeling abandoned by their midwives after transfer, receiving little or no informed consent about escalating risk, and blaming themselves for outcomes that were not their fault.

The community’s response was overwhelmingly empathetic -- but almost universally failed to name the systemic failures these stories document.

These are not outliers. They are a window into a regulatory and accountability gap that costs lives.

I created several tools on tools.obmd.com for women considering homebirth:

• Home Birth Eligibility Checklist (Am I eligible?)

• Home Birth Informed Consent

The rest of this post is for paid subscribers. What follows are insights into what homebirth in the US looks like.

Read more

In 2018 and 2019, two women in Kings County, California -- both struggling with methamphetamine addiction -- delivered stillborn babies and were charged with murder by District Attorney Keith Fagundes under a California fetal murder statute originally written to protect pregnant women from assault. One woman, Adora Perez, served nearly four years in prison after a guilty plea to manslaughter. The other, Chelsea Becker, spent 16 months in pretrial detention on a $2 million bail before her murder charge was dismissed. Both convictions were eventually overturned. The DA invoked a law meant to protect pregnant women from third-party violence and turned it against the mothers themselves. When asked why, he said: “Somebody’s gotta be a voice for that fetus.” That one sentence generated 51,000 upvotes and nearly 3,000 comments on Reddit’s r/politics. The thread became a proxy for the national conversation about reproductive rights, drug addiction, and who gets to decide when a pregnancy becomes a crime scene.

The rest of this post is for paid subscribers.

Read more

A new mother in Amsterdam goes home two days after delivery. A trained obstetric nurse visits her at home the next day. She checks blood pressure, inspects the wound, screens for depression, examines the baby, and reviews feeding. She is licensed. She is accountable. She is paid by the health system. She comes back several times in the first ten days.

Now consider a new mother in Boston. She may or may not get a six-week postpartum visit. If she is on Medicaid, she is statistically less likely to show up. Nobody comes to her home with a stethoscope. What the system offers instead, increasingly, is a doula.

A well-meaning doula. But not a nurse.

What the Paper Says

A viewpoint published in Pregnancy (Anghel et al., 2026) [the official journal of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine] compares three postpartum support roles: doulas, community health workers (CHWs), and patient navigators. Not nurses. The authors from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School argue that these roles are distinct, underutilized, and potentially complementary. They use Massachusetts Medicaid as a case study and call for better standardization of training and reimbursement.

The tone is measured, the analysis thoughtful, and the intentions plainly good.

And yet the paper, almost entirely without meaning to, makes a case that should trouble us deeply.

The Central Problem: We Are Normalizing Less Care

The United States has one of the worst maternal mortality rates in the developed world. According to the CDC, the maternal mortality rate in 2022 was 22.3 deaths per 100,000 live births. In Germany it is 4. In the Netherlands it is 4. In Sweden it is 5. Many of those deaths happen in the postpartum period, not in the delivery room.

Now look at what those countries do differently after birth. In the Netherlands, the kraamzorg system sends a trained maternity nurse to every new mother’s home for 8 to 10 days after delivery. In Germany and other European countries, midwives and obstetric nurses provide structured home visits in the weeks after birth. These are not volunteers. They are not peer supporters. They are trained clinical professionals.

So what does American medicine do when postpartum care fails the most vulnerable patients? It does not ask why we cannot fund postpartum nurses. It proposes doulas.

I want to be precise here. Doulas can play a real role in emotional support, advocacy, and continuity of care. The data cited in this paper shows that among Medicaid enrollees, doula care is linked to a 47% lower risk of cesarean delivery and improved postpartum visit attendance. These are not trivial numbers. But those outcomes reflect a system so broken that the presence of any continuous human support produces measurable benefit. That is not an argument for doulas. That is an indictment of the baseline.

Medical Training Is Not Optional for High-Risk Patients

Here is the part of this conversation that almost nobody says plainly: postpartum patients are not low-risk until proven otherwise.

Preeclampsia can present or worsen after delivery.

Postpartum hemorrhage kills.

Postpartum cardiomyopathy is underdiagnosed.

Postpartum depression is missed at rates that should embarrass our system.

Sepsis does not wait for a six-week visit.

A doula is trained to provide emotional support, comfort, and information. Massachusetts requires doulas to demonstrate a basic understanding of maternal anatomy and common complications. That is a reasonable credential for an emotional support role. It is not a reasonable credential for identifying early signs of hypertensive emergency, evaluating wound dehiscence, assessing postpartum hemorrhage, or recognizing sepsis.

The paper itself acknowledges that doula competencies do not include clinical care coordination. Their role is explicitly described as non-clinical.

So why are we treating non-clinical workers as the solution to a clinical crisis?

The Equity Argument Cuts Both Ways

Proponents of this model frame it as an equity intervention. Rates of postpartum visit attendance are lower for Medicaid-insured and racially minoritized patients.

The system fails them.

Doulas and community health workers can help bridge that gap.

The argument has genuine merit, and I do not dismiss it.

But consider what we are really saying: the patients most at risk get the least-trained support.

Wealthy privately insured patients get board-certified obstetricians and nurses at every touchpoint.

Medicaid patients get a doula reimbursed at up to $1,700 for the entire perinatal period, with no standardized national competencies and no requirement for clinical training. The ones more at risk get less care.

This is not equity. It is a two-tier system given a compassionate name.

The paper rightly notes that the largest variations in postpartum care affect those with multiple disadvantaged identities.

The correct response to that finding must be to demand that Medicaid fund the same standard of clinical postpartum care available to well-insured patients. Not to build an elaborate non-clinical workforce and call it innovation.

What We Should Actually Be Demanding

The Netherlands spends money on kraamzorg nurses because Dutch society decided postpartum care is a clinical right, not a privilege. The result is a maternal mortality rate roughly five times lower than ours.

We should be demanding universal Medicaid reimbursement for structured postpartum home visits by trained nurses or certified nurse midwives in the first two weeks after birth.

We should be demanding parity between Medicaid reimbursement rates and private insurance rates so that qualified clinicians have the financial incentive to serve these patients. We should be demanding national standards that treat postpartum monitoring as the medical necessity it is.

Instead, the conversation has drifted toward how to credential a doula in Colorado versus Delaware, and whether patient navigators should be reimbursed separately from community health workers.

These are not unimportant questions.

But they are not the right question.

The right question is why the richest country on earth decided that trained nurses are optional for new mothers on Medicaid.

What the Paper Gets Right

To be fair to Anghel and colleagues: they are not arguing that doulas replace nurses. They are making the narrower case that if these roles exist, we should define them clearly and fund them appropriately. That is a reasonable argument within the constraints of a system that is not going to suddenly fund universal nurse home visits.

They are also right that CHWs and patient navigators bring real value in clinical navigation and referral, and that their competencies differ meaningfully from doulas. Better defining these roles is useful. The call for standardized training and cost-effectiveness data is sensible.

The problem is not this paper. The problem is the system this paper is trying to improve by working around it.

My Take

I have delivered more than 10,000 babies. I have watched more women leave the hospital without adequate postpartum follow-up than I care to count. I have been involved when women died postpartum. The fourth trimester is not a wellness concept.

Postpartum is a high-risk clinical period that kills women.

I am not against doulas.

I am against a medical system that uses them as a substitute for trained clinical postpartum care and then presents that substitution as progress for underserved communities.

The European comparison is not a fantasy. It is an existence proof. Postpartum nurse home visits work. They exist. They are funded by governments that decided maternal lives are worth the cost. We have decided something different, and we dress it up in the language of equity and innovation rather than call it what it is: a failure to fund adequate medical care.

The next time someone tells you that expanding the doula workforce is the answer to America’s maternal mortality crisis, ask them a simple question:

Would they be comfortable with their own spouse or daughter going home after delivery with only doula support or would they prefer that she be seen by a nurse?

Would you be comfortable going home after delivery with only doula support or would you prefer like in Europe to be seen by a nurse?

If the answer is no, then we should say so clearly, loudly, and without apology.

Reference

Anghel EM, Zera CA, Lara MC, Celi AC. Comparing postpartum support roles: Matching strengths to need. Pregnancy. 2026;2:e70269. doi:10.1002/pmf2.70269

That pi…

Read more

Twin delivery planning involves two separate decisions that are often collapsed into one:

1. timing (what week) and

2. mode (vaginal or cesarean).

Both depend on many circumstances such as chorionicity, fetal position, whether complications have developed, and the experience of your delivery team. Patients are frequently told a delivery week without understanding why that number was chosen. This post gives you the numbers behind those decisions.

The Delivery Clock: Different Twins, Different Weeks

Every twin pregnancy has a gestational age beyond which the risk of continuing the pregnancy exceeds the risk of delivery. That threshold is different for each placental type, and it was not established by opinion. It was established by data showing when stillbirth risk begins to outweigh neonatal complications from early delivery.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 32 studies covering 35,171 twin pregnancies found the following: in dichorionic twins, the risk of stillbirth from watchful waiting and the risk of neonatal death from delivery were balanced at 37 weeks. Delaying delivery by just one additional week, to 38 weeks, resulted in an additional 8.8 perinatal deaths per 1,000 pregnancies (1). That is not a theoretical risk. That is a measurable increase in death from waiting one week too long.

Here is what the evidence supports for uncomplicated twin pregnancies:

• Dichorionic-diamniotic twins: Delivery at 37 to 38 weeks. ACOG recommends 38 weeks 0 days to 38 weeks 6 days. NICE and RCOG recommend from 37 weeks. The evidence favors not going past 38 weeks (1,2,3).

• Monochorionic-diamniotic twins: Delivery at 36 to 37 weeks. The RCOG 2024 update recommends planned birth between 36 weeks 0 days and 36 weeks 6 days. ISUOG 2025 supports the same window. ACOG recommends 36 weeks 0 days to 37 weeks 6 days (2,3,4).

• Monochorionic-monoamniotic twins: Delivery at 32 to 34 weeks by planned cesarean. Both ACOG and RCOG recommend this range. The reason is the persistent risk of cord entanglement and acute cord compression, which cannot be predicted by any antenatal test and which can cause sudden fetal death (2,4,5).

These are the dates for uncomplicated pregnancies. When complications develop, delivery moves earlier.

When Complications Change the Timeline

The delivery week listed above applies only when everything remains normal. Twins are prone to complications that singleton pregnancies either do not face or face at lower rates. When these complications appear, the delivery date moves forward, sometimes by weeks.

Preeclampsia and Hypertensive Disorders

Preeclampsia occurs more frequently in twin pregnancies than in singletons. When it develops, delivery timing follows the severity, not the twin schedule.

Gestational hypertension without severe features: delivery at 37 weeks (same as singleton management, which in twins may already be the planned delivery date for di-di twins). Preeclampsia without severe features: delivery at 37 weeks 0 days, or earlier if the clinical picture worsens. Preeclampsia with severe features: delivery at 34 weeks 0 days, or sooner if the mother or fetuses are unstable. HELLP syndrome or eclampsia: delivery after maternal stabilization regardless of gestational age (6).

In a twin pregnancy, preeclampsia can mean the planned delivery date becomes irrelevant. A mono-di twin pregnancy that was expected to deliver at 36 weeks may need delivery at 32 weeks because of worsening maternal blood pressures, rising liver enzymes, or dropping platelet counts. This is not a failure of the plan. It is the plan responding to maternal physiology.

Fetal Growth Restriction

Growth restriction in twins must be evaluated by chorionicity because the implications differ.

In dichorionic twins, fetal growth restriction behaves like singleton growth restriction. The fetuses have separate circulations, so one twin’s growth problem does not directly affect the other. Delivery depends on the severity: if the umbilical artery Doppler shows positive end-diastolic flow, close surveillance continues and delivery is considered at 37 weeks. If there is absent end-diastolic flow, delivery at 34 weeks. If there is reversed end-diastolic flow, delivery at 32 weeks or earlier depending on other findings (3,4,7).

In monochorionic twins, growth restriction is a different and more dangerous entity called selective fetal growth restriction (sFGR). Because the twins share a circulation through placental vascular connections, growth restriction in one twin can affect both. The RCOG classifies sFGR in monochorionic twins by umbilical artery Doppler pattern (4):

Type I sFGR (positive end-diastolic flow in the umbilical artery of the smaller twin): Generally favorable prognosis. Planned birth between 34 to 36 weeks if growth velocity is satisfactory and Dopplers remain normal. Type II sFGR (persistent absent or reversed end-diastolic flow): High risk of sudden deterioration and co-twin injury. Referral to a fetal medicine center for possible laser ablation or cord occlusion. Delivery often at 32 weeks or earlier. Type III sFGR (intermittent absent or reversed end-diastolic flow): Unpredictable. Requires close surveillance and individualized timing.

The key difference from singleton FGR is that in monochorionic twins, if one twin dies from growth restriction, the surviving twin is at risk of acute brain injury or death because blood can shift rapidly through the placental connections. That risk does not exist in dichorionic twins.

Twin-to-Twin Transfusion Syndrome (TTTS)

TTTS that requires laser treatment changes the delivery timeline based on what happens after the procedure. If laser treatment is successful and the pregnancy stabilizes, delivery is typically planned at 34 to 36 weeks. If complications develop after laser (recurrent TTTS, TAPS, preterm rupture of membranes), delivery may be needed earlier. If TTTS is diagnosed too late for laser (after 26 weeks at many centers), delivery timing depends on the severity and response to other interventions such as amnioreduction (8).

TTTS that is detected but remains at stage I (fluid discordance only) may be managed expectantly with very close surveillance, as approximately one-third of stage I cases resolve, one-third remain stable, and one-third progress (8).

Growth Discordance

Growth discordance, defined as a 25% or greater difference in estimated fetal weight between the twins, is a separate risk factor from growth restriction. One twin may be above the 10th percentile while the other is significantly larger. Even without one twin being technically “growth restricted,” a 25% or greater discordance independently increases the risk of adverse outcomes and typically moves delivery earlier, to 36 to 37 weeks for dichorionic twins and 34 to 36 weeks for monochorionic twins (3,4).

Read more

What you are almost never told, at least not clearly enough and not early enough, is that twin risk has almost nothing to do with the number of babies. It has everything to do with the placenta.

One Question Changes Everything

The single most important piece of information in any twin pregnancy is chorionicity: how many placentas are there, and how many amniotic sacs surround the babies?

This is not a detail. It is the foundation of your entire prenatal care plan. It determines how often you are scanned, what your doctors are looking for at each visit, when you will deliver, and what complications can develop between one appointment and the next.

First-trimester ultrasound between 11 and 14 weeks can determine chorionicity with 99.8% accuracy (1). After 14 weeks, that accuracy drops because the membranes between twins become harder to distinguish. A study that confirmed chorionicity by placental pathology or discordant sex in 613 pregnancies found only one misclassification in the entire cohort when the scan was performed in the first trimester (1).

That means there is a narrow window to get this right. If your provider does not determine chorionicity before 14 weeks, you may spend the rest of your pregnancy in the wrong monitoring lane.

Three Types of Twins, Three Different Pregnancies

Twins are classified by biology, not by how many babies there are.

• Dichorionic-diamniotic (di-di) twins have two separate placentas and two separate amniotic sacs. This includes virtually all fraternal twins and roughly one-third of identical twins. Because each fetus has its own blood supply, these twins are physiologically independent. The risks are real, including preterm birth, growth differences, and preeclampsia, but they are the lowest-risk twin configuration.

• Monochorionic-diamniotic (mono-di) twins share a single placenta but have separate amniotic sacs. This occurs in about two-thirds of identical twins. Because the placenta is shared, blood vessels connect the two fetal circulations. Over 95% of monochorionic placentas have vascular anastomoses linking the twins (2). That single anatomic fact changes everything about how these pregnancies behave. One twin can transfuse blood to the other. One twin can grow while the other falls behind. And the transition from normal to dangerous can happen in days, not weeks.

• Monochorionic-monoamniotic (mono-mono) twins share one placenta and one amniotic sac. There is no dividing membrane. The cords can entangle. These pregnancies account for about 1% of all twins and roughly 5% of monochorionic twins (3). Cord entanglement is present in virtually 100% of mono-mono pregnancies when systematically evaluated by ultrasound and color Doppler (4). This is among the highest-risk situations in modern obstetrics.

Why Monitoring Differs by Placental Type

The monitoring schedule for twins is not about doing more ultrasounds. It is about looking for specific complications that are biologically possible only in certain placental configurations. A di-di twin who looks healthy at 24 weeks is unlikely to develop a sudden placental crisis at 26 weeks. A mono-di twin can look completely normal at one visit and show early twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome two weeks later.

This post is part of the “High Risk Pregnancy and Know Your Numbers, Trust Your Body” series. Subscribe to ObGyn Intelligence for the full analysis, including what TTTS looks like, what your monitoring schedule should catch, and the delivery timing numbers you need to bring to your next appointment.

Read more

In some offices, the conversation is short: the doctor says no, lists the dangers, and moves on. In others, the midwife says yes, lists the comforts, and moves on. In both cases, the woman leaves with an incomplete picture. And in both cases, someone has failed her — not because of what they recommended, but because of what they didn’t explain.

The home birth debate in the United States has hardened into opposing camps. On one side, an obstetric establishment that treats the request as reckless. On the other, a natural birth movement that frames hospital birth as inherently interventionist and traumatic. Both sides claim the evidence. Neither side does a great job of presenting it fairly.

I want to try something different.

Autonomy is not the end of the conversation

Let me be clear about my starting position: every woman has the right to decide where she gives birth. ACOG says this explicitly in Committee Opinion No. 697: “Each woman has the right to make a medically informed decision about delivery.” I agree.

But notice the modifier: medically informed. Autonomy without information is not autonomy — it is abandonment dressed up as empowerment. A woman who chooses home birth because she was told it is “just as safe” has not been given the foundation for an autonomous decision. Nor has a woman who chooses the hospital solely because her doctor said home birth is “crazy” without explaining the actual data.

True informed consent requires three things: disclosure of relevant information, comprehension by the patient, and voluntary decision-making free from coercion. In the home birth conversation, all three are routinely violated. Providers on both sides disclose selectively, confirm what they already believe, and — subtly or overtly — steer.

What the evidence actually shows

The honest answer is that the evidence is mixed, and how you interpret it depends heavily on which country you’re talking about.

In integrated health systems like the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and parts of Canada — where certified midwives have hospital privileges, standardized transfer protocols exist, and transport times are short — studies show comparable perinatal outcomes for planned home births among low-risk women. The large Birthplace in England study and multiple Dutch cohort studies support this conclusion, and the most comprehensive meta-analysis (Hutton et al., EClinicalMedicine 2019) found no difference in perinatal or neonatal mortality for intended home versus hospital births within these systems.

The United States is not one of those systems.

In the US, Wax et al. (AJOG 2010) found that planned home births had fewer interventions but a nearly threefold increase in neonatal mortality among nonanomalous infants. Grünebaum et al., using CDC linked birth-infant death data from 2010–2017, found neonatal mortality of 3.27 per 10,000 for hospital midwife-attended births versus 13.66 per 10,000 for all planned home births — a more than fourfold difference. Critically, this difference persisted regardless of whether the home birth was attended by a certified nurse-midwife or a direct-entry midwife.

ACOG’s own summary: planned home birth is associated with “a more than twofold increased risk of perinatal death (1–2 in 1,000) and a threefold increased risk of neonatal seizures or serious neurologic dysfunction.”

Why the discrepancy between countries? The answer is not the mothers or the midwives — it is the system. In the Netherlands, a midwife recognizing a complication can have the patient in an operating room within 15 minutes. In large swaths of the United States, that transfer might take 45 minutes to an hour — or longer. The midwifery credential varies wildly by state. There is no national requirement for hospital integration. The safety net has gaps.

This does not mean home birth is indefensible in the United States. It means that its safety depends on a specific set of conditions being met — and those conditions are far more demanding than most discussions acknowledge.

The problem with both sides

The natural birth community tends to emphasize the advantages: fewer interventions, lower cesarean rates, continuous support, freedom of movement, familiar environment. These are real. The meta-analyses consistently show fewer episiotomies, less oxytocin augmentation, fewer operative deliveries, and lower infection rates in planned home births. For a woman who has had a traumatic hospital experience, these are not trivial considerations.

But the movement frequently minimizes the disadvantages. No epidural availability. No continuous fetal monitoring. No cesarean capability. No neonatal resuscitation team. No blood bank. Transfer rates of 10–37% for first-time mothers — meaning up to one in three will end up in the hospital anyway, but now with a delay that may have consequences. The planned home birth of a breech-presenting fetus carries an intrapartum mortality of 13.5 per 1,000. These numbers are often absent from the “informed choice” materials handed to expectant mothers by home birth advocates.

The obstetric establishment, meanwhile, too often dismisses the request without engaging with it. “Just have the baby in the hospital” is not informed consent. It is paternalism. And paternalism — even well-intentioned paternalism — erodes exactly the trust that makes hospital birth safe. A woman who feels unheard is a woman who may stop communicating with her providers, decline monitoring, or make decisions in isolation. We cannot protect patients by shutting them out of the conversation.

What informed consent actually requires

The ethics here are not complicated. They are just inconvenient.

Informed consent for planned home birth requires disclosing the advantages and the disadvantages — all of them. It requires presenting the data in absolute terms, not just relative risk. It requires acknowledging what we don’t know (there has never been an adequate randomized trial). It requires confirming that the patient understands the specific conditions under which home birth is reasonable — and the specific conditions that make it dangerous.

Most importantly, it requires a systematic approach. Currently, the “informed consent” for home birth is often a conversation — variable in content, dependent on the provider’s perspective, and rarely documented in a way that ensures completeness. A woman might hear about the lower cesarean rate but not the higher neonatal mortality. She might hear that transfer is available but not that transfer times in her area exceed 30 minutes. She might be told she’s “low risk” without anyone systematically verifying that she meets the criteria that make that designation meaningful.

This is where we saw a gap, and why we built two tools.

Two tools for a better conversation

The Home Birth Informed Consent Tool presents 10 evidence-based advantages and 20 evidence-based disadvantages of planned home birth, each requiring individual acknowledgment. The advantages are real and drawn from published meta-analyses: lower intervention rates, higher spontaneous vaginal delivery rates, continuous one-on-one midwifery support, familiar environment. The disadvantages are equally evidence-based and include the items that are most frequently omitted from home birth counseling: the absence of cesarean capability, neonatal resuscitation limitations, the twofold to threefold increase in neonatal mortality in US data, the 10–37% transfer rate, and the absence of adequate pain relief options. Every item must be individually checked before the consent is complete. You cannot skip what is uncomfortable.

The Home Birth Eligibility Checklist takes a different approach. Instead of asking the woman to understand the risks in the abstract, it asks her to verify — one item at a time — that she meets the specific pre-labor conditions required for home birth to be appropriate. Twenty-eight items across three categories: maternal health (no hypertension, no diabetes requiring insulin, no cardiac disease, no prior cesarean, BMI under 40), obstetric history (no prior shoulder dystocia, no prior fourth-degree tear), and current pregnancy (singleton, cephalic, term, no preeclampsia, no placenta previa, no fetal growth restriction, adequate prenatal care). Every unchecked item generates a specific explanation of why it contraindicates home birth — not a vague warning, but a precise clinical rationale.

The tool then goes further: even if all 28 pre-labor criteria are met, the report displays the intrapartum conditions that must remain true during labor (clear fluid, no fever, no need for augmentation, appropriate labor progress, no fetal heart rate abnormalities) and the system and logistics requirements that must be in place (licensed attendant, neonatal resuscitation capability, uterotonic medications, pre-arranged transport plan, receiving hospital within 20–30 minutes).

The framework concludes with a statement that matters: This does not claim hospital birth is required for everyone. It defines something narrower — a pregnancy in which clinicians can reasonably expect a spontaneous vaginal delivery that will not depend on immediate surgical, anesthesia, blood bank, or neonatal resuscitation resources.

That is the actual eligibility question. Not “Do you want a home birth?” but “Is there a reasonable clinical basis for expecting that you will not need resources that are only available in a hospital?”

Respecting autonomy means respecting the patient

The deepest irony of the home birth debate is that both sides claim to be protecting women’s autonomy while neither side consistently does the work that autonomy demands.

Respecting a woman’s autonomy is not telling a woman what to do. It is also not telling her whatever she wants to hear. It is making sure she has the information — the real information, presented honestly, completely, and in a way she can understand — and then respecting her decision.

A woman who reviews 20 specific risks, checks each one to confirm she understands it, verifies that she meets 28 eligibility criteria, understands the intrapartum conditions that must hold, and still chooses home birth — that woman has made an informed decision. Her autonomy is robust. Her providers can support her plan with a clear conscience.

A woman who was told “home birth is beautiful and safe” and is being lied to that studies show it’s safe (these studies are not US-based studies and most women are not told that the US system is way different) and signed a generic consent form has not made an informed decision.

Her autonomy has been undermined by incomplete information, regardless of how empowering the language felt.

We built these tools because the conversation deserves better than ideology. Both tools are free and available online. Use them. Share them with your patients. Share them with colleagues. If you think something is missing, tell us.

The goal is not to prevent home births. The goal is to make sure that every woman who chooses one does so with her eyes open.

References

1. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 697. Planned Home Birth. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129(4):e117-e122.

2. Wax JR, Lucas FL, Lamont M, et al. Maternal and newborn outcomes in planned home birth vs planned hospital births: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(3):243.e1-8.

3. Grünebaum A, McCullough LB, Arabin B, Chervenak FA. Neonatal mortality in the United States is related to location of birth rather than the type of birth attendant. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;223(2):254.e1-8.

4. Hutton EK, Reitsma A, Simioni J, et al. Perinatal or neonatal mortality among women who intend at the onset of labour to give birth at home compared to women of low obstetrical risk who intend to give birth in hospital: a systematic review and meta-analyses. EClinicalMedicine. 2019;14:59-70.

5. Snowden JM, Tilden EL, Snyder J, et al. Planned out-of-hospital birth and birth outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(27):2642-2653.

6. Grünebaum A, McCullough LB, Brent RL, et al. Perinatal risks of planned home births in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(3):350.e1-6.

7. Janssen PA, Saxell L, Page LA, et al. Outcomes of planned home birth with registered midwife versus planned hospital birth with midwife or physician. CMAJ. 2009;181(6-7):377-383.

8. Chervenak FA, McCullough LB, Brent RL, et al. Planned home birth: the professional responsibility response. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208(1):31-38.

Post Summary

A lawyer and mother of four discovered years after delivery that placental pathology reports from two births (2021: large infarcts; 2022: fetal vascular malperfusion) showed significant abnormalities that no provider ever communicated to her. The unreported findings directly affected managemen…

Read more