Three bodies, quoted in full and not trimmed

Three professional bodies have current published positions on this. They are quoted here in their own words, at length, because every one of them gets truncated in the arguing.

ACOG, Committee Opinion 697, reaffirmed in 2026. This is the recommendation paragraph, complete:

Women inquiring about planned home birth should be informed of its risks and benefits based on recent evidence. Specifically, they should be informed that although planned home birth is associated with fewer maternal interventions than planned hospital birth, it also 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 (0.4-0.6 in 1,000). These observations may reflect fewer obstetric risk factors among women planning home birth compared with those planning hospital birth. Although the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (the College) believes that hospitals and accredited birth centers are the safest settings for birth, each woman has the right to make a medically informed decision about delivery.

Read that paragraph four times, once for each sentence.

Sentence one and two give the risk, and note that ACOG gives it in absolute terms, in brackets, as ranges: 1 to 2 perinatal deaths per 1,000, and 0.4 to 0.6 per 1,000 for seizures or serious neurologic problems. Those are the absolute figures ACOG itself considers publishable to a patient.

But those brackets give you only the home side of a multiplier, and a multiplier with one side missing is exactly what this stage exists to prevent. The hospital side is in ACOG's own Table 2, in the same document, for the two endpoints that table carries: a 5-minute Apgar of 0 at 1.63 per 1,000 at home against 0.16 per 1,000 in hospital, and seizures or serious neurologic dysfunction at 0.86 per 1,000 against 0.22 per 1,000. Those table rows come from the 2007 to 2010 analysis discussed earlier in this stage, and they are not the same rows as the bracketed ranges in the recommendation. ACOG prints both in one document, and a reader is entitled to both.

Sentence three is the one that goes missing. These observations may reflect fewer obstetric risk factors among women planning home birth compared with those planning hospital birth. ACOG is saying, inside its own risk recommendation, that the comparison may be tilted in a way that understates home birth's risk. Critics drop that sentence. Advocates drop it too, because they are usually quoting the whole paragraph only to reach the fourth.

Sentence four is not a politeness. each woman has the right to make a medically informed decision about delivery. It sits in the same paragraph, at recommendation level, as the risk statement.

ACOG's second recommendation names the conditions: Women should be informed that several factors are critical to reducing perinatal mortality rates and achieving favorable home birth outcomes. These factors include the appropriate selection of candidates for home birth; the availability of a certified nurse-midwife, certified midwife or midwife whose education and licensure meet International Confederation of Midwives' Global Standards for Midwifery Education, or physician practicing obstetrics within an integrated and regulated health system; ready access to consultation; and access to safe and timely transport to nearby hospitals.

NICE, England's national guideline, recommends planned home birth and says so in a recommendation. It requires that all four settings be available: Commissioners and providers, including networks of providers, should ensure that all 4 birth settings (home, freestanding midwifery unit, alongside midwifery unit and obstetric unit) are available to all women (in the local area or in a neighbouring area).

And on the decision itself: Explain to both multiparous and nulliparous women that they may choose any birth setting (home, freestanding midwifery unit, alongside midwifery unit or obstetric unit), and support them in their choice of setting wherever they choose to give birth… The recommendation continues into a list, which is why it is quoted here as a fragment.

It also requires something with no American equivalent, which is worth knowing about as a standard: Ensure that all women giving birth have timely access to an obstetric unit if they need transfer of care for medical reasons or because they request regional analgesia. Audit and publish transfer times and reasons for delay in transfers so women can be informed of local service availability. English services are required to publish their own transfer times. You can ask your attendant for hers.

The American College of Nurse-Midwives issued a clinical bulletin in 2026. Its own words: Findings from well-designed studies demonstrate that pregnant people who are essentially healthy at term with a singleton fetus and choose a planned home birth have positive outcomes and a lower rate of interventions during labor and birth; furthermore, there is no statistically significant impact on infant mortality when these births are attended by skilled health care providers.

Notice the four conditions the midwifery college attaches inside its own sentence: essentially healthy, at term, a single baby, and a skilled attendant. Those conditions are close to ACOG's selection criteria. The distance between the two bodies is narrower than the public argument suggests, and most of it is about what "skilled" means and whether the American system as a whole meets the integration conditions.

The first three rows are agreement. Only the last row is the actual disagreement, and anyone who presents this as a total conflict is misrepresenting all three bodies.

Covered in the essential classes

Continue

More from Where you plan to give birth