Muhlhahn is a midwife prominently featured in The Business of Being Born, as well as being one of the midwives interviewed for the New York Times article mentioned above. In the Times, Muhlhahn is quoted as saying, “People who wouldn’t naturally self-select for home birth are coming in and getting very open-minded.” But in the New York article just a year later, a mother who worked with Muhlhahn recounts how she was in labor for over 72 hours during what began as a homebirth. “How long is too long for a woman to be in labor?” asked the woman’s husband, who was told “Never,” by Muhlhahn. (Generally, it is thought that 24 hours after one’s water breaks, there is a risk of infection.) But when this particular mother was finally taken to the hospital, it turned out she had signs of an infection, as well as something called “back labor” (pain during labor that can be caused by the baby’s position, when the baby faces the abdomen); she was given a C-section and her newborn son was in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) for five days. IT’S NOT ABOUT ANYONE’S AGENDA That first email I received in response to my request for this story warned me that I wouldn’t find any “supporting evidence” if I were to write that homebirths are more dangerous. What I did find is that the statistics about homebirths versus hospital (or birthing center) births are very confusing. And I certainly didn’t come away convinced that homebirths are the safer option.