Georgia Midwives Challenge Restrictive Laws Amidst Escalating Maternal Health Crisis

ATLANTA, GA – April 2, 2026 – In a significant legal challenge aimed at reshaping maternal healthcare access in the state, several midwives, alongside their legal counsel, today filed a comprehensive lawsuit against the state of Georgia. The suit directly confronts some of the nation’s most stringent midwifery laws, which plaintiffs argue severely limit their ability to practice and, consequently, restrict pregnant individuals’ access to essential care. The announcement was made during a press conference held at the Georgia state Capitol, on the final day of the legislative session, following the unsuccessful passage of HB520, a bill intended to decriminalize and expand midwifery practices in the state.

The core of the legal challenge targets Georgia’s existing statutes that prohibit midwives with expertise in home and birth center births from practicing freely. Furthermore, the lawsuit asserts that certified nurse midwives (CNMs) are prevented from practicing to the full extent of their advanced training and qualifications. These legislative barriers, proponents of the lawsuit contend, are not only outdated but are actively contributing to and exacerbating the ongoing maternal health crisis that plagues Georgia and the broader United States.

The plaintiffs, represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, Covington & Burling LLP, and Mitchell Shapiro Greenamyre & Funt LLP, include Jamarah Amani, a Florida-licensed midwife and co-founder of the National Black Midwives Alliance; Tamara Taitt, a Florida-licensed midwife and executive director of Atlanta Birth Center; and Sarah Stokely, a certified nurse midwife who currently practices in Tennessee due to Georgia’s restrictions. Their collective legal action seeks to dismantle these restrictive laws, advocating for increased autonomy for pregnant individuals and a more robust, accessible system of maternity care.

Background: A Deepening Maternal Health Crisis

The lawsuit arrives at a critical juncture for maternal healthcare in the United States. National maternal mortality rates remain alarmingly high, disproportionately affecting Black women, who experience mortality rates significantly higher than their white counterparts. This disparity is compounded by a growing scarcity of maternity care providers and the closure of vital healthcare facilities. According to recent data, over one-third of U.S. counties are designated as "maternity care deserts," lacking any birthing facilities or obstetric clinicians.

Georgia, in particular, has faced significant challenges. The state has consistently reported poor maternal health outcomes, and the closure of its oldest freestanding birth center in February of this year underscored the precarious state of maternity care. This closure left only three such centers operational across the entire state, further diminishing options for expectant mothers. As of August 2025, a stark statistic revealed that only 36% of Georgia’s rural hospitals were still providing labor and delivery services, highlighting a severe gap in accessible care, especially for rural populations.

The Legal Challenge: Dismantling Restrictive Laws

The lawsuit meticulously outlines the specific restrictions that the plaintiffs are challenging. These include prohibitions on midwives practicing outside of hospital settings without physician supervision, limitations on the scope of practice for certified nurse midwives, and requirements for exorbitant physician oversight fees that effectively act as prohibitive barriers to practice. These regulations, the plaintiffs argue, are not grounded in evidence-based safety protocols but rather serve as unnecessary impediments to a vital healthcare workforce.

Evidence consistently demonstrates that increased access to midwives correlates with improved health outcomes for both pregnant individuals and infants. Studies, including those published in peer-reviewed journals, indicate that individuals receiving midwifery care experience lower rates of interventions such as Cesarean sections, episiotomies, epidural anesthesia, and drug-induced labor. These procedures, while sometimes medically necessary, are often costly and can lead to subsequent health complications. Moreover, midwifery care has been shown to be particularly beneficial for people of color and those with lower incomes, groups that are often disproportionately affected by the current maternal health crisis.

The plaintiffs’ legal team emphasizes that Georgia’s current laws are not only detrimental to maternal health but also run counter to national trends and legal challenges. Similar lawsuits aimed at striking down restrictive midwifery laws have been filed in Mississippi, Nebraska, and Alabama. In North Carolina, a recent legislative change has eased physician-agreement requirements for certified nurse midwives, signaling a broader movement towards greater autonomy for these practitioners. Furthermore, a lawsuit filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights in Hawaii in 2024 successfully led to expanded access to traditional and apprenticeship-trained midwifery care in the state, demonstrating the potential for legal action to effect positive change.

Voices from the Frontlines: Plaintiff Testimonies

The plaintiffs articulated their personal motivations and the profound impact of Georgia’s restrictive laws on their ability to serve communities.

Jamarah Amani, a licensed midwife and co-founder of the National Black Midwives Alliance, shared her journey: "It should not be illegal to give birth at home with a midwife. Every pregnant person should be able to choose where they give birth and with whom. I was inspired to become a midwife after my own distressing birth experience in Georgia, where hospital staff would not let me give birth in the way I wanted – an all-too-common experience, especially for Black women. I trained in the tradition of legendary grand midwives who have helped Georgians give birth for generations. But because of Georgia law, I had to move to Florida to get my midwifery license and build my career. We’re bringing this case to get rid of these oppressive laws so I can serve families in Georgia, too."

Tamara Taitt, executive director of Atlanta Birth Center and a licensed midwife in Florida, highlighted the critical need for expanded midwifery services: "Georgia has a maternity care crisis, and the state continues to squander a workforce that could help change that. Currently, there are not enough maternal health care providers in Georgia. The solution is more midwives, and lawmakers need to let us practice. As the U.S. continues to fall behind in maternal mortality and morbidity, the rest of the world employs the solution: more midwives. As a country and as a state, we are visibly failing pregnant people – especially Black women, rural families, and communities of color."

Sarah Stokely, a certified nurse midwife residing in Georgia, currently practices at a home birth practice in Tennessee due to state regulations. She explained, "As a Georgia native, I want to use my midwifery license and skills to help families in my own state. But because of Georgia laws, I have to drive to Tennessee to practice my profession. In Georgia, I would need to pay a physician an insurmountable fee to babysit me. Many clients come to me because they’ve had traumatic hospital births, with procedures forced upon them. Our current medical system is not meeting the needs of pregnant people, and they deserve options. Midwives prioritize providing more personalized care and listening to the needs of our clients. We also know when to pull in a physician if certain risks arise."

Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, underscored the lawsuit’s broader implications: "We cannot solve the maternal health crisis without midwives – they are a key part of the solution in Georgia and nationwide. Yet under Georgia law, midwives are treated like criminals. These extreme restrictions are exacerbating the maternity care crisis and infringing on the rights of pregnant women who want to give birth with midwives. We are suing the state because pregnant people should have the autonomy to decide who they give birth with, and taking away options while there is a glaring lack of providers is senseless. We must break down these legal barriers to improve maternal health care in this country."

Broader Implications and Future Outlook

The implications of this lawsuit extend beyond Georgia’s borders. It represents a critical moment in the national conversation surrounding reproductive healthcare access, bodily autonomy, and the recognition of diverse models of care. By challenging these restrictive laws, the plaintiffs and their legal advocates are not only seeking to improve maternal outcomes in Georgia but also to set a precedent that could influence similar legislative battles across the country.

The failure of HB520 to pass during the legislative session underscores the political hurdles that midwifery expansion faces. However, the filing of this lawsuit signals a determination to pursue legal avenues to achieve these critical reforms. The outcome of this case could have a profound impact on the availability of midwives, the accessibility of birth centers, and the overall landscape of maternal healthcare for countless families in Georgia and potentially beyond. As the legal process unfolds, stakeholders will be closely watching to see if Georgia’s restrictive midwifery laws will be dismantled, paving the way for a more equitable and comprehensive system of care.

Media Contact:
[email protected]