The Silent Mother

Esoteric & Historical Gravidity & Parturition

Religious Discrimination in Doula Work

By Leave a Comment

I received an email the other day through my professional site inquiring about my birth doula services. The pregnant person told me about about herself and then asked if I was Christian and could support her spiritually during her birth. This is not the first time someone has asked such a question of me. I also see it with some frequency on social media, “so and so is looking for a ‘Christian doula’ can anyone help?” Most commonly, it is a “Christian doula” that someone is seeking or advertising themselves. I’m sure there are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. doulas out there who advertise as such, but Christian is the most common one in my experience.

As a non-Christian, I am always taken aback by these requests. I question the ethics of both seeking a doula based on religion and of being a doula and advertising your religious affiliation.

As a pregnant person, is seeking a Christian (or other religion) Doula religious discrimination or is it preference?

If a person’s religion is part of their core foundation of who they are, it may be appropriate to seek someone who shares their belief system. However, this is question of employment. The doula client employs the doula. Generally, we don’t ask or care if the plumber is of a certain religion… or the accountant, or the house painter, or the lawn care service, etc. Those are people we hire to do a job based on their qualifications, skill set, experience, etc. Their religion has not impact on their ability to fix my toilet, do my taxes, or mow my lawn.

The doula client may argue that they want someone to pray with them or perform a ceremony during birth, so they need a (religion) doula. However, that’s not a doula’s job. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a doula does. Doulas provide physical support (massage, change positions, offering food and drink), emotional support (a listening ear), and informational support (side effects of medications, communication skills with medical staff). Nowhere in a doula’s training or job description is “religious support.” So, the client is seeking a service for which the doula isn’t trained or qualified to perform.

At the core of this is that as an employer, one cannot discriminate based on an employee’s religion. So, not hiring a person because they don’t meet religious criteria is discrimination. No employer in the US can decline to hire you based on your religion. As a doula client, hiring or not hiring a doula with the doula’s religion being criteria for employment is unethical and, in some cases, illegal.

Ok, but what about those people who want or need to have some sort of spiritual support during birth? That is what friends, family, or a religious leader is for. That’s not a doula’s job and that person can attend a birth in their appropriate capacity. The doula’s job in the scenario is to make space for the prayer or other religious aspects so that it can take place safely and uninterrupted.

Is advertising yourself as a Christian (or other religion) Doula discriminating against those of other religions?

On the surface, this one appears to be a bit more of a grey area. It isn’t explicit, “I don’t want to work with people who aren’t of (religion).” However, by saying “I’m a (religion) doula” you are both describing yourself and implicitly telling the person who is not of that religion that you don’t really want to work with them no matter how “inclusive” you say you are. By categorizing yourself as a (religion) doula you tell the reader who you want to be working with. Bible quotes on your doula site tell people of other religions, or people who have no religion, that you are a member of a group to which they do not belong and you turn away those people. You turn away LGBTQIA+ by advertising your religion because of existing discrimination by many religions. Maybe that’s what you want to do as a (religion) doula but understand that you are excluding other from your services. That is religious discrimination, even if it is not intentional.

OK, so the (religion) doula client finds the (religion) doula and they work well together. Isn’t that why the (religion) doula advertises their religion and the (religion) client asks about religion? Is there a problem with that?

No, there isn’t a problem with that, per se. Every client needs the right doula for them. I am not the right doula for everyone. The problem arises when someone of another religion is seeking doula services or is a doula. That is where the discrimination comes in. Simply by stating your religion, as either client or doula, you implicitly tell the other person that you are not for them.

Oh, and there’s one more question you should never ask a doula because it also doesn’t impact their ability to do a good job. You’ll have to visit my other site to find out what that question is, however.

Do share this article with your friends.

Obstetrical Blunt Hook now in my collection

By Leave a Comment

Recently, I took a trip to New York City (well, OK it was my mini-honeymoon). While there, we made a stop at Obscura Antiques & Oddities where I picked up a few things. This item is one of which I didn’t have any examples in my personal collection.

Obstetrical Blunt Hook, D.W. Kolbe & Son. 19th century

So, what is a Blunt Hook anyway?

A Blunt Hook is an obstetrical instrument. They were standard tools in an obstrical kit throughout the 17th – mid 20th centuires. It had a few uses. Primarily it was used to to help a breech, transverse or otherwise malpositioned, fetus to be born. It was hooked around a part of the body and then the body would be manipulated into a more favorable position to birth.

Sometimes, a Blunt Hook would be used as a fetal extraction tool in cases of fetal demise. In other words, if the fetus was dead inside the mother’s uterus then this tool could be used to reposition and remove the body. Leaving a dead fetus inside would result in its putrefication and subsequesnt infection for the mother which lead to her death as well. Removing a deceased fetus is an imperative.

My Blunt Hook happens to have a maker’s mark on it. Discovering that after I got it home helped me identify it. The maker’s mark reads, “D.W. Kolbe & Son”.

Maker's mark "D.W. Kolbe & Son" on an obstetrical blunt hook

Who is D.W. Kolbe & Son?

Luckily, this company was a very successful manufacturer of surgical tools in the middle 19th century. They were located in Philadelphia, PA. According to Temple University, Dietrich W. Kolbe was a German immigrant who had trained in Germany and Paris in making surgical instruments. He came to Philadelphia in 1874. He make his mark, so to speak, during the Civil War making surgical equipment and prostethics for the Union Army.

For more detailed information on the man, please visit: The Autry Collections and Powelton History Blog.

The mark “D.W. Kolbe & Son” was used in the manufacturing years 1867 – 1878. My lovely Blunt Hook was made in that time period. The hook will sit on display in my private collection. It is not currently for sale. 

Become a Patron!
Do share this article with your friends.

On the Potentiality of a Fetus vs. the Realized Woman

By 1 Comment

With eight states (so far) passing laws that effectively ban abortion, including some laws that criminally punish both women and doctors for having or performing an abortion, it is beyond time for us to stand up and speak out. Preaching to the choir is nice, but won’t make change. So, here I write for those who are opposed to abortion.

On Proper Terminology

**Note: I use the correct medical term fetus instead of baby, with good reason. When sperm meets egg, the cluster of cells is called a zygote. Then it becomes an embryo. It remains an embryo till week 11 (date from last menstrual period). Afterwards, it becomes a fetus. It is a fetus until it is born and a valve in its heart closes so it can circulate oxygen through the lungs as opposed to receiving it through the umbilical cord. The physiology of a fetus is not the same as a baby after birth.

Pro-Life Beliefs, or Valuing the Fetus over the Woman

The pro-life belief presumes to value the life of the fetus and in doing so, determines that abortion is taking a life. In that, the belief is that taking a life is morally wrong and therefore abortion should not be an option for pregnant people.

Fundamentally, this belief values the life of the embryo or fetus over that of the woman. It values the potentiality of that life over the realized life of the woman. It values a maybe over what is.

I had a social media discussion, in the context of the abortion debate, with a man this week in which he said that he values the lives of both his wife and his children equally. Yet, what he could not see is that those are realized children, not potential children. When I mentioned a litany of pregnancy complications, including stroke, hemorrhage and death that a woman may suffer, he still insisted that the life of the fetus was valued as much as that of the woman so the woman should take the risk of pregnancy… yet, he values his wife? Do you see the problem here? This is him valuing the fetus over the mother, unarguably.

The pro-life beliefs are not that they value the life of the fetus and the woman equally, though they say that often. The pro-life beliefs value the fetus over the mother, no matter the cost to the pregnant person. The costs to her are physical, emotional, economic, social, relational, and temporal. When we value a fetus, an unrealized potentiality, over a fully realized woman, we place her status as second class. She is demoted.

Anti-Abortion Feminists?

To those who claim to be feminists and anti-abortion, you find yourselves in a paradoxical state. Feminism is equality for all genders in all matters
physical, emotional, economic, social, relational, and temporal. By demoting a woman’s value to below that of an unrealized potential you have stripped her of her equality. You can not claim to be a feminist while decreasing a woman’s value at the same time.

The Question of Bodily Autonomy

Ok, so what about the question of bodily autonomy? A zygote, embryo and fetus are only sustained because of the woman’s body. Without the woman’s uterus the fetus has no nutrients, oxygen, water or anything else it needs to grow and develop. If you remove it from the uterus it is incompatible with life. As such, its body is not in any way separate from the woman’s body. It shares blood circulation through the placenta. The woman’s heart beats therefore so does the fetus’s. If the woman dies, her heart stops, so does that of the fetus. Given that, the fetus is thus part of a woman’s body and therefore is under her dominion. The realized woman has autonomy. The potentiality of a fetus does not.

Autonomy also assumes the ability to make decisions about one’s own body. A fetus has no decision making capability. A newborn baby, 2 weeks old, has no decision making capability. All decisions for and about the baby are made by its parent(s). Neither the fetus nor the baby have autonomy. They are incapable of such a thing. They have no ability to govern their body of their beliefs. A realized person does. The pregnant person, being realized, has autonomy. Therefore, the decision as to how she handles her body and everything contained within is solely up to her.

The pregnant woman is stripped of her human rights and of her autonomy by anti-abortion legislation. By valuing a fetus, a potentiality, over the reality of a woman it thus demotes her to below the level of men do who have full dominion over their bodies. She and her body are put under the control of the state.

The issue has never been about fetus’s lives or the question thereof. If you believe that you have fallen for a red herring. The issue, is and always will be, controlling women and their bodies. Pro-life isn’t pro-life. It is pro-birth, pro-control and pro-women-as-second-class-citizens.

Become a Patron!

Do share this article with your friends.