Birth Rights, Sovereignty and the System

There is growing debate in Australia about birth autonomy as professional bodies such as RANZCOG and the Australian College of Midwives call for national legislation restricting anyone other than registered clinicians from supporting labour and birth. Their statement is carefully worded to appear supportive of women’s rights, emphasising safety, accountability, and consistent standards of care as a right for all women in Australia. However, this approach clashes with international human rights frameworks, which affirm a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, to accept or decline care, to choose where, and with whom, she births.

The rise in freebirth and sovereign birth is not based on a misunderstanding of risk. While many women are leaving mainstream maternity care due to trauma, lack of respect, disempowering experiences, or fear of interventions, others choose a sovereign birth from a place of deep internal trust. These women trust their bodies, their instincts, and their ability to know when medical care is genuinely needed. Any support they seek recognises that they are the decision maker, they are responsible for their choices and their support answers to them alone rather than to a regulatory body. This level of sovereignty simply cannot exist within a system where the practitioner’s first responsibility is to a governing authority.

The proposed laws being recommended would not criminalise freebirth itself, but they would make it illegal for non-registered attendants such as birth keepers, doulas, community midwives, or culturally based supporters, to provide hands-on or decision-based support. This limits choice rather than expanding it and raises questions about the definition of safety.

When Law Conflicts With Human Rights

It may be assumed that if international human rights protect a woman’s autonomy in birth, then nothing could be legislated that takes that autonomy away. Unfortunately, it is more complex. In Australia, human rights frameworks recognised by the United Nations and the World Health Organisation are not automatically binding in domestic law. We have no national bill of rights, and unless human rights are written directly into our legal system or constitution, they can be overridden by new legislation at a state or federal level. This means that a government, believing it is acting in the interest of public safety, can create laws that restrict who may support a woman in birth, even if that conflicts with internationally recognised human rights principles.

The decisions made by these governing bodies come from a belief in responsibility and protection for the greater good and a system that manages risk through rules. It assumes that institutions, not individuals, are the best judge of what is safe. If the goal is truly to reduce harm, trauma, and preventable tragedy, the solution does not lie not in limiting women’s options, but in listening to what women’s choices are actually communicating and recognising that sovereignty, support, and safety do not look the same for everyone.

Women are not naïve or incapable of weighing risk. Every day we make choices that carry known risk, such as simply getting into a car, travelling, and giving birth itself. For one woman, a hospital may feel like the safest choice. For another, the hospital may feel emotionally or physically unsafe, and birthing at home may provide greater security, connection and protection. Safety is not universal but is personal, lived, and defined by each individual. When legislation removes our ability to choose what feels safe for us, it assumes governing bodies know better than women themselves.

This is why public influence matters. When human rights are not enshrined in law, it is our voice, advocacy, visibility, and refusal to be silent, that defends our rights. Change happens when enough women, families, practitioners, stand together and make it clear that autonomy in birth is not negotiable.

Where It’s Different

It is clear that things do not have to be this way. Other countries offer different models. In the Netherlands and New Zealand, community midwifery is recognised and protected, and women have the legal right to choose birthplace and caregiver. In the UK, a woman’s right to refuse treatment is embedded in law. Even where systems are imperfect, the starting principle is that birth belongs to the woman, and care is built around supporting, not controlling, her decisions.

The Path Forward

While we may be in a period of tension here in Australia, at the same time it is important to remember that women are awakening to their own authority. Women are reading, learning, and choosing with clarity rather than fear. As we speak from our hearts, from our truth, with love, and a commitment to women’s wisdom, the more we can create a shift.

We do not need to fight a system to change it. Fighting often keeps us locked in the very frequency that created the problem. Instead, we can continue to stand in what we know to be true:

Birth is ours.

Our bodies are ours.

Our decisions are ours.

When we hold that with a deep knowing, and gratitude for those who are also walking this path, the collective vibration changes. When enough women stand in sovereignty, systems will eventually adapt as the world around them begins to reflect the truth that birth is a sacred rite of passage that belongs to women.