Pro Tip for Submitting Questions: 
Be active, be clear --
​not accusatory 

Through public records, we have used content from a letter submitted to the Board of Registration in Midwifery in August and offer examples of how to best engage with the Board in order to invite engagement and elicit a response.  

The original letter is informed, passionate, and full of valid points — but it reads as a mix of rhetorical questions, frustration with power imbalance, and defensive language that makes it harder for a Board to respond productively.  Speaking the language of your audience is not surrender, it's strategy. 

Less Effective Example (Original Excerpt) 

• "Could the rules and regulations be made from a place of ‘most common’ scenarios vs. ‘dead mom/baby’ scenarios? Recounting ‘dead/damaged mom/baby’ scenarios is a form of emotional manipulation... weaponizing safety, infantilizing birthing people, and hindering meaningful communication.”
• “We know that the U.S. maternity industrial complex weaponized safety and prosecuted Granny Midwives out of existence. We know that ACOG and AAP have been organized around a white, male, power gaze… Can the Board develop the most open, welcoming, midwifery-model-of-care-centered and human-centered rules and regulations in the nation?”

More Effective Example (Reframed and Action-Oriented)

• “Could the Board consider grounding its regulatory framework in the most common scenarios and real-world experiences of Massachusetts home birth midwives, rather than focusing primarily on rare adverse outcomes? Centering everyday midwifery practice could help ensure that regulations are practical, evidence-based, and supportive of access and safety.”
• “Throughout history, midwives — particularly Black, Indigenous, and community-based midwives — have faced systemic barriers rooted in institutionalized bias and the medicalization of birth. Recognizing this history, could the Board commit to developing regulations that actively reflect the values of inclusivity, autonomy, and the Midwifery Model of Care? Such an approach would position Massachusetts as a national leader in human-centered, equity-driven midwifery policy.”

Why The Reframed and Action-Oriented Version Works Better

• It names the issues (historical bias, focus on fear-based regulation) without accusing the reader or the institution.
• It reframes “weaponized safety” into a policy concept over emphasizing rare outcomes — and offers a solution.
• It appeals to shared goals: safety, evidence-based practice, and leadership.
• It still feels authentic to the midwifery voice — passionate, protective, and visionary — but it’s strategically diplomatic.