Mountain Sea Midwifery and Wellness LLC

03/13/2026

“Believe in your heart that you're meant to live a life full of passion, purpose, magic and miracles.”

Roy T. Bennett,

03/06/2026

Unless there is a rare emergency, the timing of cutting the cord is always the parents choice. The average time in this practice ranges from 20-60 min.

This cord is still full of blood.

Blood that belonged to the baby.

Blood that was meant to finish transfusing back into the newborn after birth.

Instead, it was cut short.

The placenta and cord hold up to ⅓ of a baby’s total blood volume.

That blood carries oxygen, iron, stem cells, and immune support that the baby is supposed to receive in the first minutes of life.

When a cord like this is clamped too early, that transfusion is interrupted.

And the baby simply loses it.

The question we should be asking is: Why are we still rushing the one transfusion every newborn is born waiting for?

This blood belongs to the baby!

Not rushed systems.

Not protocols.

Not “this is how we’ve always done it.”

Not “30 seconds is long enough.”

Imagine interrupting someone’s blood transfusion after 30 seconds and calling it ‘standard practice.’

Babies need their blood!

Photo taken by: Shannon Serrano

𝐅𝐋𝐎𝐑 𝐂𝐑𝐔𝐙 / 𝐁𝐀𝐃𝐀𝐒𝐒𝐌𝐎𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐁𝐈𝐑𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐑 ©

03/06/2026

Sometimes we have a little fun!

03/04/2026

Looking forward to this coming out! This is who I travelled to Senegal with to practice Midwifery back in 2012.

02/17/2026

01/15/2026

Just a heads up for Homer. Delicious premade dishes available!

The Freezer Feast freezer is restocked!
We've got lasagnas, enchiladas, meat loaves, pot pies and more.

01/12/2026

There is so much about delayed cord clamping we still have yet to learn.

12/26/2025

Absolutely impressive!

12/23/2025

That’s a wrap as far as 2025 babies goes! Greatful for the families who welcomed us into their care. The laughter, the tears and profound joy shared are a testament to the beauty of life.

12/10/2025

Truly one of the most enthusiastic young assistants I’ve encountered over the years. Upon arrival she asked,” how can I help you?” Love to have siblings at births! She told us her mama was singing her baby here like a song. 🤍

11/07/2025

Hey Homer! In need of chiropractic care?

11/07/2025

Great to see this topic on mainstream media! It’s something many midwives have known for years.

An excellent article today from . Note the lack of evidence supporting the use of continuous fetal monitoring, the clear influence of business and economics, and the money grab from AI companies who claim studies support their product - when in fact they don’t - resulting in remote monitoring hubs.

I especially love that placenta accreta is described early in the article so the public can see that cesareans carry risk. As a result, we need to ensure that they occur only when needed or wanted.

Note that the photo for this article is of a remote monitoring hub. One such hub is up to 60 miles away from the hospital in which the woman is laboring.

“Nearly every woman who gives birth in an American hospital is strapped with a belt of sensors to track the baby’s heartbeat. If the pattern is deemed abnormal — too slow, for example — doctors often call for an emergency C-section.

But this round-the-clock monitoring, the most common obstetric procedure in the country, rarely helps baby or mother. Decades of research have shown that the tool does not reliably predict fetal distress. In fact, experts say, it leads to many unnecessary surgeries as doctors overreact to its ever-changing readouts.

The obstetrics field has long ignored these problems. Now, it’s putting more trust than ever on the flawed technology, often prioritizing business and legal concerns ahead of what’s best for patients, The New York Times found.

This fall, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists updated its guidelines on continuous monitoring, sanctioning it even as some other wealthy countries have cautioned against its routine use…

All three remote hubs, along with 400 other hospitals around the country, use A.I. software to help analyze the heart data. The software’s maker, PeriGen, has claimed on its website that 50 studies backed up its products.

But none of the studies found that the technology improved birth outcomes. PeriGen removed the list of studies after an inquiry from The Times. The company’s chief executive, Matthew Sappern, acknowledged that no clinical trials had shown benefits.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/06/health/electronic-fetal-monitoring-c-sections.html?unlocked_article_code=1.zE8.145f.FPhFANzFoVZp&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare