The Relief Society's Legacy of Maternal Care - Guest Post by HeatherLady

This guest post comes to you from my collaborator, Heatherlady, who writes Women in the Scriptures.

I’ve been doing a lot of delving into LDS church history, especially women's history, for this book. It has been such an incredible experience for me. Recently when reading “Women of Covenant”, the unofficial “official” history of the Relief Society, I discovered an interesting piece of Relief Society history that I was unaware of.

Clarrissa Williams

In October Conference 1921 Relief Society President Clarissa Williams announced a plan “to establish a maternity home in Salt Lake as a sort of experiment, and later, if this is successful, to extend the work by establishing similar homes in various centers.” She wanted “to encourage motherhood and to make it possible for women in child-birth to have good care at reasonable rates.”

The Relief Society, in a sense, started opening Birthing Centers. These maternity homes were generally houses that were converted into places where women could come to give birth. The one that opened in the Salt Lake Area, called the Cottonwood Maternity Hospital, had 10 beds and was furnished, run and maintained by the Cottonwood Relief Society. Relief Society sisters volunteered their time as nurses, laundresses and anything else that needed to be done. The hospital fee was $40 for the standard two-week stay. Additionally the doctor’s fee was $35, which was $5 less than the doctor fee for home deliveries. The center was dedicated on December 10, 1924 by Elder Melvin J. Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Initially the hospital struggled for acceptance and didn’t have many clients. Home deliveries were still the norm and women either didn’t see the need to deliver at a center or were hesitant of the idea. In fact, when the Relief Society in Snowflake, Arizona opened their own small maternity hospital the stake Relief Society board had to go on a speaking tour through the wards trying to convert mothers to hospital deliveries, which as they later remembered turned out not to be an easy task.

Since the majority of women gave birth at home until around World War II, many stakes and wards responded to President Williams' plea for “a movement in the interest of maternity and motherhood through the church” by preparing maternity loan chests that included bedding and other supplies needed for home deliveries. They also put together layettes and other items for new mothers. President Williams allocated the interest money from the Relief Society’s wheat trust fund (nearly $412,000) for such projects as these throughout the church. In the fall 1921 Relief Society conference Lucy Woodruff Smith reported that in the European Missions almost every branch had a “maternity chest”.

In addition to the “birth centers” and the “maternity chests” Relief Society sisters also participated in a variety of public health events, conferences and campaigns to increase the number of breastfeeding mothers, to educate women on the proper ways to clean baby bottles, hand washing, and proper infant care. In 1924, Johns Wells of the Presiding Bishopric credited the Relief Society for a decreased death rate among LDS children under the age of five—500 lives saved in one year. Historian Thomas G. Alexander also stated that, “Cooperation between the Relief Society and public agencies produced in Utah the greatest reduction in the maternal death and infant mortality rates in the nation. By 1931 Utah ranked with five other states in the lowest group.”

Relief Society Leadership in 1916

It is also interesting to note that by 1959 the demand at the Cottonwood Relief Society’s maternity hospital had grown so much that the LDS church, still under the direction of the Relief Society, built a 2 million dollar hospital with 120 beds on the same site as the original maternity hospital. The LDS church eventually opened other hospitals, including Primary Children’s Hospital, and by 1974 the church was operating 15 hospitals and was one of the largest major hospital operators in the US. (Divett, 174-176) Yet, in September 1974 the First Presidency announced that “After a through study and consideration, the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have decided to divert the full efforts of the Health Services of the Church to the health needs of the worldwide church membership.” (Divett, 179) In April of 1975 the church transferred all 15 hospitals to Intermountain Health Care, Inc., a non-profit corporation they had established to operate the hospitals. The board of directors consisted of both Mormons and non-Mormons. With the membership of the church increasingly becoming less and less centralized in Utah the church could not longer justify the allocation of resources to run hospitals. Saying that, “ the operation of hospitals is not central to mission of the church.” (Jones, 1992) Instead they chose to expand the number of Health Service Missionaries and to focus on ways to improve the health of all Saints through the world. Today a good portion of these health service missions are being filled by young women missionaries (270 in 1990)-- a fitting way to continue on the Relief Society legacy of improving maternal and child health (Walters, 1992)

Today the original hospital system started by the Relief Society is still run by Intermountain Health Care (IHC) and recently has been recognized as one of the best hospitals systems in the United States. It is also interesting to note that in 2007 the Cottonwood Hospital was closed down and replaced with a new hospital, Intermountain Medical. What a great legacy to those early Relief Society sisters to see what there little maternity hospital had grown into.

Intermountain Medical Hospital, in Murray, Utah.

As I read through all this history I was so impressed by the Relief Society’s success in improving maternal and child health in Utah and surrounding areas. President William’s initiative came at a time when she wanted to ““to encourage motherhood” amongst the women of the church by making sure that they were receiving good care and support during pregnancy and that the support originated from the women around them. The image of these Relief Society sisters banding together to support each other in pregnancy and birth is so inspiring to me.

I can’t help but feel that if President Williams was living in our day she would look at the needs of our mothers and see that there is still a great need for women of the church to “encourage motherhood” amongst themselves. Many of the childbirth “maladies" facing women today are spiritual, emotional and mental rather than physical. There are the young women who postpone motherhood because they are unprepared or misinformed about childbirth, breastfeeding and motherhood and are terrified of it. There are women who have already given birth to children but who had traumatic or negative experiences that makes them scared or unwilling to have more children. There are women, more than most of us realize, who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder after giving birth or have moderate to sever post-partum depression, much of which goes undiagnosed and untreated for years. We might not have women and babies dying in our Wards or in our neighborhoods, but we still have mothers who need the same sort of support and care that Relief Society sisters at the turn of the century provided for each other.

What ways do you see that women in the church could emulate our sisters of the past and “encourage motherhood” and improve the care new mothers receive?

Side Note:

As I was reading through historical documents I discovered that the State Health report in 1912 is the first accurate statement of maternal and child deaths in Utah and it showed that the maternal mortality rate in Utah was 14 deaths per 100,000 births and that the infant mortality rate was 110 deaths per 100,000 live births (Divett, 197). I was curious to know what the maternal mortality rate is today and was a bit shocked when I saw that, a hundred years later, the US's overall maternal mortality rate is 17 per 100,000 and places like Washington D.C. have a maternal mortality rate of 34.9 per 100,000 and the State of Georgia has a 20.5 per 100,000 maternal mortality rate. Utah currently has a 8.9 per 100,000 maternal mortality rate, and is ranked 20^th in the nation in terms of maternal safety during childbirth. It is always hard to compare statistics across generations because of the different ways in which numbers were gathered and counted, but those numbers were still a bit shocking to me.

Sources:

Derr, Jill Mulvay, Cannon, Janath Russell, Beecher, Maureen Ursenbach. (1992). Women of the Covenant: The Story of the Relief Society. Deseret Book: Salt Lake City, Utah.

Divett, Robert T. (1981). Medicine and the Mormons: An Introduction to the History of Later-day Saint Health Care. Horizon Publishers & Distributors: Bountiful, Utah

Jones, William N. (1992). “Hospitals” in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: Volume 2. Edited by Daniel H. Ludlow. Macmillian Publishing Company: New York, pg. 660.

Walters, Christine Croft. (1992). “Maternity and Child Health Care” in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: Volume 2. Edited by Daniel H. Ludlow. Macmillian Publishing Company: New York, pg. 867-68

The Real Killer

16 Things, originally uploaded by ruth™.

Every now and then I hear about the (thankfully) rare case of a woman who dies in childbirth. This is tragic to me as someone who understands loss (especially of mothers) on a deep level. However, today I want to discuss what is really killing pregnant women. Something that is not often discussed on birth blogs--and that is violence. The fact is, the number one cause of death among pregnant women has nothing to do with pregnancy. It's homicide. And more often than not, the slayer is her partner.

I was pregnant shortly after the Scott Peterson trial. There was also that guy in Utah who got some media attention for the same thing, but pled guilty and didn't put the world through a trial. In cased you missed it--both men killed their pregnant wives. Both had been model citizens--outwardly--and shocked their families and communities. I'm not sure why these particular cases got so much attention and others that happen don't, but according to a Maryland study in March 2001 published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, murder was the leading cause of death in pregnant women. "Using death records and coroner reports, state health department researchers found 247 pregnancy-associated deaths between 1993 and 1998. Among those deaths, 50 were murders." The Maryland study reinforced two earlier studies that found the same results--the leading cause of death in pregnant women is murder.

Here's some information from an article that I cut and pasted from the National Organization for Women:

"People think that pregnancy is a joyful, happy time for families. That's not always true," said Phyllis Sharps, an associate professor at The Johns Hopkins University's school of nursing who researches violence against women.

In some cases, the woman has been abused for years, and the violence escalates to murder after she's pregnant. In others, pregnancy itself sparks emotions that can lead to murderous rages.

"Violence in intimate relationships is all about power," said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women. "There are fewer times when you can have power over a woman than when she's pregnant. She's vulnerable. It's an easier time to threaten her."

"There are a lot of dynamics that go on in a relationship that involves violence—power and control and the need for the abuser to be primary," she said. "A pregnancy can create a sense of possibly losing that primary position."

The last statement rang very true in my case. The abuse was subtle and so confusing for years so that I couldn't see my way out. I thought batterers hit their wives weekly. He hit me only once--but the threat was always there. He once threatened to disfigure me on a Christmas vacation, and another time he beat up a chair in front of me. I can take inferences.

Most of the abuse was psychological. He'd isolate me by telling me people didn't like me. But in public he was charming and told everyone how wonderful he thought I was. At home, he'd do more gas lighting. I was always sucked back in by the honeymoon phase of the cycle and the promises that everything would change. I couldn't tell anyone what was really going on because I'd have to admit what an idiot I was. So most of the time I was in denial. I honestly believed that the honeymoon phase was the real marriage and everything else was just "out of character." Here's news for anyone else out there who believes this: everything a person does, even if it is only once, is in her/his character.

Well, then I got pregnant. Things were fine until I got sick and he wasn't the center of attention. Then the psychological abuse got so bad that I started to talk to people. And I realized something was wrong. I knew he had mental health issues, and so I blamed his OCD. I told him he had to get help or I'd be staying with a friend till he could get his head together. If I had known anything about the cycle of abuse and power struggle I might have expected his response.

He said, "I'd rather pay alimony." He filed for divorce the next day. Of course, the filing for divorce was an attempt to get me to panic and change back to that way I always was. To come back and to get rid of the pregnancy. He tried very hard to make me think I wanted an abortion--that it was my idea.

Of course, by then, I was thinking with two brains and I wasn't having it. Something about a growing baby in your womb changes everything. To cut this story short I put his stuff outside and changed the locks and that was it.

But I spent the rest of my pregnancy on high alert. I got a few dirty crank phone calls that were somewhat traumatizing, and my car was vandalized twice during that time. I had the police department down the street on speed dial and they regularly patrolled my house. Many times, I wondered if I was being paranoid, but when I look back I also wonder if my hyper-vigilance saved my life. Thankfully, his manic behavior settled down after a few years and I finally broke out of the cycle. (Divorce doesn't end the cycle.)

I feel sort of naked sharing all this here but I'm hoping that it helps someone. The thing I have learned about abuse is that is can happen to anyone. There is no special type of person that batterers target, and there is no stereotypical batterer.

In fact, police records show that violence, including homicidal violence, cuts across all races and classes.

"There is no profile of what these men look like," Sharps said. "Many are educated, upstanding citizens."

Upstanding citizens means that they could be priesthood holders and do their home teaching every month. Mine did. This was one of the problems--I thought no one would believe me if I told them. Thankfully he made that choice for me and soon everyone saw what I knew all along. But here's the deal--it doesn't matter how it looks to anyone else. Heavenly Father knows. And there is no way he wants one of his daughters (or sons) being treated this way. He will help you and guide you if you go to Him. How do I know? Because I have been there. (If you are not so hip on men right now, try to remember that we have two heavenly parents, and that they are united. While we address our prayers to Him, I imagine that if they are united, She hears everything, and is as much a loving mother as He is our loving father in heaven.)

If you or someone you know needs to get out of a physically or psychologically abusive relationship, call the National Domestic Violence Hotline (ndvh.org) at 1800-799-SAFE (7233). Also, I would advise counseling with your bishop. He has resources that can help you.