<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0"><updated>2008-05-26T14:46:08Z</updated><id>tag:sursumcorda.salemsattic.com,2018:/isso/thread/post/one-step-for-freedom-in-pennsylvania-at-least-until-the-appeal</id><title>Comments for sursumcorda.salemsattic.com/post/one-step-for-freedom-in-pennsylvania-at-least-until-the-appeal</title><entry><id>tag:sursumcorda.salemsattic.com,2018:/isso/441/1673</id><title>Comment #1673</title><updated>2008-05-26T14:46:08Z</updated><author><name>Jon Daley</name></author><link href="https://sursumcorda.salemsattic.com/post/one-step-for-freedom-in-pennsylvania-at-least-until-the-appeal#isso-1673" /><content type="html">&lt;p&gt;I thought some of the comments in the decision were quite good, like saying that the board of medicine cannot charge her with practicing medicine, lay midwifery, and nurse midwifery all for the same acts.  And they explicitly said that medicine has to be different than nurse midwifery, otherwise all nurse-midwives would be in violation.  And also that the 1985 medical act only applies to nurse midwives.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/1830CD07_5-23-08.pdf" rel="nofollow noopener"&gt;Court's decision&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</content></entry></feed>