Free Birth Society

The Free Birth Society (FBS) is a United States-based childbirth advocacy and online education company centered on free birth, a term commonly used for planned childbirth without the assistance of a medical professional or trained birth attendant. The organization was founded in 2017 by Emilee Saldaya, an influencer and former doula who, according to published reporting, does not have medical training. FBS has presented itself as a community and source of information for people seeking alternatives to hospital-based maternity care, particularly those interested in giving birth at home without a midwife, physician, or other professional attendant. Its activities have included the sale of online courses, private consultations, and access to a private online forum. It has also distributed podcasts, social-media content, and other educational or promotional material concerning pregnancy, labor, childbirth, postpartum experiences, and the relationship between parents and medical institutions. Its online community has provided peer support for people considering or undertaking unassisted births. The organization’s podcast and social-media presence have given it an audience substantially larger than that of a small local birth-education group; reporting in 2025 described its social-media account as having more than 132,000 followers and its podcast as having been downloaded more than five million times. FBS has been controversial because its founders and instructors have reportedly lacked formal medical qualifications while discussing situations that can become life-threatening during labor and delivery. NBC News reporting in 2020 described Saldaya and her Canadian business partner and instructor, Yolande Norris-Clark, as former doulas rather than medically trained clinicians. Although people trained or associated with the organization have said they do not present themselves as licensed midwives, critics have argued that clients may misunderstand the level of expertise available when advice concerns pregnancy complications, obstetric emergencies, newborn resuscitation, or postpartum care. The organization’s public profile increased further through criticism of its medical claims and political messaging. A 2025 Guardian investigation reported at least 48 cases involving stillbirths, neonatal deaths, or other serious harm that appeared to be connected to people influenced by FBS material or advice. Medical experts quoted in that investigation characterized portions of the organization’s guidance as misleading or dangerous and criticized statements attributed to Saldaya and Norris-Clark concerning hemorrhage, shoulder dystocia, retained placenta, and infant resuscitation. Saldaya disputed some of the allegations, describing them as false or defamatory, and later responded publicly to what she called mainstream-media propaganda. Mainstream professional medical organizations in the United States, including the American College of Nurse-Midwives, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, state that hospitals and accredited birth centers are the safest settings for childbirth. Their position places FBS’s advocacy outside the dominant clinical consensus, even though some professional bodies provide harm-reduction information for people who choose home birth or decline medical assistance. FBS has also attracted scrutiny for changes in its political and cultural messaging. Commentary cited in reference material describes an earlier emphasis on inclusivity that later appeared, to some observers, to give way to anti-vaccine conspiracy themes, criticism of internet progressive culture, and opposition to transgender ideology. The organization’s Instagram account celebrated Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s 2024 announcement as a nominee for United States secretary of health and human services during Donald Trump’s second presidency. As a result, FBS is now associated not only with a radical childbirth position but also with a broader set of anti-establishment and conservative cultural views. The Free Birth Society remains an online-centered organization whose business model combines education, community access, media production, and personal guidance. Its current corporate ownership, legal structure, finances, and formal medical or regulatory status are not established by the supplied sources. The organization’s influence and the safety of its advice remain subjects of public debate, particularly following investigative reporting about alleged adverse outcomes.

The Free Birth Society emerged in 2017 as an online organization promoting free birth, or childbirth without the assistance of a medical birth attendant. It was founded by Emilee Saldaya, a former doula and social-media influencer. Unlike a hospital, accredited birth center, or professional midwifery practice, the organization’s core proposition is that some people can choose to give birth without a physician, midwife, or other trained attendant. FBS has framed this choice through themes of bodily autonomy, confidence in the birthing person, dissatisfaction with mainstream obstetric care, and resistance to what it portrays as excessive medical intervention. The organization developed a digital business and community model. It sold courses and private consultations, offered access to a closed online forum, and used podcasts and social-media channels to distribute its ideas and reach prospective clients. The associated community allowed women and families to exchange experiences and encouragement around out-of-hospital birth. Its media reach expanded beyond a small activist network: reporting in 2025 described more than 132,000 social-media followers and more than five million podcast downloads. The qualifications of people providing advice became an early point of controversy. Reporting in 2020 identified both Saldaya and her Canadian business partner and instructor, Yolande Norris-Clark, as former doulas who lacked medical training. Doulas can provide non-clinical support, but they are not automatically licensed clinicians and are not qualified to diagnose or manage obstetric emergencies. Critics argued that the distinction could be unclear to clients when FBS-related instructors discussed complicated labor, bleeding, placental problems, or newborn emergencies. Professional medical opinion has generally diverged sharply from the organization’s advocacy. The American College of Nurse-Midwives, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have stated that hospitals and accredited birth centers are the safest birth settings in the United States. These organizations may provide clinical guidance to people who choose home birth, but that harm-reduction approach does not amount to endorsement of unassisted childbirth. FBS’s public identity also evolved politically. Commentary cited in reference material describes an earlier period in which the group used broadly inclusive language. By the 2020s, observers had associated its communications with anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, hostility to progressive internet culture, and opposition to transgender ideology. Its social-media celebration of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s 2024 health-related political appointment announcement contributed to the perception that the society had become part of a wider anti-establishment political ecosystem rather than solely a childbirth-choice community. In 2025, a Guardian investigation brought the organization under especially intense scrutiny. The investigation reported at least 48 cases involving stillbirths, neonatal deaths, or other serious harm that appeared linked to FBS-related advice or influence. Medical specialists interviewed for the investigation characterized some of the organization’s guidance as misleading or dangerous and criticized claims attributed to Saldaya and Norris-Clark about hemorrhage, shoulder dystocia, retained placenta, and infant resuscitation. Saldaya rejected some allegations as false or defamatory and later addressed what she described as hostile mainstream-media coverage. The investigation also identified an institutional information problem in the United Kingdom. Some NHS trusts had reportedly directed people considering free birth toward material that included a link to the FBS podcast. The link was later removed, with a statement issued about the change. The episode illustrated the difficulty of distinguishing neutral information about childbirth choices from promotional or advocacy material produced by a group whose safety claims are disputed. The Free Birth Society continues to operate primarily through digital products, online community infrastructure, podcasts, and social-media publishing. The supplied sources do not establish its detailed corporate structure, ownership, revenue, or regulatory status. Its historical significance lies in its role as a prominent internet promoter of unassisted childbirth and in the wider debate it has generated about informed consent, medical expertise, childbirth autonomy, online health misinformation, and the responsibilities of influencers who address high-risk medical situations.

• 2025

  Guardian investigation reports alleged serious harm

  [1]Free Birth Societyen.wikipedia.org

  An investigation reported at least 48 cases of stillbirth, neonatal death, or other serious harm apparently connected to FBS-related advice or influence.

• 2024

  Political messaging becomes more visible

  [1]Free Birth Societyen.wikipedia.org

  The organization’s Instagram account celebrated Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s announcement as a health secretary nominee, highlighting its anti-establishment political associations.

• 2020

  Qualifications of leading instructors scrutinized

  [1]Free Birth Societyen.wikipedia.org

  NBC News reporting examined the absence of formal medical training among Saldaya and business partner Yolande Norris-Clark.

• 2017

  Free Birth Society founded

  [1]Free Birth Societyen.wikipedia.org

  Emilee Saldaya established the organization as an online advocate and community platform for unassisted childbirth.

An online advocacy, education, and community platform for people interested in unassisted childbirth and alternatives to hospital-based maternity care. Its positioning combines personal empowerment, distrust of mainstream medical institutions, peer support, and digital education, but it is strongly contested by medical organizations and critics who question the safety and accuracy of its guidance.

• Digital education

  Free-birth online courses

  Online instructional programs designed for people considering childbirth without a medical attendant. The courses form part of FBS’s central educational offering and address preparation, mindset, birth planning, and related childbirth topics. Their safety and medical adequacy have been disputed by clinicians and critics.

• Advisory service

  Private consultations

  One-to-one consultations concerning pregnancy, labor, birth planning, or free-birth decision-making. The service extends the organization’s influence beyond general media and community content. The supplied sources do not establish its pricing, staffing structure, or clinical credentials.

• Membership community

  Online forum and community

  A restricted online community where members can exchange experiences and encouragement related to out-of-hospital and unassisted childbirth. It is positioned as peer support, although critics have raised concerns about the reliability of health information circulating in such a setting.

• Podcast and media

  Free Birth Society podcast

  A podcast used to discuss free birth, childbirth experiences, and the organization’s broader worldview. Reference material describes it as one of the largest podcasts focused on birth and reports more than five million downloads by 2025.

• 2025

  Investigation into alleged serious harm

  The Guardian reported at least 48 instances involving stillbirths, neonatal fatalities, or other serious harm that appeared linked to FBS-related advice or influence. Medical experts criticized guidance attributed to Saldaya and Norris-Clark, while Saldaya disputed some allegations.

  Source

• 2025

  Criticism of medical claims

  Experts cited in reporting alleged that statements concerning hemorrhage, shoulder dystocia, retained placenta, and newborn resuscitation were false, misleading, or dangerous. The controversy centers on the risks of non-clinicians presenting guidance about obstetric emergencies.

  Source

• 2025

  NHS link to FBS material removed

  Some United Kingdom NHS trusts reportedly linked to information containing the FBS podcast when discussing free birth. The link was later removed after scrutiny.

  Source

Read more

• 2025

  Public response to Guardian investigationOther

  Background

  The Guardian published an investigation concerning alleged adverse outcomes and disputed medical guidance associated with FBS.

  Action taken

  Emilee Saldaya said some allegations were false or defamatory and later addressed what she described as mainstream-media propaganda in an Instagram statement.

  Aftermath

  The reporting intensified scrutiny of FBS’s qualifications, safety claims, and role in online childbirth information.

  Source

• 2017

  Adopted a digital community and education modelStrategy

  Background

  The organization entered the childbirth debate as an online platform rather than as a hospital, clinic, or conventional midwifery practice.

  Action taken

  It combined courses, consultations, a private forum, podcasts, and social-media publishing to promote unassisted childbirth.

  Aftermath

  This model enabled FBS to reach an international audience while also making the quality and safety of its advice a recurring subject of criticism.

  Source

1. 1Free Birth Societyen.wikipedia.org
2. 2Free Birth Society official websitefreebirthsociety.com