Answer

Comes the Defendant, Mary Ann Watson, by counsel, and for her Answer to the concerned Complaint as asserted by the Kentucky Board of Nursing, states as follows:

I. First Defense; Response to Allegations:

Comes the Defendant, Mary Ann Watson, by Cousel, and asserts:

(A) As to the allegations set forth in Paragraph One of the Complaint, Defendant admits;

(B) As to the allegations set forth in Paragragh Two of the Complaint, Defendant admits only to the extent that this Defendant offers services consistent with the practice of midwifery as defined by the statues of the Commonwealth of Kentucky;

(C) As to the allegations set forth in Paragrah Three of the Complaint, Defendant denies, Defendant asserts that the practice of "nurse midwifery" as defined in KRS 314.011(&) by an advanced registered nurse practioner, or by a registered nurse per KRS 314.043, in not the practice of "midwifery"; "nurse midwifery is defined in 902 KAR 4:015,

Section 1:

"Section 1. Practice of nurse midwifery defined. The practice of nurse midwifery embodies the practice of professional nursing and the extension of that practice into the area of care and management of the essentially healthy women and newborn during the child bearing processes."

The practice of "lay-midwifery" is defined in 902 KAR 4:010, Section 1;
"Section 1. Practice of lay-midwifery defined. The practice of lay-midwifery means assistance, or offr of assistance, rendered by a person, other than a physician or a nurse midwife, to a woman in normal childbirth, without using any instrument or artificial, forcible or mechanical means and without performing or attempting to perform any version or removing or attempting to remove adherent placenta and without prescribing, using or advising the use of any drug except silver nitratre for the eyes of the newborn."

(D) As to the allegations set forth in Paragraph Two of the Complaint, Defendant admits that this Defendant has never obtained or applied for licensure and registration as a registered nurse or an advanced nurse practioner, or as a "designated nurse midwife"; Defendant denies that her conduct is in contravention of KRS 314.031(1) and asserts that the practice of "midwifery" is not the practice of:

(1) A "healing art" (see KRS 311.271(2)(a));
(2) "Medicine" (see KRS 311.550(10));
(3) "Nursing" (see KRS 314.011(3),(4),(6),(7), and (8); or
(4) "Nurse-midwife" (see 902 KAR 4:015)

(E) As to the allegations set forth in Paragraph Two of the Complaint, Defendant denies that the Plaintiff is entitled to the issuance of an injuction, permaent of otherwise, to the extent that the Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendant from the practice of lay-midwifery.

II Second Defense; Failure to State A Cause of Action:

(A) Defendant asserts that the Kentucky Board of Nursing has failed to state a cause of action in that the practice of "midwifery" is not the "practice of nursing" and that the authority to regulate and control the "practice of midwifery" (i.e., issuance of permits to, and supervision of women who practice midwifery) was delegated to the Cabinet for Human Resource by the General Assembly of Kentucky as set forth in KRS 211.180(1)(f).

(B) Defendant asserts that while the Kentucky Board of Nursing has the authority to regulate and control the practice of nursing, it does not hav ethe authority to control the practice of "midwifery"; ergo, Defendant asserts that KRS 311.991, and in particular KRS 311.991(1) and (11) are inapplicable to the circumstances at hand - Defendant does not hold herself out to the public as a "nurse" of any type.

III Third Defense; Contravention of Constitutionally Protected Rights:

(A) Defendant asserts that the action(s) herein attempted by the Plaintiff are in contravention of this Defendant's protected consitutional rights protected under the state consitution, to wit:

(1) Bill of Rights, Section 2: Defendant asserts that the actions asserted by the Plaintiff are arbitrary can capricious, and otherwise not in the interest of the public or of this Defendant;

(2) Bill of Rights, Section 1: Defendant asserts that the actions asserted by the Plaintiff are in contravention of the liberty interests of this Defendant and certain members of the public.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Mary Ann Watson, respectfully demands:

(1) That the Complaint asserted by the Plaintiff be dismissed and held for naught;

(2) That pursuant to KRS 453.260, this Defendant recover her costs expend in the defense of this action, to include a reasonable attorney's fee; and

(3) That this Defendant be afforded any and all other relief to which she may be otherwise entitled including equitable relief.