Yes, they do.
Most babies that die at hospitals cannot be saved despite all of equipment there just for them, and the training and skill of the teams working so hard to save them.
Some babies die at hospitals because of mistakes or negligence.
Whatever the reasons babies die at the hospital, *more* babies die at home. Every study on US home birth has found significantly increased rates of death for babies born at planned, midwife-attended home births than those born at the hospital.
When understanding this point, it's very important to look at the rate. Some people only look at the absolute numbers, and are confused. "But 1,000 babies died at US hospitals last year, and only 100 died in home birth, so doesn't that mean home birth is safer?"
No. Here's why:
Let's say 100 million people go to
the library this year, and 14 die while they're there. And 20 people
hike Mt. Everest, but only 1 of them dies.
If you're just looking
at absolute numbers, you would conclude that going to the library is
more dangerous than hiking Mt. Everest, because 14 people died instead
Now, if you're looking at rate, you'll see that going to
the library has a death rate of 0.00000014, while hiking Mt. Everest has
a death rate of 0.05. That means hiking Mt. Everest is 357,143 times
more dangerous than going to the library. And you understand that by
looking at the rate.
According to one of the latest, best studies on US homebirth, the rate of death for newborns born at US hospitals with midwives is 3.1 deaths per 10,000 births. That same study found that the rate of death for newborns born at planned, midwife-attended home births is 13.1 deaths per 10,000 births. So, the rate of death is four times higher at home birth - meaning that home birth is four times more dangerous than hospital birth.
Babies die in hospitals, too. But they die four times more often at home birth.