The liberties that the author took with the English language, however, are very likely indicative of liberties taken with the information presented in the article itself. The claim, for instance, that "midwives were...the first holistic practitioners of the past" is highly suspect. Leaving aside the elusive meaning of being the "first of the past" in something (we will assume the author simply meant, "the first"), it appears as though the author is trying to say that midwives were the first known practitioners of natural medicine, or perhaps of complimentary nature- and inquiry-based practices. This claim might be true, though given the knowledge of very ancient medical practices it seems unlikely, but the author does not provide any citation or even a scrap of supporting evidence or comparison to establish this idea. The claim is made, and then...

This is not the way that solid research or a standard logical progression is presented, and the lack of any citations or references of any kind make this article especially suspect.
It is likely that many of the basic facts presented by the author in this article are true, especially in regards to the different classifications of midwives and their practices and capabilities in the United States. For this reason, the article provides an excellent place to gather terms and concepts with which to conduct more in-depth and reliable research. As a source of primary or even reliable secondary information, this article is not to be trusted, but its use as a stepping-stone to further advance research into and/or basic knowledge of midwifery, this article has a certain usefulness -- highly limited, but present nonetheless.