In the United States, the healthcare system has primarily adopted the traditional biomedical model of childbirth, defined as “a pathological process requiring intensive monitoring and the use of medical intervention” (Ferrer et al. 2016). However, the rapidly increasing rates of poor maternal and neonatal outcomes raise the question of whether this system is equipped to support mothers in having a successful labor experience. An alternative model of childbirth has emerged: the psychosocial or humanized care model. This model acknowledges that health is not only a physical concept but also psychological, social, cultural, etc. (Saxbe 2017). While it has successfully been implemented in other countries, such as Spain and India, it is yet to be embraced in the United States. The purpose of this study is to understand the key differences between the two models of childbirth and how they correlate with neonatal birth injury. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted over Zoom Video Conferencing to gain an understanding of midwives’ experiences in the two models. The thematic analysis revealed the following themes: physiological birth, client-centered care, servitude, overuse of interventions, overmedicalization, fear of retribution and need for integration. Among the differences in practices and outcomes between the two models, the participants exposed the weight of historical influence from as far back as the 1980s. The ever changing role of women in society has impacted how childbirth has been perceived and explains why a successful childbirth experience is measured by a child being born rather than the methods and approaches to doing so. The study concluded that perhaps the solution to developing an improved model of childbirth would be to integrate the existing traditional biomedical model and the emerging humanized care model.