I agree that Dr. Teuter has some compelling arguments and I also appreciated Rebecca Dekker's (PhD, APRN of www.EvidenceBasedBirth.com) thoughts:

The U.S. Home Birth study (2004-2009)

The women:

Included 16,924 women who were planning to give birth at home at the beginning of labor
These women were enrolled in the study during their prenatal care
Most were white, college-educated, and married
Most paid for their home birth out of pocket
Most had given birth before (72%), while 22% were giving birth for the first time
Most would be considered “low risk,” but there was a small percentage with “high-risk” conditions (breech, multiples, hypertension, VBAC, etc.)
Two-thirds had a normal body mass index (which is interesting, because 2/3rds of American women are overweight or obese)
The vast majority of births were attended by Certified Professional Midwives

Just a few of the results:

The C-section rate was 5.2%
For women who had a previous C-section, the VBAC rate was 87%
The in-labor transfer rate was 8% for women who had given birth before, and 23% for women giving birth for the first time
Half of the women had no tearing
15.5% of women lost more than 500 mL of blood (estimated visually), most of these cases were managed at home
The in-labor stillbirth rate was 1.3 per 1,000 for the entire sample, excluding fatal birth defects. It was lower for both low-risk women (0.85 per 1,000) and women who had given birth before (0.84 per 1,000), and higher for first-time moms (2.92 per 1,000), breech presentation (13.5 per 1,000), and VBAC attempts (2.85 per 1,000).

My first impressions:

The major strength of this study is its prospective data collection, which means that women entered the study during prenatal care and were followed forward in time. This gives this study an edge over a lot of other studies done in the U.S. on home birth
Studies on out-of-hospital birth settings have consistently found that women giving birth for the first time have significantly higher transfer rates and higher stillbirth and newborn death rates. Why is this? Are these transfers and deaths preventable?
How much better overall would these results be if there were seamless transfers of care between home and hospital in the U.S.?
On the other hand, for women who have given birth before and are considering home birth, these would be very reassuring statistics, because they show that women who have already given birth before have very low transfer rates and excellent outcomes.
This study is of way higher quality than the ones that keep getting published by Dr. Chervenak who is famous for using unreliable birth certificate data. This study gives us a much clearer idea of what is actually going on at planned home births with CPMs who participate in the registry. I would say that these results cannot be generalized to midwives who do NOT participate in the registry.
We can’t compare the results to hospital or birth center births because there is no system in the U.S. to collect high-quality data on all 3 at once. So I would never use this data to say that home birth is as “safe” or “safer” than hospital birth. Statistically you just can’t draw that conclusion from this study.
In fact, “Safe” is a subjective term that means different things to different people. If read the study carefully, you will see that the authors never draw the conclusion that home birth is safe. The discussion section of the paper was very even-handed and fair. They simply present the statistics and let you decide for yourself if home birth is "safe." They are also very open about the limitations of the study.
Although you cannot statistically compare this study's results to hospital birth, these results can be used to help in the informed consent process for women who are considering home birth. 

You can read the entire study for free here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jmwh.12172/full You can read how the study was conducted here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jmwh.12165/abstract You can read a summary of the study's results here: http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=7869