I totally get the people saying that HVs are an extra layer able to intervene and save babies (and mums) from abuse or neglect - but I don't see why this has to be at the expense of a great many mums who are made to feel humiliated, patronised, criticised and, ironically, put under a lot of extra stress at a vulnerable time to make sure that they can't possibly be perceived as the bad parents where HVs can make a very positive difference wrt safeguarding and protecting children.
Also, why do you hear of so many reports of rude, critical and unsupportive behaviour - along with often bad advice and/or not understanding the actual basics that should be part of HV 101 (no knowledge of premature birth, looking after twins etc)? Yes, you also hear of a lot of kind, helpful, friendly HVs too, but as a profession, there seem to be so very many highly unsuitable people doing it.
Personally, I'm very surprised if potential causes for concern aren't identified in pregnancy, but that so much store is set by a visit or two to the parent's home after a baby has already been born and been taken to a highly dysfunctional home.
There must be a lot of clear factors that might suggest it would be prudent to monitor and follow up certain mums during their pregnancies and after the births, without placing the burden (and wasting the resources) on ALL new mums. Obviously, it should still be offered to all, but made clear that it's entirely optional, in cases where there are no flags whatsoever.
I think there's too much of the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' mentality at play, when we all have things to hide/preserve - our dignity, privacy, personal freedoms. Taken to extremes, you might as well say let's take all doors off public toilet cubicles as this will help catch people doing illegal and/or questionable things - and if you're just using the toilet as normal, you have no reason to worry about everybody being able to see you. Unless you have something to hide, of course....