• commentary
  • MONDAY SEPTEMBER 3 2007 4:00 PM

Having Babies is Getting Riskier

Submitted by Bitch_PhD

Edited by Bitch_PhD



According to the WaPo, deaths in childbirth are up in the U.S. Since 1977--four years after Roe v. Wade--has been holding steady at 10 deaths per 100,000 live births (statistics don't include deaths where both mother and baby die before delivery, apparently; let's assume those are very low). In 2004, it was up to 13 deaths (and 679 infants who died after being born alive--according to the National Center for Health Statistics, 141infant death rates have been declining since the 30s, but started rising again in 2002.

The reasons for the (admittedly small) rise in maternal deaths aren't clear, but possible explanations include maternal obesity, rising numbers of C-sections (some of which are indicated because of obesity, so those two overlap), and maternal bleeding--also a factor in C-sections, especially for women who have more than one. So much for the "just have a Cesarean" argument against late-term abortions (thank you, Supreme Court). Also so much for the advice to wait until your career is established, don't have kids too young--that's great advice from an economic point of view, but it may be shitty advice from the point of view of your health, as older women are more likely to have potentially fatal complications during pregnancy.

What we do know is that lack of maternal health care is a major risk factor. Again according to the WaPo,

Three different studies indicate at least 40 percent of maternal deaths could have been prevented

by better prenatal or birth care.

It should surprise no one that race is also a factor--death rates for black women are "at least three times" higher than for white women.

But the nation still doesn't want to fund national health care, or promise women with drug or alcohol problems immunity from prosecution if they seek prenatal health care, or increase funding for organizations like Planned Parenthood that provide free or sliding-scale health care to women. Apparently we'd rather work so that "Not one child will die by abortion, and not one mother will be maimed by abortion." Even though the CDC reports that the death rate from legal induced abortion is far lower than it is from childbirth--15 deaths out of 854,122 abortions in 2002, compared, again, to 10 per 100,000 maternal deaths in live birth during the same year.

Since the, the number of abortions has gone down while the number of maternal deaths during live birth has gone up. Nice priorities.

Bitch_PhD saw some people quietly praying outside of the local Planned Parenthood the other day, and was briefly tempted to run them over with her car, but didn't.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

Comments
Azkadellia

Azkadellia

South Haven, MI
April 2007

SEP 03, 2007 04:14 PM

frown

thefreak

thefreak

NEWSWIRE

Gardner, MA

SEP 03, 2007 04:16 PM

No offense, but since when is this wholly an abortion issue?

-TM

Valeyard

Valeyard

Shreveport, LA
January 2005

SEP 03, 2007 04:21 PM

Too bad you should have...protesters piss me off. I guess they are nothing if not painfully consistent.

aaronthere

aaronthere

San Francisco, CA
September 2003

SEP 03, 2007 04:22 PM

I know they can be related, but this article seems to switch back and forth between talking about infant deaths and mother deaths. Which is on the rise?
Interesting article btw.

CatWorship

CatWorship

Pottstown, PA
January 2007

SEP 03, 2007 04:29 PM

I have the answer to all the problems presented in this article: STOP PROCREATING!! Problem solved!

Formus

Formus

Milwaukee, WI
May 2007

SEP 03, 2007 04:32 PM

aaronthere said:
I know they can be related, but this article seems to switch back and forth between talking about infant deaths and mother deaths. Which is on the rise?



Mothers. This isn't about infant mortality, but deaths by mothers during childbirth, thus all the allusions to "women."

thefreak said:
No offense, but since when is this wholly an abortion issue?



It's not, she was just pointing out how the two overlap, and how one of the arguments against abortion - "just have a C-section" - has been shown to be more dangerous than the abortion itself, and one argument for abortion - it's statistically safer than going through with (in this case unwanted) childbirth - has been given considerably more credence.

ThatTalentedHack

ThatTalentedHack

San Antonio, TX
July 2007

SEP 03, 2007 04:41 PM

Great article, but the devils advocate in me has to know...

Does the lower death rate in abortions take into account the higher suicide rate that women with abortions have, Or have I been miss-informed?

Either way, the way we treat women can be rather appalling... something should be changed

DownNeck

DownNeck

Jersey City, NJ
March 2006

SEP 03, 2007 04:43 PM

always listen to el WaPo





i do agree that the c-section is used far more than it ought to be. didn't it used to be a last resort? i'd think that the numbers for c-section related deaths may be inflated due to the fact that many women getting c-sections are already at risk for complications and problems, although not having seen the numbers...or even knowing if they looked at that type of correlation, i really couldn't say with any real seriousness that this is the case.

Formus

Formus

Milwaukee, WI
May 2007

SEP 03, 2007 04:45 PM

ThatTalentedHack said:
Great article, but the devils advocate in me has to know...

Does the lower death rate in abortions take into account the higher suicide rate that women with abortions have, Or have I been miss-informed?



The numbers are only for deaths during or as a direct result of childbirth, so suicide doesn't factor.

xazapdmytinu

xazapdmytinu

Fort Collins, CO
July 2007

SEP 03, 2007 04:47 PM

Part of the problem of waiting to have children is that people don't go to see a doctor about it until they are well...ready to have children. I'm willing to bet that women who decide to wait could save a lot of trouble by saying to their doctor, hey, I'd like to have kids someday, but I'm thinking about waiting until I'm say...35, then said doctor can maybe incorporate that into the woman's health...future (I was going to say history, which makes sense document wise, but rhetorically it sounded weird)

I could totally be talking out my ass here though.

another option for women who wait is adoption...I know if I ever start a family It will be with someone who wants to adopt...I don't feel the need to add more children to the world.

Gringo

Gringo

Spokane, WA
May 2006

SEP 03, 2007 04:48 PM

DownNeck said:
always listen to el WaPo


DownNeck, would you say I have a plethora of pinatas?

KingHELL

kinghell

Portland, OR
July 2003

SEP 03, 2007 04:57 PM

Not to sound overly callous, but the 2002 figure means there was a 0.01% maternal death rate (10 per 100,000), and the 2004 figure means there's a 0.013% maternal death rate. It seems like a 0.003% variation would fall comfortably within any statistical margin of error.

And according to a 2000 report developed by WHO, UNICEF and UNFPA that studied maternal mortality rates worldwide, the US stacks up pretty well. We're pretty much at the same level as the Netherlands and Norway, which I believe have very comprehensive socialized medical programs.

Yes, we can (and should) always do better, and numbers become a very emotional topic when they represent human lives. But I wonder how people's responses would change if this article had the much more accurate headline, "Having Babies Is Getting 0.003% Riskier."

adammanski

adammanski

Salem, MA
June 2007

SEP 03, 2007 05:03 PM



I have the answer to all the problems presented in this article: STOP PROCREATING!! Problem solved!



This dudes got a good idea. We gotta develop a couple of values in this country people.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

SEP 03, 2007 05:13 PM

KingHELL said:
Not to sound overly callous, but the 2002 figure means there was a 0.01% maternal death rate (10 per 100,000), and the 2004 figure means there's a 0.013% maternal death rate. It seems like a 0.003% variation would fall comfortably within any statistical margin of error.

And according to a 2000 report developed by WHO, UNICEF and UNFPA that studied maternal mortality rates worldwide, the US stacks up pretty well. We're pretty much at the same level as the Netherlands and Norway, which I believe have very comprehensive socialized medical programs.

Yes, we can (and should) always do better, and numbers become a very emotional topic when they represent human lives. But I wonder how people's responses would change if this article had the much more accurate headline, "Having Babies Is Getting 0.003% Riskier."



The US rate is still worse than Cuba's, if the CIA World Factbook is to be believed. And that's with American sanctions in place.

And it's easy to spin statistics to people. Maybe the article title should have been "Having American Babies Is Getting 0.003% Riskier, Even Though Socialised Medicine Does At Least As Well"? You know, if you want accuracy and all.



LostLucy

LostLucy

USA
December 2006

SEP 03, 2007 05:18 PM

What would be lovely would be money was spent on primary care & education regardng sex and reproduction as part of general HEALTH care for everyone, regardless of religion. Shame and Fear of reprisal might lead some teens to delay getting care, and others to avoid early pregnancy care due to medical costs.
Delays in care can prevent early intervention. On the other hand, sometimes babies are stillborn with even the best prenatal care and oversight.

We cannot deny that the healthcare system is abysmal and this is another consequence.



Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

featured interviews