you're reading...
abortion, prematurity

The US is still a leader in infant mortality, so where are the pro-life politicians?

The infant mortality statistics are out again. This always depresses me because:

A) The rates are atrociously high

and

B) There is so much legislation passed to restrict abortion in the name of “life,” but politicians and judges seems awfully silent on infant mortality.

In the United States 6.4 infants out of every 1,000 born will not reach their first birthday. This is more than 24,000 infant deaths a year. The United States is also the leader in the industrialized world for infants dying on the day they are bornOver 35% of neonatal and infant deaths are the result of a premature delivery. As an OB/GYN I’ve delivered many tiny babies destined to die and my son, Aidan, is part of that data set…a child sharing a date of birth and date of death due to prematurity. I know this tragedy and sadness only too well.

It’s not that lowering the infant mortality rate isn’t possible, politicians who are pro-life can be assured that dramatically reducing the infant mortality rate is possible. In Iceland the infant mortality is 1.6 per 1,000 births.

It’s not that we’re not spending enough on health care. In the U.S. we spend $8,508 per person each year for health care (compare that with $5,699 for Norway and $4,522 for Canada) or close to 18% of our gross domestic product. We spend more than any other industrialized country on health care and yet more babies die here on the day they are born than any other industrialized country.

So why isn’t any of this of interest to pro-life politicians? Shouldn’t they be outraged that more than 75% of these deaths are preventable? And not only are they preventable, but given the money we spend on health care this just shouldn’t be happening. It’s mind-boggling. Really.

Study after study shows that high quality accessible maternity care dramatically lowers the rate of premature delivery (it doesn’t have to be expensive, in fact, the right care isn’t very expensive at all). It is possible to get the prematurity rate into the 6% range (it is approximately 12% now). We have laws mandating transvaginal ultrasounds and admitting privileges, so why not laws to mandate the right kind of maternity care?

Teen pregnancy is a factor, a complex mix of biology and the social circumstances that lead a teen to get pregnant. Why wouldn’t pro-life organizations an politicians be promoting Iong-acting reversible contraception so teens can delay child-bearing to a time when they are more likely to have a healthy outcome for both mom and baby? Instead of mandatory “women’s right to know” bullshit about breast cancer and abortion (there is no link, but the Federal courts say that doesn’t matter, in some states doctors just have to lie and say there is), why not mandatory information about long-acting reversible contraception for junior high students?

Maternal obesity is also a factor. And smoking. And obviously addressing these causes would also make for healthier women who are less likely to die from cardiac disease, diabetes, or lung cancer. Why don’t the politicians shut down big tobacco and ban trans fats?

We also have a disturbingly high rate of multiple deliveries through the misuse of assisted reproductive technologies. In Europe where the number of embryos that can be implanted is strictly regulated the incidence of multiples is dramatically lower than the United States, although the pregnancy rate is the same. Europeans just more likely to take home one baby at term. Professional societies have balked at regulating ART. If we are going to regulate abortion clinics in the name of life, why not infertility clinics? I mean the professional societies are too afraid to tackle it, so, why not?

But no, the shameful American infant mortality rate will likely be in the headlines for a day or two and then pass out of sight and the people who are in a position to actually make change? Well, they’re probably too busy crafting more abortion legislation to notice.

 

About these ads

Discussion

6 thoughts on “The US is still a leader in infant mortality, so where are the pro-life politicians?

  1. Reblogged this on and commented:
    Devastating, and an angle often forgotten about when arguing this point. Great job.

    Reblogged on Women: Rise Up Now. Will also be sharing on our facebook page, facebook.com/womenrise.

    Posted by womenriseupnow | December 18, 2013, 10:25 am
  2. I thought this sentence from the NBC article was quite interesting: “Save the Children found in a report released in April that more newborns die in the U.S. than in 68 other countries, including Egypt, Turkey and Peru.”

    American exceptionalism!

    Posted by rekster | December 18, 2013, 5:06 pm
  3. These numbers break my heart! I have a healthy ex 23 week preemie, but many friends that we made during her 121 days in the NICU do not have their babies. I hope the US gets better at this very soon. And, I am very sorry for the loss o your son Aiden!

    Posted by Jennifer | December 18, 2013, 6:20 pm
  4. My work is on a preterm birth prevention initiative. I had an old friend who is politically and religiously conservative “defriend” me on Facebook for posting that I have a real pro-life job.

    Posted by 1humanwoman | December 18, 2013, 6:58 pm
  5. Reblogged this on human with uterus and commented:
    I just can’t say it better than this. Thanks, Dr. Jen Gunter.

    Posted by 1humanwoman | December 18, 2013, 6:59 pm
  6. While I agree and like your posts, there are some things to think about. It seems at odds that the US has one of the lowest perinatal mortality rates in the world, but a high infant mortality rate; this indicates issues past the first 28 days. But then that’s at odds with the US having one of the highest death rates on the day of birth. BUT, that’s also hard to compare to other countries, which don’t count babies who were born alive but die within minutes as ever being born, while we do. How do these stats control for these various factors? Also, in the NBC news health piece, they talk about hospital policies not allowing for elective inductions or c-sections before 39 weeks. But this policy, if a hard policy, has caused the death of babies that had soft reasons (that is, the doctor and patient thought it was in the best interest to induce before 39 weeks, but the reasons didn’t fit into hospital policy, so the hospital didn’t allow it, and the fetus or baby subsequently died). Two papers address this issue, finding that these hard policies decrease morbidity, yes, but increase mortality (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ppe.12030/full ;http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0002-9378/PIIS0002937812022004.main-abr.pdf?jid=ymob ).
    Finding good, evidence based reasons to help reduce pre-term babies, and finding good, evidence based care for infants, and not making hard policies across the board for everyone; it should be based on the personal situation to serve each patient and fetus best. Also, I’m not much on the fitness bandwagon, I feel there’s a lot of hate at obese people, but I have read that maternal morbidity is most correlated with obesity (and those who had pre-existing health issues, mainly heart and cancer). This might need to be addressed before woman get pregnant; doctors talking to female patients of reproductive age of some of the higher risks they face, in hopes to reduce those before pregnancy.

    Posted by Magra | December 23, 2013, 8:58 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Recent Tweets

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,150 other followers

%d bloggers like this: