Study finds higher maternal mortality rates in states with more abortion restrictions

Colour me unsurprised! I have been predicting this. There is and always has been a choice when enacting abortion legislation - outright ban or allow for “health and welfare” of the mother. This is not MY opinion but that of searchers throughout the world and experience from throughout the world


https://www.researchgate.net/public...ence_from_Romania_South_Africa_and_Bangladesh







The map nearly says it all - red of course being a high number of abortion restricting policies and yellow being a low number .

This research was before the overturning of Roe

https://sph.tulane.edu/news/study-f...ality-rates-states-more-abortion-restrictions

I have been trying to find research from this last year but even the CDC has not published maternal mortality data yet.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/bl...sis-continues-worsen-international-comparison
Bottom line is that the US has a much much much higher maternal mortality rate than comparable countries. Many reputable sites have studied this and if you want to learn more as to why the link to the graph above has some insights

 

Great post but remember Anti-Choicers do NOT care about women's lives....

 

Didn't you already bring this up three or four times in other threads? And the implication of your data was mostly debunked, I think.
But you just start a new thread, without ever troubling yourself to address the arguments made in response in those other threads.

Showing a correlation between different U.S. states does not prove that one causes the other.
It just so happens there is a pattern in the U.S. that many of the poorer and more rural areas have less permissive abortion laws. In addition to many of the states in the Deep South being both run by conservatives and having higher African American population percentages.

Out of your entire map, I think only Utah and Idaho compared to equally lower income surrounding states might help make the point you are trying to make.
And guess what? The maternal mortality rate in Idaho is 40.1, whereas it is 40.7 in Montana, despite your map showing Idaho has lots of abortion restrictions and Montana has much less restrictions.

And I'm guessing the fact there are so many Mormon white women in Utah having big families and large numbers of children might have something to do with that state's significantly higher maternal mortality numbers.

 

Says the person with multiple…..

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1073110518804221

Chicken or egg? Forced childbirth entrenches the poverty cycle

 

It's also possible that states with cheaper costs of living are easier to raise children, despite being lower income and the higher official numbers for poverty. Homes with space for a family are more affordable.
So maybe families feel less pressure to not have children and women feel less pressure to abort in these states.

This is an interesting map that could explain part of what's in your map:
Percent of Babies Born to Unmarried Mothers by State

 

Is that what the official right wing mantra is? Is that why there is little to no child support in the states with the strictest anti abortion legislation?

 

Not giving more money to someone else's child is not as bad as terminating your own child, many people would say.

Consider the difference between not giving a homeless person any food or money, and he starves to death in the cold, versus setting his cardboard box on fire while he's sleeping in it, and he dies from that.

This is the difference between "positive rights" and "negative rights". Which might be another discussion.

 

Soooo it is better to have lots of children that starve?

https://www.managedhealthcareexecut...se-of-death-in-the-united-states-study-finds#

This is somehow less cruel than termination in the early days of pregnancy when there already is a high rate of natural loss?

 

You certainly seem to be bringing up a lot of issues and moving around the goalposts in this thread.
But it is your thread, you can do that.

By the way, do you know anything about the U.S. South, Bowerbird?
Have you ever been there?
Have you ever even been to the U.S.? You told us you were Australian in a past thread.

If you're going to claim the South has high infant mortality because of abortion laws, you had better at least have an understanding of the South, what things are like there and how it is different from the rest of the country.

"The South", in case you did not know, represents the entire southeast quarter of your map.
So I don't see how we can really have any discussion based on that map without discussing the South.

 

This may be cherry-picked, but here's one example. Maternal mortality rate in Texas is high at 23.8, but the maternal mortality rate in the neighboring state of New Mexico is even higher, at 28, even though New Mexico has far more permissive abortion laws than Texas.

 

Rural areas more often cannot make it to the hospital in a more timely manner. Ie an hour drive vs five minutes in a big city.

It's not just a matter of poverty but also logistics.

 

Your idea of transportation in a big city is somewhat shocking.

 

Emergency vehicles don't follow the same rules you do.

 

True for laws on signs and lights.

But, when the road is packed, they still follow gravity.

 

Correlation does not imply causation

 

They don't care about any lives. It's all about control.

 

I'm willing to bet if you take overall health outcomes by state it will match the same. The study actually says that states that require licensed physicians to perform abortions are the biggest contributor to maternal mortality. Let that sink in. This isn't science, it's advocacy.

 

Because it restricts chess not because abortion has a higher mortality rate Do you know what my state did to reduce the Maternal Mortality rate?

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...aternal-mortality-rate-climbing-health-crisis

we have a phenomenally lower rate despite a country with a significant indigenous population spread over remote areas of the country. One of the things we did is develop “Best practice” guidelines. Our government sunk money into developing these and made them available on the open internet so a whole stack of Sian countries so use them

https://www.health.qld.gov.au/qcg/publications

Because we have a UHC we can request medical staff follow these guidelines so we can be assured the women are getting the most science based care available

 

No it doesn’t - that is what further research is for. Do you want to debate me on medical research???

 

I am betting we have a bigger problem with that than you do nd we have a maternal mortality rate one tenth of Americas

 

What's that got to do with anything? Why did you post a chart that ends in 2005, btw?

 

You need to learn the difference between correlation and causation. If you look at the risk factors of maternal mortality you'll find things like heart disease, obesity, etc. Having a licensed physician perform abortions isn't one of them. That's the science. That's what you look at if you're interested in "science based care."

In fact, to use your example of Australia.. only doctors can provide abortion care by law as well.

https://www.msiaustralia.org.au/abortion-law-in-australia

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth while contradicting yourself.

The fact is that states in the US with the worst overall health outcomes have the worst overall maternal health too. Crazy idea, but that's the reality. Basic logic.

 

Your opening post uses no medical research to draw the conclusions that you drew. You used correlated statistics without any legitimate inspection for causation. I'd love for you to provide actual medical research to defend the opening post. States with lower health outcomes have lower health outcomes for maternity care. Quantify the delta between having a doctor provide the abortion, like is required by law in Australia, and having a non-licensed doctor perform the abortion. What is the increased rate of maternal death due to laws that require a doctor to perform women's health care?

 

NO problems!

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010782421000901
peer reviewed and published

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306396
Not sure if this one is peer reviewed but the citations are good

https://www.whijournal.com/article/S1049-3867(23)00098-1/fulltext#secsectitle0015

i’lll post more in a minute as I review them. oh! And I will be looking globally not just the USA

 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12905-018-0705-y

https://www.bjanaesthesia.org/article/S0007-0912(22)00458-5/fulltext