home

Infant Mortality in the U.S.

by TChris

Why doesn't the Culture of Life focus on this?

An estimated 2 million babies die within their first 24 hours each year worldwide and the United States has the second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world, according to a new report.

American babies are three times more likely to die in their first month as children born in Japan, and newborn mortality is 2.5 times higher in the United States than in Finland, Iceland or Norway, Save the Children researchers found.

The "pro-life" movement's anti-contraception focus compounds the problem.

The report said that family planning and increased contraception use leads to lower maternal and infant death rates

Update: The GOP solution: a plan that could permit health insurers to "offer plans that exclude childhood immunizations and other important services."

< Bush Moves to Circumvent Court in Guantanamo Case | Bush Calls Iran Letter a 'Ploy' >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Infant Mortality in the U.S. (none / 0) (#1)
    by desertswine on Tue May 09, 2006 at 11:00:48 AM EST
    Why doesn't the Culture of Life focus on this?
    Because it's a problem only of the poor.

    Re: Infant Mortality in the U.S. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Tue May 09, 2006 at 11:01:12 AM EST
    No no, it can't be the fault of the Sex Police. It's gotta be the doctors' fault. Like teachers don't care about students, I guess docs just don't care about these babies. Sarcasm intended. Where are our priorities? Making war, making money, self-delusion.

    Re: Infant Mortality in the U.S. (none / 0) (#3)
    by jondee on Tue May 09, 2006 at 11:17:45 AM EST
    Predictable "screw em" wingnut responce: the poor dont practice good pre-natal care because the union corrupted teachers dont educate properly, and something,something about the welfare state, self reliance, "you liberals", and Gods punishment..etc

    Re: Infant Mortality in the U.S. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue May 09, 2006 at 11:20:10 AM EST
    They do, they tell them it is a sin to have sex with anyone but your spouse and that birth control is not part of god's plan. For those that do not listen, they deserve their fate, it is written in the bible that way, I believe it is in II Opinions 16:16 What, no dead blondes today?????

    Re: Infant Mortality in the U.S. (none / 0) (#5)
    by lilybart on Tue May 09, 2006 at 11:28:33 AM EST
    America DOES NOT HAVE THE BEST HEALTH CARE IN THE WORLD, only the most expensive. Read the blog, andytobias.com. He prints an article by Paul Craig Roberts listing all the reasons that America is no longer a superpower. Maybe one day people will get over their nationalism and see that Bush has destroyed AMerica.

    Re: Infant Mortality in the U.S. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dadler on Tue May 09, 2006 at 11:33:26 AM EST
    America has the best almost anything IF YOU CAN AFFORD TO GET IN THE DOOR. If you can't, America has some of the worst of anything. Anarchy more than democracy in terms of vital services.

    Re: Infant Mortality in the U.S. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Steven Sanderson on Tue May 09, 2006 at 12:03:13 PM EST
    The Culture Of Life: a more "humane" version of human sacrifice.

    Re: Infant Mortality in the U.S. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 09, 2006 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Specifically: White kids do okay; black infants have such abundant problems that it affects the national average. Check out this CDC study written last year (with stats from 1995-2002): Look at the stats for the District Of C. Black DC babies die at a rate of 17.2/1,000 live births, the worst rate in the country. We only lose 3.7 white babies/1,000 in DC--the best rate in the country. Same region. Not the same health system. Shameful.

    Re: Infant Mortality in the U.S. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Johnny on Tue May 09, 2006 at 02:27:59 PM EST
    Well, those pesky brown people will not be a problem for much longer, eh? *sarcasm*

    Re: Infant Mortality in the U.S. (none / 0) (#10)
    by jen on Tue May 09, 2006 at 02:59:55 PM EST
    the numbers are worse in some inner cities. the 'culture of life' is newspeak

    Re: Infant Mortality in the U.S. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 09, 2006 at 03:32:36 PM EST
    The US does tend towards more heroic measures to keep very premature babies alive, so that where you get still births in some countries you get Infant Mortality in the US. Another problem, especially in inner cities, is children born to those currently taking drugs. Drug taking pregnant women are VERY hard to dissuade, and while I'm sure you can work up an indignant narrative with regard to that part of the issue, it isn't just an evil Bush issue. Canad has a very similar problem with FAS births and deaths in its aboriginal community. Circle of dependency, addiction, etc, but with a VERY generous welfare system devoted to aboriginals on and off reserve... Any actual solutions are near impossible, though blaming someone's easy. Love to see the people here offer solutions (that haven't been tried and shown to fail) rather than just yell.

    Re: Infant Mortality in the U.S. (none / 0) (#12)
    by roy on Tue May 09, 2006 at 03:48:44 PM EST
    Hey,
    The US does tend towards more heroic measures to keep very premature babies alive, so that where you get still births in some countries you get Infant Mortality in the US.
    That's plausible, espcially as the US scored reasonably well on the Index overall; got any numbers to back it up?

    Re: Infant Mortality in the U.S. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Sailor on Tue May 09, 2006 at 04:20:55 PM EST
    The US does tend towards more heroic measures to keep very premature babies alive
    yeah, white babies who's parents have $$.

    Re: Infant Mortality in the U.S. (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 09, 2006 at 04:30:18 PM EST
    et al - We need National Health Care. That's a given. But what does this:
    The report said that family planning and increased contraception use leads to lower maternal and infant death rates
    mean? That if you have fewer pregnancies you will have fewer children so you will have fewer problems. Lilybart writes:
    Maybe one day people will get over their nationalism and see that Bush has destroyed AMerica.
    Uh-huh. In six years he has destroyed the health care system. Yeah. Sure. BTW - Have you heard of the Medicare Rx program??? I seem to remember Bush pushed it through despite the complaints of the Demos.

    Re: Infant Mortality in the U.S. (none / 0) (#15)
    by jen on Tue May 09, 2006 at 05:36:17 PM EST
    Drug taking pregnant women are VERY hard to dissuade, and while I'm sure you can work up an indignant narrative with regard to that part of the issue, it isn't just an evil Bush issue. Canad has a very similar problem with FAS births and deaths in its aboriginal community. Circle of dependency, addiction, etc, but with a VERY generous welfare system devoted to aboriginals on and off reserve... Any actual solutions are near impossible, though blaming someone's easy.
    Oh, well thats different then. No need to try to do anything then.

    Re: Infant Mortality in the U.S. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Nowonmai on Tue May 09, 2006 at 05:43:05 PM EST
    This sort of statistic is typical of the "Love the Fetus, hate the child" mentality of the anti-choice groups. Especially when it mostly effects the poor. Now if the infant mortality rate was hitting the upper middle class, you just know current admin would get off their collectives @sses and get something done to counter it.

    Re: Infant Mortality in the U.S. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Aaron on Tue May 09, 2006 at 09:47:48 PM EST
    This issue highlights one of the most deeply felt flaws in our representative democracy. In a country where almost anyone can have a voice and affect the political spectrum with their vote, children are left almost completely out of the equation. Since they don't vote, they have no representatives who specifically look out for their interests, other than the few groups, most of which are not-for-profit organizations supported by donations. History has shown that in any democracy, those without a voice are always left to pick up an inordinate percentage of the burden. This is why in America whenever there's an economic downturn, the group that is most quickly affected and suffers the most, before any minority or ethnic group, are the children of our society. Followed closely by the women who take care of them. Young people are just as much human beings as adults. It's about time that our society started recognizing this fact and allow them adequate representation within our government. Children's rights need to be enumerated and protected, just as everyone else's are. And in the US, nothing short of a constitutional amendment can achieve this. Perhaps when homosexuals achieve civil rights in this country, maybe then we'll give some thought to the most vulnerable and most underrepresented group in our country and on our planet... our children.

    Re: Infant Mortality in the U.S. (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 10, 2006 at 06:48:35 AM EST
    Aaron writes:
    they have no representatives who specifically look out for their interests,
    Repeat after me. "Parents. Grandparents. Brothers. Sisters. Aunts. Uncles. Cousins. Social Services. Schools." You write:
    This is why in America whenever there's an economic downturn, the group that is most quickly affected and suffers the most, before any minority or ethnic group, are the children of our society
    Are you saying that the parents of the children stop feeding, etc., when they lose a job? Can you provide any proof of the above? et al - Again, as a supporter of National Health care I think we must change our system. In the meantime, broading the conversation to "children's rights," etc., merely diffuses the issue. Or as an instructor told me one time, "Focus on the target, Jim. Focus."

    Re: Infant Mortality in the U.S. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Aaron on Wed May 10, 2006 at 06:41:37 PM EST
    JimakaPPJ Your don't have any children do you? There's tons of proof which backs up all my assertions, but there's no point in me listing some of them for you because you're not really interested are you? [insults deleted]