AmnestyInternational: In the U.S., Too Many Women Dying While Having Babies

Time ^ | Friday March 12th 2010 | JENNIFER BLOCK

[Cardhu]

Amnesty International may be best known to American audiences for bringing to light horror stories overseas such as the disappearance of political activists in Argentina or the abysmal conditions inside South African prisons under apartheid. But in a new report on pregnancy and childbirth care in the U.S., Amnesty details the maternal health care crisis in this country as part of a systemic violation of women's rights.

The report, titled "Deadly Delivery," notes that the likelihood of a woman dying in childbirth in the U.S. is five times greater than in Greece, four times greater than in Germany, and three times greater than in Spain. Every day in the U.S., more than two women die of pregnancy-related causes, with the maternal mortality ratio doubling from 6.6 deaths per 100,000 births in 1987 to 13.3 deaths per 100,000 births in 2006. (And as shocking as these figures are, Amnesty notes that the actual number of maternal deaths in the U.S. may be a lot higher since there are no federal requirements to report these outcomes and since data collection at the state and local levels needs to be improved.) "In the U.S., we spend more than any country on health care, yet American women are at greater risk of dying from pregnancy-related causes than in 40 other countries," says Nan Strauss, the report's co-author, who spent two years investigating the issue of maternal mortality worldwide. "We thought that was scandalous." (See the most common hospital mishaps.)

[RKBA Democrat]

“We’ve put more limits on childbirth in this country than we have on abortion. It’s sickening. I searched high and low to find a doctor to perform my VBAC when I had my 2nd daughter last year. Couldn’t find one in the area.”

That’s strange. They’re done in tidewater, so long as you’ve had only one c-section. If you’ve had two, fahgettaboutit.

I agree with your point, though, that there is a stampede toward interventions. It’s almost as if natural childbirth is a bad thing. Which probably explains, in part, the higher mortality rate. I think that the bulk of the rest of it can be explained due to the rotten health of mothers.

Medicine can only do so much and has to work with the hand it’s dealt. If that “hand” is a mother who was already 100 lbs overweight with poor diet who doesn’t show up for prenatal visits, well then the results are predictable.

[Natural Born 54]

You are correct - it is BS and in Ann Coulter's multi-part series on liberal lies about U.S. health care, she explains:

"But the international comparisons in "infant mortality" rates aren't comparing the same thing, anyway. We also count every baby who shows any sign of life, irrespective of size or weight at birth.

By contrast, in much of Europe, babies born before 26 weeks' gestation are not considered "live births." Switzerland only counts babies who are at least 30 centimeters long (11.8 inches) as being born alive. In Canada, Austria and Germany, only babies weighing at least a pound are considered live births.

And of course, in Milan it's not considered living if the baby isn't born within driving distance of the Côte d'Azur.

By excluding the little guys, these countries have simply redefined about one-third of what we call "infant deaths" in America as "miscarriages."

Moreover, many industrialized nations, such as France, Hong Kong and Japan -- the infant mortality champion -- don't count infant deaths that occur in the 24 hours after birth. Almost half of infant deaths in the U.S. occur in the first day."

That's just one of the reasons Amnesty International's claims are bogus. She covers them and the above in this article:

A STATISTICAL REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF MARITIME UNEMPLOYMENT RATES, 1946-1948. JUST KIDDING -- MORE LIBERAL LIES ABOUT NATIONAL HEALTH CARE!

(there are more health care articles in her ARCHIVES)

[Rebelbase]

No comment. I’ze dont knows nuthin bout birthin no babies.

[Pollster1]

A sixteen or seventeen year old woman is far more likely to have a safer pregnancy than a 35 year old is.

Yes ... and no.

"A" 16-17 y/o is generally much healthier and more flexible than a 35y/o, so she should be better able to handle childbirth. However, the 16-17 y/o girls who have babies at that age in the US today are often in poor health, on drugs, receiving little or no prenatal care, and have multiple other risk factors.

[2CAVTrooper]

“Too Many Women Dying While Having Babies”

Think it’s bad now, just wait until 0bamacare.

[Natural Born 54]

Well, that was a prissy post! :-)

[Old Teufel Hunden]

""We need to make sure that we reduce the overuse of interventions that are not always necessary, like C-sections, and increase access to the care that we know is good for mothers and babies, like labor support."

I wonder if this is the crux of the problem. Too many women are having C-sections that really don't need it. I know that it's a normal procedure, however surgery is surgery. Any surgery no matter how normal can have complications. Look at Murtha, he want in for a normal surgical procedure (gall bladder surgery) and he ended up dead. You know he had the best medical care available. If you don't need surgery, you shouldn't get it.

[Wisconsinlady]

Where is AI now that Christians are being slaughtered right now in Nigeria by Muslims?

[a fool in paradise]

The cure is more abortions, now!

[Cardhu]

A normal vaginal birth is two days at the most a C-section four, five or more days hospitalization. Just good business for any hospital at the rate per day they charge even without treatment.

I wonder?

[metmom]

They need to work on real problems in the world.

Like TROP’s treatment of women.

[metmom]

If these statistics are accurate, it probably has a lot to do with the very low birth rate in Europe. If a woman has 0-1 children, she is a loss less likely to have complications during childbirth.

Details, details.....

[rogertarp]

Too many babies dieing while having mothers!!!

[AnAmericanMother]

Over 40? I doubt it. Not "a lot". I haven't seen any numbers, but a first at 40 is quite rare.

Now, there HAS been a big increase in the number of primaparas over 30. More women working. I'm an example of that myself, had my first at (just barely) 33.

But my mom had me, the first, at 30, and her mother had her (her first) at age 31, in 1926. And dad's mom had him at 34 (though he was the third). So our family have been slow begetters like for a long time.

[AnAmericanMother]

Now, Prissy, they may be tacky, but they ain't all that bad!

[scannell]

Well there is only one sure way to fix that and that is to expand abortion exponentially.

[Pinkbell]

Ew, that is so disgusting.

[the OlLine Rebel]

“Amnesty details the maternal health care crisis in this country as part of a systemic violation of women’s rights.”

Give me a break!!!!!

They’ll do ANYTHING to say the US is just as bad as some Moslem rat-hole.

What a tenuous, specious connection from “childbirth death” to “violation of rights”.

And there’s no “crisis”, unless you make everyone think so by repeating the lie.

What a bunch of hippie freaks.

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

How many deaths are of illegals who have had no health care in their own countries and bring their frail bodies here for delivery?

Also, how many are crack or heroin users whose health is in the toilet before they ever enter a hospital door?

Amnesty International is desperate to keep attacking the US. Next it will be kitchen sink bacteria.

[driftdiver]

In England they are pushing midwives. I guess if the woman dies at home it doesn’t count.