Rates of infant mortality in the U.S. increased after Supreme Court limited abortion access

[essentialsaltes]

Infant deaths have increased in the United States since the Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe vs. Wade and allowed states to make abortion illegal, researchers reported Monday.

The findings, reported Monday in the journal JAMA Pediatrics, were seen as a clear sign that the Dobbs decision has prevented some women from terminating pregnancies that otherwise would have ended in abortion.

“There’s a really straightforward mechanism here,” said Alison Gemmill, a demographer and perinatal epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“Prior to these abortion bans, people had the option to terminate if the fetus was found to have a severe congenital anomaly — we’re talking about organs being outside of the body and other things that are very severe and not compatible with life,” Gemmill said. However, if women in these situations had no choice but to continue their pregnancies, “those babies would die shortly after birth,” she said.

Gemmill said the new findings are in line with her own research, including a study published in June that documented a nearly 13% increase in infant mortality in Texas in the wake of a 2021 state law that banned abortions after about the sixth week of pregnancy. Deaths due to congenital anomalies in particular rose by 23% while they were falling in the rest of the country, that study found.

see also

 

[johansen]

I've given this example before elsewhere of our local power grid is trying to run a powerline through a wetland, so they can set a precedent. rather than what is better, cheaper, and more redundant, to run the line elsewhere.

It is very likely we see lots of this exact nonsense happening when doctors remain afraid of the law and so they keep the letter of the law but forget the intent, as an attempt to get the law changed.

There is a story recently I'm not sure I believe it, of a 17 yr old who died of anaphylaxis in idaho because the law says the doctors needed parental permission to touch the minor. So they couldn't give him an epipen because they couldn't contact the parents.

yet they forget the intent of the law, their own hippocratic oath, etc. Intentionally in my opinion.

Because if they gave women common sense abortions, the law restricting abortions wouldn't be a moral failure, or even a problem.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Because if they gave women common sense abortions, the law restricting abortions wouldn't be a moral failure, or even a problem.

State laws that make abortion illegal do not have exceptions for "common sense".

 

[essentialsaltes]

What are you trying to say here?

“There’s a really straightforward mechanism here,” said Alison Gemmill, a demographer and perinatal epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“Prior to these abortion bans, people had the option to terminate if the fetus was found to have a severe congenital anomaly — we’re talking about organs being outside of the body and other things that are very severe and not compatible with life,” Gemmill said. However, if women in these situations had no choice but to continue their pregnancies, “those babies would die shortly after birth,” she said.

 

[johansen]

State laws that make abortion illegal do not have exceptions for "common sense".

The federal laws and the hippocratic oath trump state law and will eventually hold up in court

 

[Tinker Grey]

The federal laws and the hippocratic oath trump state law and will eventually hold up in court

That's not even english.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The federal laws ... trump state law and will eventually hold up in court

Currently the federal law requiring emergency healthcare does not trump state laws banning abortion.

The Supreme Court on Monday left in place a court order blocking the Biden administration from enforcing in Texas its policy of requiring hospitals to provide emergency abortion care or risk losing federal funding.

The high court’s handling of both the Idaho and Texas cases leaves unanswered questions about whether, under a law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, federally-funded hospitals must offer abortions to emergency patients with pregnancy complications putting their health at risk – even in states that ban the procedure.

Texas, joined by other plaintiffs, successfully sued to halt Biden administration guidance to hospitals asserting that EMTALA trumps state abortion bans.

 

[comana]

You've given me a hypothetical @essentialsaltes

A child might die of natural causes if we can't kill them first so we must kill them first isn't a compelling argument for killing children.

No, this is a child will die from congenital issues. Requiring a woman to carry to term puts her at greater risk because all pregnancies have risk that increases into delivery.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You've given me a hypothetical @essentialsaltes

It is a fact that infant mortality is increased.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

To me, this indicates that there's a need for a stronger codification for the exception cases, not an argument for a "no-restrictions" system of abortion access.

Leaving my own personal views on the matter aside...

In general (on just about any topic), a failure of one extreme isn't a de facto validation of the other extreme.

It'd be like saying "The rates of injury or getting trapped in a car due to a malfunctioning seatbelt rose after mandatory seatbelt laws went into effect...see!, we should just go back to having no seatbelt restrictions. These dozen token outlier examples would still be alive today if weren't for them being made to wear a seatbelt... before the seat belt laws, there were only 10 people who died from being trapped in a burning car, after the seatbelt laws, there were 15. That's a 50% increase in deaths due to being trapped in a burning car, 50% is a huge number!"


Same applies here:
Abortions being sought for fetal/maternal health reasons is under 3%

The overwhelming majority (>95%) are from "whoops, I fooled and around and didn't mean to get pregnant, I want out of this predicament".

The latter are trying to build their case on the narratives of the former because it's more "noble-sounding"

Sort of like when all the potheads built their entire "weed legalization" narrative on the 2% of people who were using it for cancer reasons (when they know full well the overwhelming majority just wanted to get high because it's fun...full disclosure, pot is fun and should be legal)


But how about this:

If I were a hypothetical "king", and enacted a law tomorrow.... Exceptions for rape/health were 100% enshrined, codified, set it stone, iron clad...if at any point in a pregnancy, the fetal health and/or maternal health was the issue, abortion access...no questions asked, and the government will pay for it.

But for the 97% that are "whoops" moments...those are capped between 12-16 weeks like the Scandinavian countries do it.

Would the pro-choice side in the US get on board with that? Or would they have objections?

Discuss...

 

[rambot]

I've given this example before elsewhere of our local power grid is trying to run a powerline through a wetland, so they can set a precedent. rather than what is better, cheaper, and more redundant, to run the line elsewhere.

It is very likely we see lots of this exact nonsense happening when doctors remain afraid of the law and so they keep the letter of the law but forget the intent, as an attempt to get the law changed.

There is a story recently I'm not sure I believe it, of a 17 yr old who died of anaphylaxis in idaho because the law says the doctors needed parental permission to touch the minor. So they couldn't give him an epipen because they couldn't contact the parents.

yet they forget the intent of the law, their own hippocratic oath, etc. Intentionally in my opinion.

Because if they gave women common sense abortions, the law restricting abortions wouldn't be a moral failure, or even a problem.

You think the people looking into these woman's faces are INTENTIONALLY trying to not solve their health issues and you think an elected government official is doing anything to help those doctors?

Giving doctors less respect than politicians is not a good look.

For anyone. Ever.

 

[rambot]

To me, this indicates that there's a need for a stronger codification for the exception cases, not an argument for a "no-restrictions" system of abortion access.

Leaving my own personal views on the matter aside...

In general (on just about any topic), a failure of one extreme isn't a de facto validation of the other extreme.

It'd be like saying "The rates of injury or getting trapped in a car due to a malfunctioning seatbelt rose after mandatory seatbelt laws went into effect...see!, we should just go back to having no seatbelt restrictions. These dozen token outlier examples would still be alive today if weren't for them being made to wear a seatbelt... before the seat belt laws, there were only 10 people who died from being trapped in a burning car, after the seatbelt laws, there were 15. That's a 50% increase in deaths due to being trapped in a burning car, 50% is a huge number!"


Same applies here:
Abortions being sought for fetal/maternal health reasons is under 3%

The overwhelming majority (>95%) are from "whoops, I fooled and around and didn't mean to get pregnant, I want out of this predicament".

The latter are trying to build their case on the narratives of the former because it's more "noble-sounding"

Sort of like when all the potheads built their entire "weed legalization" narrative on the 2% of people who were using it for cancer reasons (when they know full well the overwhelming majority just wanted to get high because it's fun...full disclosure, pot is fun and should be legal)


But how about this:

If I were a hypothetical "king", and enacted a law tomorrow.... Exceptions for rape/health were 100% enshrined, codified, set it stone, iron clad...if at any point in a pregnancy, the fetal health and/or maternal health was the issue, abortion access...no questions asked, and the government will pay for it.

But for the 97% that are "whoops" moments...those are capped between 12-16 weeks like the Scandinavian countries do it.

Would the pro-choice side in the US get on board with that? Or would they have objections?

Discuss...

I think that characterizing the previous situation before Roe got dumped, as an "extreme", isn't quite appropriate. Nor is anyone that I've seen ever really advocating for late term other than health and safety of mom stuff.

But as for your discussion, I think what you lay is quite acceptable..maaaaybe I'd say up to 20 (or 18).

In fact, whether legal or not, wasn't that essentially how abortion was being provided for in the US.... I mean...really?
When I did social work, the "oops" women I know didn't sit and consider for months. They knew RIGHT away they should NOT be a mom.

I mean, I think every single prochoice person I knew to the tee would advocate for that. I'm not sure that's the "centrist" position many think it is.

 

[johansen]

You think the people looking into these woman's faces are INTENTIONALLY trying to not solve their health issues and you think an elected government official is doing anything to help those doctors?

Giving doctors less respect than politicians is not a good look.

yes. there is intention here.

hospitals and doctors are more afraid of getting caught breaking a law than doing the right thing... that is if the gov finds out the law was broken.

the law is broken, i can grant this argument that. i'm not arguing the law is sound.

but letting a minor die because you can't contact the parents to admister an epipen? that's insanity. intentional insanity.

if doctors/admin are afraid of going to jail because a jury of 12 citizens are going to convict them of breaking a law... to save a life..

they should not be doctors.

 

[rambot]

yes. there is intention here.

hospitals and doctors are more afraid of getting caught admistering reasonable care... than they are afraid of getting fined, or sued, if the gov finds out the law was broken. that is .. if they find out. they don't have to.

the law is broken, i can grant this argument that. i'm not arguing the law is sound.

but letting a minor die because you can't contact the parents to admister an epipen? that's insanity. intentional insanity.

if doctors/admin are afraid of going to jail because a jury of 12 citizens are going to convict them of breaking a law... to save a life..

they should not be doctors.

If politicians INSIST on writing laws that compromises the doctors ability to do their job unencumbered, I would posit that perhaps politicians are the problem.

 

[johansen]

If politicians INSIST on writing laws that compromises the doctors ability to do their job unencumbered, I would posit that perhaps politicians are the problem.

i agree with you there.

so what do you do about it?

if the doctors are going to be personally liable to the judgement of the law, then they should leave. -or provide common sense care and let the courts decide later.

let the people of the state face the consequences of their laws and quit whining about it. they might repent after the consequences of their sin become known.

 

[johansen]

That's not even english.

last you looked in a history book, what happened when a state tried not paying taxes to the feds, or left the union?

 

[comana]

i agree with you there.

so what do you do about it?

if the doctors are going to be personally liable to the judgement of the law, then they should leave. -or provide common sense care and let the courts decide later.

let the people of the state face the consequences of their laws.

We need to remove these laws from medical decisions. Let medical ethics boards determine what will be acceptable medical practice for licensed physicians and not legislators or voters.

 

[johansen]

We need to remove these laws from medical decisions. Let medical ethics boards determine what will be acceptable medical practice for licensed physicians and not legislators or voters.

Sure: but who will appoint the medical ethics board members and how do they determine the rules?


It seems fine by me that states restrict abortions to that which is medically necessary to result in a 99% chance of the woman survives in childbirth and delivers a child that has 90% chance of survival to 5 years.

reality is my numbers there would be considered barbaric.

the current mortality rate for women in childbirth is 22/100000 or .022%.

globally the under five survival rate is 96%

to reduce insurance costs we should abort if the child is not expected to be 99% likely to live to the age of 5.

i actually have nothing wrong with making this a law.

but thinking that you can justify not aborting when there's a 10% chance the mother or child would die? that's insanity. the health insurance companies should volunteer to pay the fines.. because that child and the mother don't die instantly. they incur lots of medical bills in the process.

 

[comana]

Sure: but who will appoint the medical ethics board members and how do they determine the rules?


It seems fine by me that states restrict abortions to that which is medically necessary to result in a 99% chance of the woman survives in childbirth and delivers a child that has 90% chance of survival to 5 years.

reality is my numbers there would be considered barbaric.

the current mortality rate for women in childbirth is 22/100000 or .022%.

globally the under five survival rate is 96%

to reduce insurance costs we should abort if the child is not expected to be 99% likely to live to the age of 5.

i actually have nothing wrong with making this a law.

but thinking that you can justify not aborting when there's a 10% chance the mother and child would die? that's insanity. the health insurance companies should volunteer to pay the fines.. because that child and the mother don't die instantly. they incur lots of medical bills in the process.

The boards already exist. Ethical practice for abortion in viable gestational age already exist. Doctors have their own ethical limits. We don’t need laws to define and ultimately hinder appropriate medical decisions. Laws limiting medical decision making are producing negative outcomes now. This is the result of thinking legislators and voters knowing better than medical professionals and their patients.

 

[JSRG]

I think that characterizing the previous situation before Roe got dumped, as an "extreme", isn't quite appropriate. Nor is anyone that I've seen ever really advocating for late term other than health and safety of mom stuff.

But as for your discussion, I think what you lay is quite acceptable..maaaaybe I'd say up to 20 (or 18).

In fact, whether legal or not, wasn't that essentially how abortion was being provided for in the US.... I mean...really?

Except what you say would be "quite acceptable" would have been, under the framework of Roe v. Wade, unconstitutional.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey did pull back on Roe a little, but even under that what you describe would be held unconstitutional. The abortion laws in liberal European countries like Sweden or Denmark, if passed in the United States, would be declared unconstitutional under Roe and Casey.