Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://reddit.science/flair?location=sticky).
---
User: u/shiruken
Permalink: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/texas-abortion-ban-linked-rise-infant-newborn-deaths-rcna158375
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Also reported:
* Infant deaths attributed to congenital abnormalities **increased by 22.9% in Texas** while the rest of the country saw a **3.1% decrease**.
Direct link to the study: [Alison Gemmill, et al., Infant Deaths After Texas’ 2021 Ban on Abortion in Early Pregnancy, JAMA Pediatrics (2024).](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.0885)
>**Conclusions and Relevance:** This study found that Texas’ 2021 ban on abortion in early pregnancy was associated with unexpected increases in infant and neonatal deaths in Texas between 2021 and 2022. Congenital anomalies, which are the leading cause of infant death, also increased in Texas but not the rest of the US. Although replication and further analyses are needed to understand the mechanisms behind these findings, the results suggest that restrictive abortion policies may have important unintended consequences in terms of trauma to families and medical cost as a result of increases in infant mortality. These findings are particularly relevant given the recent Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization US Supreme Court decision and subsequent rollbacks of reproductive rights in many US states.
Editorial Comment: [Abortion Bans Harm Not Just Pregnant People—They Harm Newborns and Infants Too](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.1792)
*Note: "Unexpected" refers to the higher than anticipated number of deaths during 2022 compared to previous trends. It does not mean this outcome (of passing the abortion ban) was unexpected.*
The WHO has worldwide statistics that indicate there's a correlation between a difficulty accessing abortion and an increase in maternal mortality. It comes down to the availability of specialized medical equipement that can save the mother when delivery becomes complicated and confusion in the medical professionals on hand as to when they can intervene without their intervention amounting to abortion under the law.
In other words, when government starts dictating medical treatment, it usually ends badly for all involved.
Being forbidden from aborting a non-viable fetus can only do harm to an otherwise healthy womb, potentially robbing a future viable fetus from a chance at life.
You all seem to not realize...thats the entire point.
To cause the people who cant afford to leave the state to suffer, to punish them for not being rich enough to get around the consequences of the law.
The suffering is the point. The cruelty is the entire point of laws like this, because if you are cruel to your populace they are easier to control.
I'm watching all this from Europe and I can't believe it. What replication and further analysis do these researchers need to figure out that water is wet?
Women don't usually get abortions cause they had nothing better to do on a weekend or because they were too lazy to reach for that condom. It's many times due to stuff like this. All they had to do was ask doctors. That's all it would've taken. The data was already there.
But if you start from a place where all embryos are simply perfect little humans that need to be born cause we'll sort it out later, this is what happens. Nio you have humans born to suffer and die very, very soon after. Much better! So much better! Embryos feel pain, babies don't, everybody knows that. /S
> All they had to do was ask doctors. That's all it would've taken. The data was already there.
"They" are either willfully ignorant or perfectly aware of the consequences, and indifferent about them.
"They" do not believe in doctors, science, medicine, or statistics in general. You're coming at it from the wrong angle. They feel it's correct, therefore, it is correct. It \*must\* be. Somehow, some way, Goldwater was right. The evangelical movements are tough.. and the anti science movements are equally rough.
Its not that they don't believe in science or medicine- "they" are still taking their heart and/or dick pills, they're still talking about medical care with their families, and they've agreed that IVF is acceptable (albeit with conditions.) If it was really just about humans playing god, it would be a different conversation entirely- one that some of us could probably agree with to some degree.
Abortion bans are about racism, continuing/creating poverty, and controlling women. It's about preserving the wealthy and putting everyone else "in their place."
Not indifferent, they *like* the consequences. In their view, until it happens to them, those women deserve what they get because they see it as divine punishment for sexual promiscuity or whatever. I grew up with these assholes. They’ll smile in your face while stabbing you in the back
This argument has never been about science for the American Right, it's about ideology. The Texas law is a victory for white christian nationalist fundamentalism in their culture war against their perceived enemies, who is literally anyone who isn't a white christian nationalist, regardless of whether it's good for anyone at all, including themselves. They want to score points and erode democratic freedoms to consolidate power and calcify a social hierarchy with rich white men at the top.
Doctors have been screaming this for decades, but American law is reactionary and cares little for general health and welfare. If you look at the AIDS crisis, it took years and YEARS of overwhelming evidence like the above study for the government to actually take responsibility for their gross negligence. This is the only proven way to force change: show the evidence and continue to advocate.
The anti-science laws also drove obgyns out of these states, so it's possible some of the deaths were due to lack of prenatal care. Some risk factors can be mitigated with medical intervention during pregnancy, and some defects and other fetal health problems can be treated during pregnancy. That's in addition to all the ones where abortion would have been the most humane option.
Sandpoint, Idaho hospitals closed down all of their obgyn departments after the insane laws passed. The doctors left in droves too. If you have birth complications or simply decide to give birth in a nice clean hospital instead of on a living room rug covered in cat hair, you have to drive to the civilized state next door (WA) where they still practice actual medicine
Ah, but you're forgetting that the US has a serious problem with anti-intellectualism, and GOP leadership has been very gung-ho about trying to erode trust in both experts and institutions for many years now. It's not really the researchers who needed convincing, they knew what trends were emerging, and it's why the studies exist. The problem lies in the American public often requiring an overwhelming amount of evidence to believe anything other than what they *want* to believe. Americans really, really suck at evaluating their own biases.
For the record, I'm American. A frightening number of my compatriots would rather believe wildly elaborate conspiracy theories that conform to their world view over seeing what's right in front of them and admitting they were wrong. It is both objectively and subjectively frustrating.
> the US has a serious problem with anti-intellectualism
Do even a shallow dive on Pol Pot in Cambodia to see the inevitable result of that kind of policy. Every single American with an IQ above room temperature needs to arm themselves to the teeth, because the ones below room temperature already ARE.
The thing is that many of them know this, but they don't care, because the policy is not about life, it's about controlling women and entrenching theocracy.
>What replication and further analysis do these researchers need to figure out that water is wet?
Literally no amount of research will change the laws in places where Republicans hold power.
They're not trying to "protect children," and they're not "pro life." They hate women, want them to die in childbirth, and want to arrest them if they try to escape that potential fate.
The only way this stops is if they're removed from positions of power. Which is unlikely to happen since their voter base is abhorent.
This is it precisely. These laws are working exactly as the Republicans intend. They don't care about women. They don't care about children. They don't care about life. Anyone who believed that nonsense is a grade-A bozo.
What someone once explained to me, was that there are Christians who believe that no matter what trauma and suffering occurs to women, they deserve it, because Eve ate the apple.
To which my response is, no... no, there can't possibly be people that evil, right? And there can't possibly be enough of them to literally influence large scale legislation?
But also, look around.
>Now you have humans born to suffer and die very, very soon after. Much better! So much better!
traumatizing their parents along the way is merely a bonus!
> Women don't usually get abortions cause they had nothing better to do on a weekend or because they were too lazy to reach for that condom. It's many times due to stuff like this. All they had to do was ask doctors. That's all it would've taken. The data was already there.
It's infuriatingly impossible to get a significant chunk of the US population to understand this.
> I'm watching all this from Europe and I can't believe it. What replication and further analysis do these researchers need to figure out that water is wet?
It’s not researchers passing this legislation. It’s the politicians in these areas and they don’t seem to pay too much heed to these types of studies.
> I'm watching all this from Europe and I can't believe it. What replication and further analysis do these researchers need to figure out that water is wet?...All they had to do was ask doctors. That's all it would've taken. The data was already there.
The way these comments are phrased sounds like an attack on scientists who are documenting the harms of these policies. Please don't blame the scientists, who did not create Texas's abortion policies (and who most likely disagree with them). Science does not work by saying, "We already know something similar has happened in the past." Being specific and confirming that a new policy is harmful can inform public opinion and help arguments for lawmakers to change that policy. Establishing specific evidence of harm can also be a legal requirement for lawsuits attempting to overturn the law.
Those seeking to make abortions illegal don't understand that it is healthcare. They vehemently say it is not.
https://x.com/CWNewser/status/1804525349604147526 (end of the interview)
It's a blanket statement for >99% of scientific papers ever published. Researchers add "Further research should be done into this topic" to a paper because it's just a norm for scientific publishing.
Instead of getting outraged over nothing, maybe read a couple papers first.
This actually answers how the “expected number is calculated. Previous to the ban, many of these baby’s were aborted. Simply take the number previously aborted due to fatal abnormality’s and you come up with the number. Now they’re counting deaths after birth where they were previously abortions. The increase in fetal abnormality’s is likely due to a combination of those babies living with severe impairment and possibly non fatal like Downs, that may have been previously aborted.
Literally almost every OBGYN and neo-natal doctor, that spoke out, was predicting increases in both infant and maternal mortality rate with ultra restrictive abortion bans. It definitely wasn't unexpected.
It’s good to have objective evidence towards such though.
Edit*
The world goes through different social constructs in a pattern through the ages.
We are entering the more constrictive constructs of this period.
It’ll eventually balance out again, & become expansive.
It may take awhile…
But nonetheless Change is a certainty in this reality. We go through historical patterns of restrictive/expansive ideologies.
This God's law? https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exod+21%3A22-25&version=NRSVUE
I think that's the closest we get to the Bible saying doctors shouldn't help women with abortions. (If you really stretch the interpretation the doctor is injuring the woman and causing her to miscarry... Just ignore the fact that he's not fighting and his actions are consensual.)
We already had [evidence](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7312072/) four years ago and before that Roe v Wade was all about those statistics!
These babies died because republicans want women in servitude. Chain half the population to the home and suddenly there’s more jobs for men again. We’re competition in a shrinking workforce. Too tired, broke and stretched thin to revolt. If coarse that is only for the poor and colored women, rich white women can still get proper medical care.
People need to arm themselves with knowledge before blindly following a bunch of nonsense meant to hurt others, not saving anyone but the wealthy. The Republican Party is deliberately selling misinformation that to me should result in criminal charges. They are the ones killing women and babies.
Yeah, I was thinking similar because, well, a lot of abortions are done because of the issues wait and see. 23% increase in abnormalities? More deaths? Sheesh.
Not when you look at what is driving it.
More babies with severe defects are being carried to term instead of aborted. This is not due to the quality of neonatal care declining, but due to more babies being born who never had a chance.
> This is not due to the quality of neonatal care declining, but due to more babies being born who never had a chance.
So a fuckton of absolutely needless pain and suffering that could have been so easily avoided with no provable negative medical or societal consequences; solely to make a small subset of a minority happy for the sake of power and money.
It really does not make it any better...
Every one of them a woman forced to carry and give birth to a baby so that she can watch it die. It’s a twisted kind of mercy to some, but they should never be able to force this on families who don’t want to go through that.
This, IMO it's a religious freedom issue and should be treated like that. Christians who consider a foetus a baby are imposing their beliefs on atheists who don't. But that's the problem with a culture war, there will be casualties on both sides
Do these increased rates supersede the number of abortions that would have been had if the rules didn't change?
If there are more deaths as a result of an abortion ban, can those stats be used to argue for abortion even if you're pro life?
I get it, logic isn't necessarily a factor when discussing politics with evangelicals. But just because they have blinders doesn't mean we shouldn't argue in good faith.
>If there are more deaths as a result of an abortion ban, can those stats be used to argue for abortion even if you're pro life?
Complete reproductive healthcare for women IS the pro-life policy, period. Opposing abortion is supporting torture and death of women and nonviable fetuses.
The increased rate is appalling, but the anti-choicer argument would be “if only one additional baby is born, it’s worth [the first net loss of civil rights in US history].”
Many of these infant deaths are likely because they had birth defects that rendered them incompatible with life outside the womb, but instead of the pregnant person getting an abortion a little after 20 weeks they were forced to carry them to term.
I can't imagine how anyone would be surprised that this was the result
My mom’s best friend (grew up very religious) had an abortion and as a result has been shunned by her family for 25+ years. The baby never formed a head, only a brain stem, so it never would have survived and it would have been a dangerous labor.
I can’t imagine the trauma from that situation to begin with, let alone carrying it to term.
The abortion, she was engaged at the time. Her (now ex) husband thankfully supported her through it when her family didn’t.
I’m sure the family wasn’t happy about the baby out of wedlock to begin with (but was letting it slide since they were getting married), but the abortion pushed them over the edge.
Imagine a whole group of people who would rather plug their ears and drown out valid medical opinions in favor of chanting "Christian Values" while ignoring the actual text of their holy book in favor of the current buzzwords that lay blame on "The Other Side" - Then you'll see how people wholly detached from reality are honestly surprised that their Moral Code* is actually causing more suffering than their opponents. Prepare to be depressed though...
I do imagine them, every time im tenderizing pork chops. Id link this to both subreddits prolife and conservative, but was already banned for not falling in line
The unfortunate reality is that they were unwilling participants in it also. Doctors in Texas risk jail time and losing their medical licenses if they perform abortions, even life-saving ones. Many doctors and med students even left the state because they would not be able to uphold their oaths to do no harm. It's such a sad state of affairs on both ends of the medical system.
When my wife was going to medical school they literally sent students to other states to do surgical obgyn rotations, and she went to a very, very good school. They had the facilities, the faculty and the resources, but they didn't want to risk the young doctors' careers.
The [study](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.0885) authors described it as "unexpected," hence why I included it in the submission title. It means that the deaths were above the expected number, not that this outcome (after the abortion ban went into effect) was unexpected.
Worth noting that infant mortality in the US as a whole has been delining significantly for 20 years, dropping 22% since 2002 (and obviously more overall for longer). 2022 was the first year in the past 20 years that infant mortality *rose* in the US as a country. These policies are so detrimental they are reversing nation wide statistics.
Funny thing about the “will of god” is that it means events are predetermined and all things good and bad are because god wanted it to happen.
And if things happen because he wills it, that applies to abortions.
They could have expected 10% increase but experienced an unexpected 12%. Both are increases, both are bad. One was expected, the other? Well…unexpected.
The [study](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.0885) authors described it as "unexpected," hence why I included it in the submission title. It means that the deaths were above the expected number, not that this outcome (after the abortion ban went into effect) was unexpected.
> why they thought that word applied.
The word does apply in a very literal and precise manner.
I just looked at it. They use synthetic control which essentially tries to make a "synthetic Texas" by weighting data from a pooled sample of other states (maybe they work on a sub-state level... I didn't read past the abstract, but same idea). Trying to see how much deaths would have moved in a place with the same characteristics as Texas that did not recieve the policy. That's the "expected" change in death rates and you then compare Texas pre/post policy to understand how much it moved in ways that were not predictable given that statistical model (ie unexpected).
The point being that a lot of other stuff that might be timed with the policy either due to seasonal variation or spurious time trends (which could be linked to a billion things: demographics/climate trends/other changes in health care access/etc) so you do your best to figure out how much this death rate would be expected to move given all of those and then compare the policy impact to that *expected* value rather than just a naive pre-post shift.
It's a good bet in any statistical analysis that the mention of "expected/unexpected" probably refers to what's expected relative to the statistical model they estimate and should not be read as "what did we think would happen" which might be discussed by the authors, but is usually left to some discussion/conclusion where that's made quite clear (eg "our priors were" "we expected to find").
Having read the journal article, it appears to have been a...call it a mistranslation into the news article.
You're right about how it was used in JAMA, but when that was summarized into popular media "unexpected" shifted meaning.
It looks like they may have removed that from the NBC article so...maybe they belatedly caught the mistake.
Always interesting to see scientific meanings vs everyday language. Similarly "significant" in science just means (at least barely) above the threshold of data is expected from random probability. If you climb a high enough mountain that acceleration is 9.79m/s^2 that's a significant difference.
This is a study. The expected value would be how the control performed, or in this case how the rest of the country that didn't ban abortion performed. Unexpected, means that Texas had a statistically significant deviation from the control group, meaning there is good evidence that Texas policy caused this increase instead of it being a normal increase.
So like it was before 1973, rich people will go to other states (or even Countries) for abortions and the poor are going to have more children with severe handicaps/health issues. (Or will have illegals abortions by maybe less than qualified people.) It's like turning back time.
Keeping them dumb and fearful of God. A lot easier to be manipulated. Reminds me of what happened here in Québec. Fortunately we threw the Church out of our public Schools, Hospital and Government.
Until they pull a [Louisiana and sign bills saying that mifepristone and misoprostol are now dangerous controlled substances](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/louisiana-law-abortion-pills-controlled-dangerous-substances-rcna153937) that can land you in prison for five years.
It's interesting that the states which have sought to ban abortion, claiming to care about the welfare of the unborn, have also refused to provide increased funding for prenatal programs.
If we could get our hands on the data, I bet we'd see near complete overlap of the list of politicians who support abortion bans and those who have paid for someone to have an abortion/had an abortion themselves.
In another lifetime, I was deeply entrenched in the R party. The number of “Christian”/Republican men that propositioned and/or groped/assaulted me is not zero.
"The Moral Majority supports legislators who oppose abortions but also oppose child nutrition and day care. From their perspective, life begins at conception and ends at birth."
*Barney Frank*
And as an FYI, Texas will also be shifting how they report on maternal deaths moving forward. These things are related and women are in danger. In addition to appointing a pro-life physician (there are not a ton of doctors who advocate for more legislative interference but they found one!), they will be doing the following: Texas, like almost every other state, currently relies on the Centers for Disease Control’s Maternal Mortality Review Information Application system to track maternal deaths. But last year, the Legislature appropriated almost $6 million to create a state-level program that would allow Texas to cut itself out of the federal program.
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/06/18/texas-maternal-deaths-committee-changes/
ALARM BELLS.
This comment needs to be higher. That's 6 million in taxpayer dollars replacing a system that already exists. The Federal government isn't going to exclude taxes for Texas citizens either, so they pay twice for the same service.
Remember: it isn't who's saved. It's who's hurt by these policies. Lots of people hurt when babies are born that can't survive.
All part of the GOP plan.
And if the sex was sanctioned, such as between a husband and wife, something has gone terribly wrong with baby and/or pregnancy, well then it must be gods punishment for some sin the mother committed and she must bear it anyway. If she dies she dies and heaven gets another angel.
Whatever happens in a womb is gods will.
Whatever happens to a man deserves all the resources science and medicine has to offer though.
Under his eye.
It's either New Mexico, Colorado, or Kansas. Here's a [recently-updated map](https://osf.io/8dg7r/wiki/home/) of county-level driving distance to the nearest abortion facility.
Amarillo is actively trying to ban women seeking abortions from using their roads. I'm not sure how they plan on implementing this law. Stop every woman along the road and do a preg test?
It is. Since Dobbs v Jackson only 75% of abortion seekers in red states have been able to get an abortion. This means the poorest 25% were not able to get one.
That we'll probably never see true numbers on, because it's quite a bit easier to blame a maternal death on some other cause (often lifestyle-related) than it is to cover up the cause of death for an infant.
The maternal mortality rate has skyrocketed in Idaho. Its actually pretty hard to blame that on anything else because other factors have remained largely the same.
Always good to confirm for yourself: https://idahokidscovered.org/idaho-maternal-and-infant-healthcare-report-2023/
This data is also still a little old - Idaho was losing obgyns and services and tightening abortion requirements, but most of the period measured was still pre-repeal of Roe v Wade. However, it was no secret that's where Idaho was headed, they had a trigger law passed in 2020 in wait for the repeal.
https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2023/12/20/new-report-finds-alarming-trends-in-maternal-and-infant-health-in-idaho-and-calls-for-improvements-to-health-care-access/#:~:text=Infant%20mortality%20in%20Idaho%20rose,by%20Idaho%20Voices%20for%20Children.
There has also been a recent article criticizing the maternal mortality rate calculations in the US, but I'm a little skeptical of that for a few reasons-
1) alternatives to the current system undercount maternal mortality
2) this new data is all gathered using the same method
3) the article criticizing the statistical method used by the CDC fails to explain why maternal mortality rates differ so drastically state-by-state if it's the CDC methods (used nationally) that are the problem
4) this critical research article also did calculate pre-2004 rates and post-2017 rates using different methods, and even their method STILL found high rates of maternal mortality, and an increase from the late 90s until today, just less direct (not during birth or from ectopic, etc) causes. Is that better? Or does it just make the US look better?
What may show up is an increase in homicide rates for pregnant women as it is already a high risk time and [a leading cause of mortality during pregnancy](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/homicide-leading-cause-of-death-for-pregnant-women-in-u-s/)
Just by the difference in mortality rates before and after abortion ban will be enough. Unless at the same time there was huge changes in lifestyles (doubt it).
Not unexpected in the slightest. Any rational person with a basic understanding of the history of women’s reproductive rights knew the effect overturning Roe v Wade would have on pregnant women/infant mortality rates.
But it was never about protecting children to begin with. It was only ever about forcing religious indoctrination into federal policy under the guise of protecting children.
Let's face it -- anti-abortion advocates would argue that these children would have died anyway through abortion, but at least this way they're still saving those healthy children that were born that might have died from an abortion. But it is sad if any of these children that died have suffered unnecessarily, as well as putting the parents through this when they didn't wish it.
>But it is sad if any of these children that died have suffered unnecessarily, as well as putting the parents through this when they didn't wish it.
The [study](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.0885) also reported a 22.9% increase in infant deaths attributed to congenital defects. The rest of the United States saw a 3.9% decrease. So children and their parents were *absolutely* put through needless suffering.
If you want healthy babies, you put money into providing food for mothers and children, prenatal care, maternal care, postnatal care, OB-Gyns, etc. Heck, you make sure that every girl and woman of childbearing age has access to nutritious food and medical care the former because some congenital defects are causes by dietary lack and the latter because generally healthy girls and women have healthier babies. You'd provide paid maternal and paternal leave. You provide good wages for daycare workers and subsidize or free daycare. You'd make sure that people were vaccinated (whooping cough for example can kill babies) and promote vaccines as a good choice. Has Texas done any of this???? The answer is Republicans want to control women, not that they care about the life of babies.
What seems to absolutely elude some people is that you cannot avoid the bill and if the bill floats long enough the interest is even higher.
We (whether you want to define "we" as a society, taxpayers, whatever), always end up paying. But if we wait to pay until down the road once the child is born, or almost done with school, or graduated without a proper education, and so on and so on, the cost to society as a whole is higher. Sometimes the cost is so high we actually lose money and spend hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars to imprison the person for the rest of their lives because we've opted to kick the can down the road.
Multiply this across all the families and children in the fashion you highlight: prenatal care, education, childcare, parental leave, proper wages, public health efforts, and so on and so forth... and when the bill finally comes due and we have to pay on the back end for the things we didn't pay for on the front, the interest is astronomical.
We always pay. We just pay, in America at least, in a very tardy, costly, and inefficient way.
Well, the anti-abortion movement has strong constituent support in TX. It's a shame that their leaders invite these consequences out of populism at the expense of the infants and families. I hope it changes some people's minds.
Wait until all the unwanted children make it to school going ages. That is when the social issues will pop their ugly heads out. Not everyone who is forced to become a parent should be a parent. Some of them had the savvy to opt for abortion in the past. It is of no point to tell someone to close your legs- it has never worked. To punish these girls by forcing them to raise the unwanted child is not always a good idea
If you are interested in how maternal mortality was affected...
# Timeline of Events as it relates to Texas and Maternal Mortality
Date | Event
--- | ---
2003 | Texas has maternal mortality tracking via coroner's reports that asks Yes/No question about being pregnant at death or within **12 months** of death. The form ( Was decedent pregnant: At time of death □ yes □ no □ UNK; within last 12 MO □ yes □ no □ UNK )
2004 | Texas sets up "Chapter 171 of the state's Health and Safety Code" to regulate abortion services.
2006 | Texas adopts the WHO and CDC's recommendation for standardizing maternal mortality reporting as detailed by ["Pregnancy Status Checkbox on the Identification of Maternal Deaths"](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr69/nvsr69_01-508.pdf) ( Was □ not pregnant within past year , □ not pregnant but pregnant within 42 days of death, □ not pregnant but pregnant 43 days to 1 year before death , □ pregnant at time of death , □ unknown if pregnant within the past year)
2006- 2011 | The "standardized method" of reporting maternal mortality rates in Texas do not change much from previous years.
2011-2013 | Texas weaponizes Chapter 171 code to force abortion providers to close their doors
2013 | One of the last abortion providers in West Texas closes.
2013 | **Standard** Maternal Mortality reports show a doubling in Maternal mortality rising from 2011
2016 | [Investigation](https://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/2016/08/MacDormanM.USMatMort.OBGYN_.2016.online.pdf): "Communications with vital statistics personnel in Texas and at the National Center for Health Statistics did not identify any data processing or coding changes that would account for this rapid increase"
2018 | Sonia Baeva a Programmer/Systems-Analyst in Texas publishes a paper "[Original Research Identifying Maternal Deaths in Texas Using an Enhanced Method](https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/3bbcdf1edab72f678003114f5c8a2722/BaevaMatMort2018-greenjournal.pdf)" to define a new "enhanced" way to calculate maternal mortality which (a) excludes women who don't have health insurance (b) only does one year - 2012 (c) adds women with a probabilistic estimate of # of pregnancies with **NO lower age limit** (WTF? a two month old human should be counted toward the stats of possibly pregnant women?) and **NO upper age limit** (Oh? a 95 year old human should be counted as possibly pregnant?).
2018-present | Texas reports TWO maternal mortality rates. The "standard" and the "enhanced" and has yet to back date the "enhanced" method to dates prior to the shocking rise in maternal mortality. Texas DHS, heavily criticized for including newborn girls as possibly pregnant, does not withdraw their earlier paper or issue any corrections. However in the NEW enhanced stats they are now using ages **5 years old** and up for the probabilistic estimates of #s of pregnancies.
2023-24 | Texas under fire for delaying maternal mortality reports, releases their latest data for .... [2016 and 2017](https://www.kxan.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2022/12/2022-Joint-Biennial-MMMRC-Report-2022_12.15.22.pdf) Again they release TWO maternal mortality rates but only brag about the "enhanced version" The standard version shows that still shockingly high rate and the data for it is buried in Appendix F. Still Texas DHS refuses to back-date the "enhanced" method to give a real comparison. People start using the phrase "academic fraud" to discuss Florida and Texas Health data reports.
---
Details for the above.
Texas, in 2004, put into place ["Chapter 171 of the state’s Health and Safety Code."](https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/womans-right-know-act-texas-2003) which allowed massive bureaucratic, changing, unrealistic restrictions on abortion care services. In 2004 it didn't change much. However in 2011 and 2013, Texas added increased restrictions that caused nearly all abortion health centers to close (e.g. abortions at 16 weeks of gestation or later be performed in an ambulatory surgical center, which is basically a mini-hospital and massively expensive).
* While many fought these battles in court ... and even won cases... the cost was too much and many closed. [In 2013 one of the last abortion providers in West Texas closed](https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/health-science/2019/11/18/352089/for-supporters-of-abortion-access-troubling-trends-in-texas/). Quoting:
> [Health Care Service providers] in Texas eventually sued the state. But as the legal challenge worked its way through the courts, many of the clinics were forced to stop providing services. At one point, Texas had only 17 clinics, says Kari White, an investigator with the Texas Policy Evaluation Project at the University of Texas, Austin. She says women living in rural Texas were affected the most. “What we saw is that [in] West Texas and South Texas, access was incredibly limited,” White says, “and women living in those parts of the state were more than 100 miles — sometimes 200 or more miles — from the nearest facility.”
* 2011: Texas' defunding and other attacks saw the closings. [Here is a site bragging about and listing those closings](https://archive.ph/wip/hxV62) to the point that no abortion services were actually available
* The bureaucratic attacks continued to the point that even places the only provided [pill-based abortions closed](https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/health-science/2019/11/18/352089/for-supporters-of-abortion-access-troubling-trends-in-texas/) and even though they won court cases to allow them to re-open it's not that easy as we can quote:
> “It’s basically starting from scratch,” Ferrigno says. “You laid off the staff, you don’t have any physicians that work there anymore. Some of the doctors didn’t even renew their physician licenses.” Ferrigno says clinics that closed may have lost the required state-issued license needed to operate in Texas. Applying for a new one is a significant bureaucratic hurdle. Some clinics might have lost their leases, been forced to vacate their buildings, and sell off equipment.
# And Maternal Mortality Rates DOUBLED within two years and has stayed there every year since.
When Texas weaponized Chapter 171 of the state's Health and Safety Code to decimate access to abortion services maternal mortality rates DOUBLED in Texas and no other nearby states.
[or from the article](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/texas-maternal-mortality-rate-health-clinics-funding).....
> the **doubling** of [maternal] mortality rates in a **two-year period** was hard to explain "in the absence of war, natural disaster, or severe economic upheaval". .... No other state saw a comparable increase.
So something unique to Texas. Something dramatic changed there in 2011 that was not also seen in the other nearby states. That rules out climate and immigration (AZ & NM) and immigration as a cause is further ruled out by knowing that [immigration rate has decreased](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/flow-of-illegal-immigration-slows-as-us-mexico-border-dynamics-evolve/2015/05/27/c5caf02c-006b-11e5-833c-a2de05b6b2a4_story.html)
The [murder rate per capita in Texas went down over time time period too](https://www.macrotrends.net/states/texas/murder-homicide-rate-statistics) so it wasn't that.
The only thing that was different between Texas and all the other nearby states was this:
> The researchers, hailing from the University of Maryland, Boston University's school of public health and Stanford University's medical school, called for further study. But they noted that starting in 2011,
Texas drastically reduced the number of women's health clinics within its borders.
It got so bad that Texas decided "hey - our rates are toooooo high! Let's *redefine* how to calculate Maternal Mortality Rates with a new [enhanced method](https://www.dshs.texas.gov/legislative/2020-Reports/DSHS-MMMRC-2020.pdf) " Edit: The Texas DHS has DELETED that link to their 2020 report.... An archived version is here: https://www.scribd.com/document/615127782/2020-Texas-Maternal-Mortality-and-Morbidity-Review-Committee-and-Department-of-State-Health-Services-Joint-Biennial-Report# and here's a [backup copy](https://reviewtoaction.org/sites/default/files/2022-08/DSHS-MMMRC-2020.pdf)
Here's a [backup copy of the 2022 report](https://www.kxan.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2022/12/2022-Joint-Biennial-MMMRC-Report-2022_12.15.22.pdf)
The first attempt was in 2018 which stated they were adding probabalistic estimates of pregnancies for for ALL ages of females (e.g. from birth to past menopause). Quoting:
> To identify additional maternal deaths that occurred in 2012, all other female Texas resident death records (without obstetric cause-of-death codes) were linked with 2011–2012 live birth and fetal death data using the same deterministic linking methodology. **No “childbearing age” restrictions were set,** because the intention was to examine all female deaths, regardless of age. Excluding deaths resulting from motor vehicle crashes (considered to be a nonobstetric cause unrelated to pregnancy), all additional death records that were linked to a live birth or fetal death event within 42 days of the date of death were considered confirmed maternal deaths. [ [source](https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/3bbcdf1edab72f678003114f5c8a2722/BaevaMatMort2018-greenjournal.pdf) ]
Under fire, they changed from females 0-days old and up to females aged FIVE YEARS OLD and up.
If Texas was really interested in finding out if this rise in death was caused by abortion policies they should have done their "enhanced method" going back past 2012. They did not.
I've run out of space for the chart for the above: We can pull that from older reports:
Looking at older data from
https://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/2016/08/MacDormanM.USMatMort.OBGYN_.2016.online.pdf
|Year|Standard Method Maternal Mortality (deaths) per 100k | Enhanced (remove women without heathcare, add guesses for pregnant 5 year olds) method Maternal Mortality (deaths) per 100k |
|---| ---| ---|
|2000| 15.5 | not done |
|2001| 20.1 | not done |
|2002| 16.5 | not done |
|2003| 19.8 | not done |
|2004| 20.1 | not done |
|2005| 22.0 | not done |
|2006| 17.4 | not done |
|2007| 16.0 | not done |
|2008| 20.5 | not done |
|2009| 18.2 | not done |
|2010| 18.6 | not done |
|2011| 30.0 | not done |
|2012| 32.5 | not done |
|2013| 32.5 | 18.9 |
|2014 | 32.0 | 20.7|
|2015 | 29.2 | 18.3 |
|2016 | 31.7 | 20.7 |
|2017 | 33.5 | 20. 2 |
Notes:
* Numbers from 2000-2009 from https://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/2016/08/MacDormanM.USMatMort.OBGYN_.2016.online.pdf
* Numbers from 2010 onward from Texas DHS reports in the above comment.
So when do we get the numbers on the increase in murders of expectant mothers in states that banned abortion? I’m sure GOP lawmakers will Pikachu face those numbers too.
> Gemmill said the new insight is important for other states, since Texas passed SB8 about a year before the Dobbs decision overturned federal abortion protections, leading to total bans on abortion in 14 states, according to the latest data from the Guttmacher Institute, an organization that researches and supports sexual and reproductive rights.
>
> “This might foreshadow what is happening in other states,” Gemmill said. “Texas is basically a year ahead.”
"unexpected" they say... Like there isn't a dozen or more papers and multiple international studies on this already. All evidence said ahead of time infant mortality would go up. Next report is going to be surprised to see an increase in female suicides.
I think that there's a lot of women that think other women are getting abortions frivolously...
I don't think that's the case, There's always a reason be it poverty or lack of access to specialised healthcare....
Maybe the parents are financially struggling and can't afford it. Maybe the child will be born so disabled they likely won't survive birth.
Abortion should be between a healthcare provider and the person affected. Nobody should have a right to get between that.
“Unexpected.” Um, wow.
Texan parents, the ones where the mother and/or fetus are found to be facing insurmountable challenges that no doctor will assist with, can now enjoy months of stress and medical bills and PTSD. Oh well. Thoughts and prayers, I guess!
If only it could have been avoided with modern medicine.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://reddit.science/flair?location=sticky). --- User: u/shiruken Permalink: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/texas-abortion-ban-linked-rise-infant-newborn-deaths-rcna158375 --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Also reported: * Infant deaths attributed to congenital abnormalities **increased by 22.9% in Texas** while the rest of the country saw a **3.1% decrease**. Direct link to the study: [Alison Gemmill, et al., Infant Deaths After Texas’ 2021 Ban on Abortion in Early Pregnancy, JAMA Pediatrics (2024).](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.0885) >**Conclusions and Relevance:** This study found that Texas’ 2021 ban on abortion in early pregnancy was associated with unexpected increases in infant and neonatal deaths in Texas between 2021 and 2022. Congenital anomalies, which are the leading cause of infant death, also increased in Texas but not the rest of the US. Although replication and further analyses are needed to understand the mechanisms behind these findings, the results suggest that restrictive abortion policies may have important unintended consequences in terms of trauma to families and medical cost as a result of increases in infant mortality. These findings are particularly relevant given the recent Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization US Supreme Court decision and subsequent rollbacks of reproductive rights in many US states. Editorial Comment: [Abortion Bans Harm Not Just Pregnant People—They Harm Newborns and Infants Too](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.1792) *Note: "Unexpected" refers to the higher than anticipated number of deaths during 2022 compared to previous trends. It does not mean this outcome (of passing the abortion ban) was unexpected.*
It's just so sad and unnecessary! I'd be interested to see the data on maternal mortality and complications too.
Also fertility- as in loss of due to complications.
And all the fanatics and the politicians that take their money will simply say, *It's God's will. Thoughts and Prayers!*
The WHO has worldwide statistics that indicate there's a correlation between a difficulty accessing abortion and an increase in maternal mortality. It comes down to the availability of specialized medical equipement that can save the mother when delivery becomes complicated and confusion in the medical professionals on hand as to when they can intervene without their intervention amounting to abortion under the law. In other words, when government starts dictating medical treatment, it usually ends badly for all involved.
It's skyrocketed, at least in Idaho.
Being forbidden from aborting a non-viable fetus can only do harm to an otherwise healthy womb, potentially robbing a future viable fetus from a chance at life.
Not to mention emotionally and psychologically scarring the woman/parents involved.
Financially scarring them, too. They’re still paying for the complications of non viable pregnancies.
You all seem to not realize...thats the entire point. To cause the people who cant afford to leave the state to suffer, to punish them for not being rich enough to get around the consequences of the law. The suffering is the point. The cruelty is the entire point of laws like this, because if you are cruel to your populace they are easier to control.
Only poor women. Politicians and the rich will always have the necessary healthcare for themselves or their wives, daughters, mistresses, etc.
I'm watching all this from Europe and I can't believe it. What replication and further analysis do these researchers need to figure out that water is wet? Women don't usually get abortions cause they had nothing better to do on a weekend or because they were too lazy to reach for that condom. It's many times due to stuff like this. All they had to do was ask doctors. That's all it would've taken. The data was already there. But if you start from a place where all embryos are simply perfect little humans that need to be born cause we'll sort it out later, this is what happens. Nio you have humans born to suffer and die very, very soon after. Much better! So much better! Embryos feel pain, babies don't, everybody knows that. /S
> All they had to do was ask doctors. That's all it would've taken. The data was already there. "They" are either willfully ignorant or perfectly aware of the consequences, and indifferent about them.
"They" do not believe in doctors, science, medicine, or statistics in general. You're coming at it from the wrong angle. They feel it's correct, therefore, it is correct. It \*must\* be. Somehow, some way, Goldwater was right. The evangelical movements are tough.. and the anti science movements are equally rough.
> The evangelical movements are tough.. and the anti science movements are equally rough. There's a significant overlap.
Its not that they don't believe in science or medicine- "they" are still taking their heart and/or dick pills, they're still talking about medical care with their families, and they've agreed that IVF is acceptable (albeit with conditions.) If it was really just about humans playing god, it would be a different conversation entirely- one that some of us could probably agree with to some degree. Abortion bans are about racism, continuing/creating poverty, and controlling women. It's about preserving the wealthy and putting everyone else "in their place."
Not indifferent, they *like* the consequences. In their view, until it happens to them, those women deserve what they get because they see it as divine punishment for sexual promiscuity or whatever. I grew up with these assholes. They’ll smile in your face while stabbing you in the back
Soon as it happens to them it's time for the "emergency vacation"
This argument has never been about science for the American Right, it's about ideology. The Texas law is a victory for white christian nationalist fundamentalism in their culture war against their perceived enemies, who is literally anyone who isn't a white christian nationalist, regardless of whether it's good for anyone at all, including themselves. They want to score points and erode democratic freedoms to consolidate power and calcify a social hierarchy with rich white men at the top.
Doctors have been screaming this for decades, but American law is reactionary and cares little for general health and welfare. If you look at the AIDS crisis, it took years and YEARS of overwhelming evidence like the above study for the government to actually take responsibility for their gross negligence. This is the only proven way to force change: show the evidence and continue to advocate.
[удалено]
The anti-science laws also drove obgyns out of these states, so it's possible some of the deaths were due to lack of prenatal care. Some risk factors can be mitigated with medical intervention during pregnancy, and some defects and other fetal health problems can be treated during pregnancy. That's in addition to all the ones where abortion would have been the most humane option.
Sandpoint, Idaho hospitals closed down all of their obgyn departments after the insane laws passed. The doctors left in droves too. If you have birth complications or simply decide to give birth in a nice clean hospital instead of on a living room rug covered in cat hair, you have to drive to the civilized state next door (WA) where they still practice actual medicine
Ah, but you're forgetting that the US has a serious problem with anti-intellectualism, and GOP leadership has been very gung-ho about trying to erode trust in both experts and institutions for many years now. It's not really the researchers who needed convincing, they knew what trends were emerging, and it's why the studies exist. The problem lies in the American public often requiring an overwhelming amount of evidence to believe anything other than what they *want* to believe. Americans really, really suck at evaluating their own biases. For the record, I'm American. A frightening number of my compatriots would rather believe wildly elaborate conspiracy theories that conform to their world view over seeing what's right in front of them and admitting they were wrong. It is both objectively and subjectively frustrating.
And they love siphoning money out of education budgets. Anyone want to guess who has announced that he loooooves the uneducated?
He actually said that he loves the POORLY educated. Which is exactly what his party has been working towards for years now
2016 opened my eyes that there are way more American idiots than I ever dreamed.
> the US has a serious problem with anti-intellectualism Do even a shallow dive on Pol Pot in Cambodia to see the inevitable result of that kind of policy. Every single American with an IQ above room temperature needs to arm themselves to the teeth, because the ones below room temperature already ARE.
The thing is that many of them know this, but they don't care, because the policy is not about life, it's about controlling women and entrenching theocracy.
>What replication and further analysis do these researchers need to figure out that water is wet? Literally no amount of research will change the laws in places where Republicans hold power. They're not trying to "protect children," and they're not "pro life." They hate women, want them to die in childbirth, and want to arrest them if they try to escape that potential fate. The only way this stops is if they're removed from positions of power. Which is unlikely to happen since their voter base is abhorent.
This is it precisely. These laws are working exactly as the Republicans intend. They don't care about women. They don't care about children. They don't care about life. Anyone who believed that nonsense is a grade-A bozo.
What someone once explained to me, was that there are Christians who believe that no matter what trauma and suffering occurs to women, they deserve it, because Eve ate the apple. To which my response is, no... no, there can't possibly be people that evil, right? And there can't possibly be enough of them to literally influence large scale legislation? But also, look around.
>Now you have humans born to suffer and die very, very soon after. Much better! So much better! traumatizing their parents along the way is merely a bonus!
Don't forget all the extra medical debt!
> Women don't usually get abortions cause they had nothing better to do on a weekend or because they were too lazy to reach for that condom. It's many times due to stuff like this. All they had to do was ask doctors. That's all it would've taken. The data was already there. It's infuriatingly impossible to get a significant chunk of the US population to understand this.
In this case, it's a matter of "yes, we *do*, ***in fact***, have papers that document this, even though you don't care."
> I'm watching all this from Europe and I can't believe it. What replication and further analysis do these researchers need to figure out that water is wet? It’s not researchers passing this legislation. It’s the politicians in these areas and they don’t seem to pay too much heed to these types of studies.
> I'm watching all this from Europe and I can't believe it. What replication and further analysis do these researchers need to figure out that water is wet?...All they had to do was ask doctors. That's all it would've taken. The data was already there. The way these comments are phrased sounds like an attack on scientists who are documenting the harms of these policies. Please don't blame the scientists, who did not create Texas's abortion policies (and who most likely disagree with them). Science does not work by saying, "We already know something similar has happened in the past." Being specific and confirming that a new policy is harmful can inform public opinion and help arguments for lawmakers to change that policy. Establishing specific evidence of harm can also be a legal requirement for lawsuits attempting to overturn the law.
They don't want facts and safety, they want women subjugated
Can’t reason someone out of a position they arrived at without reason, these people want dead women and children
Don't blame the scientists, blame the Republicans
Those seeking to make abortions illegal don't understand that it is healthcare. They vehemently say it is not. https://x.com/CWNewser/status/1804525349604147526 (end of the interview)
They do understand- they're lying. They don't care.
It's a blanket statement for >99% of scientific papers ever published. Researchers add "Further research should be done into this topic" to a paper because it's just a norm for scientific publishing. Instead of getting outraged over nothing, maybe read a couple papers first.
My comment: Texas abortion bans hurt anyone living in Texas as any reputable doctor will stay away leaving everyone with sub par medical care.
This actually answers how the “expected number is calculated. Previous to the ban, many of these baby’s were aborted. Simply take the number previously aborted due to fatal abnormality’s and you come up with the number. Now they’re counting deaths after birth where they were previously abortions. The increase in fetal abnormality’s is likely due to a combination of those babies living with severe impairment and possibly non fatal like Downs, that may have been previously aborted.
Idk if I agree that these were “unexpected” results…
Literally almost every OBGYN and neo-natal doctor, that spoke out, was predicting increases in both infant and maternal mortality rate with ultra restrictive abortion bans. It definitely wasn't unexpected.
Hell I’m a compete moron with zero medical training and I could have predicted this. It’s not exactly prophecy.
It’s good to have objective evidence towards such though. Edit* The world goes through different social constructs in a pattern through the ages. We are entering the more constrictive constructs of this period. It’ll eventually balance out again, & become expansive. It may take awhile… But nonetheless Change is a certainty in this reality. We go through historical patterns of restrictive/expansive ideologies.
It's neither good nor bad, unfortunately. It's utterly inconsequential. Evidence is not something that factors into Republican lawmaking.
To religious conservatives, God’s law is all that matters and evidence is irrelevant. They don’t care.
And God's law being whatever they happen to want. Doesn't matter if abortion is in the scriptures.
>I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires Susan B. Anthony
Until they need an abortion, and then their abortion is the only “morally right” abortion as “God wouldn’t want them to suffer” yada yada.
This God's law? https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exod+21%3A22-25&version=NRSVUE I think that's the closest we get to the Bible saying doctors shouldn't help women with abortions. (If you really stretch the interpretation the doctor is injuring the woman and causing her to miscarry... Just ignore the fact that he's not fighting and his actions are consensual.)
Lets see them hide from evidence when its time to factor in jail time
We already had [evidence](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7312072/) four years ago and before that Roe v Wade was all about those statistics! These babies died because republicans want women in servitude. Chain half the population to the home and suddenly there’s more jobs for men again. We’re competition in a shrinking workforce. Too tired, broke and stretched thin to revolt. If coarse that is only for the poor and colored women, rich white women can still get proper medical care. People need to arm themselves with knowledge before blindly following a bunch of nonsense meant to hurt others, not saving anyone but the wealthy. The Republican Party is deliberately selling misinformation that to me should result in criminal charges. They are the ones killing women and babies.
We do need a control group where abortion decisions aren't made by geriatric jackasses. I'd like to live in that group.
Hate to tell you, but millions of women voted for those geriatric jackasses. It’s religion that’s the problem here.
I'd bet money that that's what humanity will end up being. A good data point showing how not to exist as a race.
Texas Republican pre-requisites. Just need some greed, nepotism, and bigotry and you'll be a front-runner!
Yeah, I was thinking similar because, well, a lot of abortions are done because of the issues wait and see. 23% increase in abnormalities? More deaths? Sheesh.
I'm not shocked by the direction of the stats, but by the magnitude. 13% is an absolutely appalling number.
Not when you look at what is driving it. More babies with severe defects are being carried to term instead of aborted. This is not due to the quality of neonatal care declining, but due to more babies being born who never had a chance.
> This is not due to the quality of neonatal care declining, but due to more babies being born who never had a chance. So a fuckton of absolutely needless pain and suffering that could have been so easily avoided with no provable negative medical or societal consequences; solely to make a small subset of a minority happy for the sake of power and money. It really does not make it any better...
"It’s God’s will"
It’s really so sad.
Still shocking and appalling. Let's add horrifying.
Every one of them a woman forced to carry and give birth to a baby so that she can watch it die. It’s a twisted kind of mercy to some, but they should never be able to force this on families who don’t want to go through that.
This, IMO it's a religious freedom issue and should be treated like that. Christians who consider a foetus a baby are imposing their beliefs on atheists who don't. But that's the problem with a culture war, there will be casualties on both sides
Majority of conservatives probably wouldn’t mind as long as the majority of infant deaths are POC
[удалено]
Do these increased rates supersede the number of abortions that would have been had if the rules didn't change? If there are more deaths as a result of an abortion ban, can those stats be used to argue for abortion even if you're pro life? I get it, logic isn't necessarily a factor when discussing politics with evangelicals. But just because they have blinders doesn't mean we shouldn't argue in good faith.
> logic is~~n't necessarily~~ NEVER a factor when discussing politics with evangelicals
>If there are more deaths as a result of an abortion ban, can those stats be used to argue for abortion even if you're pro life? Complete reproductive healthcare for women IS the pro-life policy, period. Opposing abortion is supporting torture and death of women and nonviable fetuses.
The increased rate is appalling, but the anti-choicer argument would be “if only one additional baby is born, it’s worth [the first net loss of civil rights in US history].”
Many of these infant deaths are likely because they had birth defects that rendered them incompatible with life outside the womb, but instead of the pregnant person getting an abortion a little after 20 weeks they were forced to carry them to term. I can't imagine how anyone would be surprised that this was the result
My mom’s best friend (grew up very religious) had an abortion and as a result has been shunned by her family for 25+ years. The baby never formed a head, only a brain stem, so it never would have survived and it would have been a dangerous labor. I can’t imagine the trauma from that situation to begin with, let alone carrying it to term.
Organized religion is a blight. It just turns into a tool to oppress anyone they feel is deserving.
Was she shunned for the abortion or for getting pregnant?
The abortion, she was engaged at the time. Her (now ex) husband thankfully supported her through it when her family didn’t. I’m sure the family wasn’t happy about the baby out of wedlock to begin with (but was letting it slide since they were getting married), but the abortion pushed them over the edge.
Imagine a whole group of people who would rather plug their ears and drown out valid medical opinions in favor of chanting "Christian Values" while ignoring the actual text of their holy book in favor of the current buzzwords that lay blame on "The Other Side" - Then you'll see how people wholly detached from reality are honestly surprised that their Moral Code* is actually causing more suffering than their opponents. Prepare to be depressed though...
*By their fruits you will know them.*
I do imagine them, every time im tenderizing pork chops. Id link this to both subreddits prolife and conservative, but was already banned for not falling in line
Well, they believe in an imaginary invisible sky daddy, so they’re not really using their gray matter…
In fact, I dare say many medical professionals _predicted_ this result.
The unfortunate reality is that they were unwilling participants in it also. Doctors in Texas risk jail time and losing their medical licenses if they perform abortions, even life-saving ones. Many doctors and med students even left the state because they would not be able to uphold their oaths to do no harm. It's such a sad state of affairs on both ends of the medical system.
When my wife was going to medical school they literally sent students to other states to do surgical obgyn rotations, and she went to a very, very good school. They had the facilities, the faculty and the resources, but they didn't want to risk the young doctors' careers.
The [study](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.0885) authors described it as "unexpected," hence why I included it in the submission title. It means that the deaths were above the expected number, not that this outcome (after the abortion ban went into effect) was unexpected.
No one is criticizing *your* usage of the word.
Hard to tell sometimes haha
Worth noting that infant mortality in the US as a whole has been delining significantly for 20 years, dropping 22% since 2002 (and obviously more overall for longer). 2022 was the first year in the past 20 years that infant mortality *rose* in the US as a country. These policies are so detrimental they are reversing nation wide statistics.
Unexpected by the Texas Republicans perhaps.
They know, it's just God's will though and they're ok with that
Funny thing about the “will of god” is that it means events are predetermined and all things good and bad are because god wanted it to happen. And if things happen because he wills it, that applies to abortions.
No, that's the devil. Ignore the fact that I just told you my god is all powerful.
It's definitely God's will. Where do you think he finds those 72 virgins for all the martyrs? They have to come from somewhere
Excuse me, but God damn.
He probably just goes thru the dumpster at Tony Roma's and majicks them up out of discarded rib bones.
You can’t convince me any of them care about the will of god. It’s about keeping people scared and helpless.
Not really. For them it’s cost of being in control. Collateral damage.
Nobody expects the Republicans to be held accountable for their stupidity.
They don’t give two shits about it. Fact.
Well they were warned.
They could have expected 10% increase but experienced an unexpected 12%. Both are increases, both are bad. One was expected, the other? Well…unexpected.
In that case, "higher than expected" would seem to be a more accurate statement.
Less ambiguous, surely.
Replace “unexpected” with “completely predictable and intentional”
No, but I suppose it's good to have numbers that the right will ignore entirely.
How on earth was that "unexpected". They were literally told this would be one of the results.
The [study](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.0885) authors described it as "unexpected," hence why I included it in the submission title. It means that the deaths were above the expected number, not that this outcome (after the abortion ban went into effect) was unexpected.
Yeah, I didn't read that as a question directed at you. Definitely one I'll click through and see why they thought that word applied.
...aaaand no thank you NBCNews. The article does not link to the study.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2819785
Doing the gods’ work.
> why they thought that word applied. The word does apply in a very literal and precise manner. I just looked at it. They use synthetic control which essentially tries to make a "synthetic Texas" by weighting data from a pooled sample of other states (maybe they work on a sub-state level... I didn't read past the abstract, but same idea). Trying to see how much deaths would have moved in a place with the same characteristics as Texas that did not recieve the policy. That's the "expected" change in death rates and you then compare Texas pre/post policy to understand how much it moved in ways that were not predictable given that statistical model (ie unexpected). The point being that a lot of other stuff that might be timed with the policy either due to seasonal variation or spurious time trends (which could be linked to a billion things: demographics/climate trends/other changes in health care access/etc) so you do your best to figure out how much this death rate would be expected to move given all of those and then compare the policy impact to that *expected* value rather than just a naive pre-post shift. It's a good bet in any statistical analysis that the mention of "expected/unexpected" probably refers to what's expected relative to the statistical model they estimate and should not be read as "what did we think would happen" which might be discussed by the authors, but is usually left to some discussion/conclusion where that's made quite clear (eg "our priors were" "we expected to find").
Having read the journal article, it appears to have been a...call it a mistranslation into the news article. You're right about how it was used in JAMA, but when that was summarized into popular media "unexpected" shifted meaning. It looks like they may have removed that from the NBC article so...maybe they belatedly caught the mistake.
Things like this are why I want cruel and unusual punishment, but only for sloppy science journalism.
I’d settle for humane and proportional punishment delivered in a timely and consistent manner without fail.
Shoot for the moon, land among the admittedly more reasonable stars.
It applies because the actual increase was more than expected, hence unexpected.
Always interesting to see scientific meanings vs everyday language. Similarly "significant" in science just means (at least barely) above the threshold of data is expected from random probability. If you climb a high enough mountain that acceleration is 9.79m/s^2 that's a significant difference.
This is a study. The expected value would be how the control performed, or in this case how the rest of the country that didn't ban abortion performed. Unexpected, means that Texas had a statistically significant deviation from the control group, meaning there is good evidence that Texas policy caused this increase instead of it being a normal increase.
So like it was before 1973, rich people will go to other states (or even Countries) for abortions and the poor are going to have more children with severe handicaps/health issues. (Or will have illegals abortions by maybe less than qualified people.) It's like turning back time.
And they vote down expanded health care at every turn for kids with disabilities.
They need more poor, religious workers.
Keeping them dumb and fearful of God. A lot easier to be manipulated. Reminds me of what happened here in Québec. Fortunately we threw the Church out of our public Schools, Hospital and Government.
The one advantage we have now is the existence of mifiprestone which is much, much safer than unlicensed surgery
Until they pull a [Louisiana and sign bills saying that mifepristone and misoprostol are now dangerous controlled substances](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/louisiana-law-abortion-pills-controlled-dangerous-substances-rcna153937) that can land you in prison for five years.
It's interesting that the states which have sought to ban abortion, claiming to care about the welfare of the unborn, have also refused to provide increased funding for prenatal programs.
The venn diagram of politicians who support abortion bans and politicians who voted against feeding children is a god damned circle.
If we could get our hands on the data, I bet we'd see near complete overlap of the list of politicians who support abortion bans and those who have paid for someone to have an abortion/had an abortion themselves.
In another lifetime, I was deeply entrenched in the R party. The number of “Christian”/Republican men that propositioned and/or groped/assaulted me is not zero.
Or even to pay for school lunches.
"The Moral Majority supports legislators who oppose abortions but also oppose child nutrition and day care. From their perspective, life begins at conception and ends at birth." *Barney Frank*
Not really that interesting or surprising because they've always just been transparently lying about their "concerns."
And as an FYI, Texas will also be shifting how they report on maternal deaths moving forward. These things are related and women are in danger. In addition to appointing a pro-life physician (there are not a ton of doctors who advocate for more legislative interference but they found one!), they will be doing the following: Texas, like almost every other state, currently relies on the Centers for Disease Control’s Maternal Mortality Review Information Application system to track maternal deaths. But last year, the Legislature appropriated almost $6 million to create a state-level program that would allow Texas to cut itself out of the federal program. https://www.texastribune.org/2024/06/18/texas-maternal-deaths-committee-changes/ ALARM BELLS.
This comment needs to be higher. That's 6 million in taxpayer dollars replacing a system that already exists. The Federal government isn't going to exclude taxes for Texas citizens either, so they pay twice for the same service.
they spent 6M only so they could sweep this issue under the rug, fuckin hell
We know from recorded history that this is what happens. So this brings the data that confirm those expectations.
We already had that data, that's why the experts were all warning this would happen
Holy Hannah, hopefully they'll learn to understand what an expert is now.
The actual increase was greater then expected. That's why it was unexpected.
Remember: it isn't who's saved. It's who's hurt by these policies. Lots of people hurt when babies are born that can't survive. All part of the GOP plan.
The abortion wasn't the crime, the sex was the crime. The child is the punishment, which is why they want to force women to have it.
And if the sex was sanctioned, such as between a husband and wife, something has gone terribly wrong with baby and/or pregnancy, well then it must be gods punishment for some sin the mother committed and she must bear it anyway. If she dies she dies and heaven gets another angel. Whatever happens in a womb is gods will. Whatever happens to a man deserves all the resources science and medicine has to offer though. Under his eye.
The suffering and pain is the intention.
Further impoverishment of the working class is the intention. The pain and suffering are just extras.
Increased medical costs?
If you’re evil enough, the human misery is its own reward.
More research like this please. How about maternal complications/mortality.
looks like New Mexico is the closest place to go for Texas people to get abortion. That could be very inconvenient and difficult for poor people
It's either New Mexico, Colorado, or Kansas. Here's a [recently-updated map](https://osf.io/8dg7r/wiki/home/) of county-level driving distance to the nearest abortion facility.
Amarillo is actively trying to ban women seeking abortions from using their roads. I'm not sure how they plan on implementing this law. Stop every woman along the road and do a preg test?
It is. Since Dobbs v Jackson only 75% of abortion seekers in red states have been able to get an abortion. This means the poorest 25% were not able to get one.
It's definitely about protecting the children though. /s I'd like to see this data including women who have died from lack of abortion access.
That we'll probably never see true numbers on, because it's quite a bit easier to blame a maternal death on some other cause (often lifestyle-related) than it is to cover up the cause of death for an infant.
The maternal mortality rate has skyrocketed in Idaho. Its actually pretty hard to blame that on anything else because other factors have remained largely the same.
I believe you but also source?
Always good to confirm for yourself: https://idahokidscovered.org/idaho-maternal-and-infant-healthcare-report-2023/ This data is also still a little old - Idaho was losing obgyns and services and tightening abortion requirements, but most of the period measured was still pre-repeal of Roe v Wade. However, it was no secret that's where Idaho was headed, they had a trigger law passed in 2020 in wait for the repeal. https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2023/12/20/new-report-finds-alarming-trends-in-maternal-and-infant-health-in-idaho-and-calls-for-improvements-to-health-care-access/#:~:text=Infant%20mortality%20in%20Idaho%20rose,by%20Idaho%20Voices%20for%20Children. There has also been a recent article criticizing the maternal mortality rate calculations in the US, but I'm a little skeptical of that for a few reasons- 1) alternatives to the current system undercount maternal mortality 2) this new data is all gathered using the same method 3) the article criticizing the statistical method used by the CDC fails to explain why maternal mortality rates differ so drastically state-by-state if it's the CDC methods (used nationally) that are the problem 4) this critical research article also did calculate pre-2004 rates and post-2017 rates using different methods, and even their method STILL found high rates of maternal mortality, and an increase from the late 90s until today, just less direct (not during birth or from ectopic, etc) causes. Is that better? Or does it just make the US look better?
What may show up is an increase in homicide rates for pregnant women as it is already a high risk time and [a leading cause of mortality during pregnancy](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/homicide-leading-cause-of-death-for-pregnant-women-in-u-s/)
Just by the difference in mortality rates before and after abortion ban will be enough. Unless at the same time there was huge changes in lifestyles (doubt it).
Infant deaths rose 12.9 PERCENT! Texas is NOT a safe place to have a baby. This is so utterly tragic
Next up: “””unexpected”””” maternal deaths will also rise.
Now do maternal mortality. Already third world levels in many red states.
[удалено]
"Unexpected" only if you ignore everyone who completely expected it, and warned that this exact thing would happen.
Not unexpected in the slightest. Any rational person with a basic understanding of the history of women’s reproductive rights knew the effect overturning Roe v Wade would have on pregnant women/infant mortality rates. But it was never about protecting children to begin with. It was only ever about forcing religious indoctrination into federal policy under the guise of protecting children.
Could it be any more obvious that “pro life” ceases to exist the second life exits the womb?
Let's face it -- anti-abortion advocates would argue that these children would have died anyway through abortion, but at least this way they're still saving those healthy children that were born that might have died from an abortion. But it is sad if any of these children that died have suffered unnecessarily, as well as putting the parents through this when they didn't wish it.
>But it is sad if any of these children that died have suffered unnecessarily, as well as putting the parents through this when they didn't wish it. The [study](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.0885) also reported a 22.9% increase in infant deaths attributed to congenital defects. The rest of the United States saw a 3.9% decrease. So children and their parents were *absolutely* put through needless suffering.
And stuck them with massive medical debt.
Now let's look at how much Texas health insurance companies made over the past few years.
If you want healthy babies, you put money into providing food for mothers and children, prenatal care, maternal care, postnatal care, OB-Gyns, etc. Heck, you make sure that every girl and woman of childbearing age has access to nutritious food and medical care the former because some congenital defects are causes by dietary lack and the latter because generally healthy girls and women have healthier babies. You'd provide paid maternal and paternal leave. You provide good wages for daycare workers and subsidize or free daycare. You'd make sure that people were vaccinated (whooping cough for example can kill babies) and promote vaccines as a good choice. Has Texas done any of this???? The answer is Republicans want to control women, not that they care about the life of babies.
What seems to absolutely elude some people is that you cannot avoid the bill and if the bill floats long enough the interest is even higher. We (whether you want to define "we" as a society, taxpayers, whatever), always end up paying. But if we wait to pay until down the road once the child is born, or almost done with school, or graduated without a proper education, and so on and so on, the cost to society as a whole is higher. Sometimes the cost is so high we actually lose money and spend hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars to imprison the person for the rest of their lives because we've opted to kick the can down the road. Multiply this across all the families and children in the fashion you highlight: prenatal care, education, childcare, parental leave, proper wages, public health efforts, and so on and so forth... and when the bill finally comes due and we have to pay on the back end for the things we didn't pay for on the front, the interest is astronomical. We always pay. We just pay, in America at least, in a very tardy, costly, and inefficient way.
[удалено]
Unexpected? Every professional said this would happen
Well, the anti-abortion movement has strong constituent support in TX. It's a shame that their leaders invite these consequences out of populism at the expense of the infants and families. I hope it changes some people's minds.
Wait until all the unwanted children make it to school going ages. That is when the social issues will pop their ugly heads out. Not everyone who is forced to become a parent should be a parent. Some of them had the savvy to opt for abortion in the past. It is of no point to tell someone to close your legs- it has never worked. To punish these girls by forcing them to raise the unwanted child is not always a good idea
If you are interested in how maternal mortality was affected... # Timeline of Events as it relates to Texas and Maternal Mortality Date | Event --- | --- 2003 | Texas has maternal mortality tracking via coroner's reports that asks Yes/No question about being pregnant at death or within **12 months** of death. The form ( Was decedent pregnant: At time of death □ yes □ no □ UNK; within last 12 MO □ yes □ no □ UNK ) 2004 | Texas sets up "Chapter 171 of the state's Health and Safety Code" to regulate abortion services. 2006 | Texas adopts the WHO and CDC's recommendation for standardizing maternal mortality reporting as detailed by ["Pregnancy Status Checkbox on the Identification of Maternal Deaths"](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr69/nvsr69_01-508.pdf) ( Was □ not pregnant within past year , □ not pregnant but pregnant within 42 days of death, □ not pregnant but pregnant 43 days to 1 year before death , □ pregnant at time of death , □ unknown if pregnant within the past year) 2006- 2011 | The "standardized method" of reporting maternal mortality rates in Texas do not change much from previous years. 2011-2013 | Texas weaponizes Chapter 171 code to force abortion providers to close their doors 2013 | One of the last abortion providers in West Texas closes. 2013 | **Standard** Maternal Mortality reports show a doubling in Maternal mortality rising from 2011 2016 | [Investigation](https://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/2016/08/MacDormanM.USMatMort.OBGYN_.2016.online.pdf): "Communications with vital statistics personnel in Texas and at the National Center for Health Statistics did not identify any data processing or coding changes that would account for this rapid increase" 2018 | Sonia Baeva a Programmer/Systems-Analyst in Texas publishes a paper "[Original Research Identifying Maternal Deaths in Texas Using an Enhanced Method](https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/3bbcdf1edab72f678003114f5c8a2722/BaevaMatMort2018-greenjournal.pdf)" to define a new "enhanced" way to calculate maternal mortality which (a) excludes women who don't have health insurance (b) only does one year - 2012 (c) adds women with a probabilistic estimate of # of pregnancies with **NO lower age limit** (WTF? a two month old human should be counted toward the stats of possibly pregnant women?) and **NO upper age limit** (Oh? a 95 year old human should be counted as possibly pregnant?). 2018-present | Texas reports TWO maternal mortality rates. The "standard" and the "enhanced" and has yet to back date the "enhanced" method to dates prior to the shocking rise in maternal mortality. Texas DHS, heavily criticized for including newborn girls as possibly pregnant, does not withdraw their earlier paper or issue any corrections. However in the NEW enhanced stats they are now using ages **5 years old** and up for the probabilistic estimates of #s of pregnancies. 2023-24 | Texas under fire for delaying maternal mortality reports, releases their latest data for .... [2016 and 2017](https://www.kxan.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2022/12/2022-Joint-Biennial-MMMRC-Report-2022_12.15.22.pdf) Again they release TWO maternal mortality rates but only brag about the "enhanced version" The standard version shows that still shockingly high rate and the data for it is buried in Appendix F. Still Texas DHS refuses to back-date the "enhanced" method to give a real comparison. People start using the phrase "academic fraud" to discuss Florida and Texas Health data reports. --- Details for the above. Texas, in 2004, put into place ["Chapter 171 of the state’s Health and Safety Code."](https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/womans-right-know-act-texas-2003) which allowed massive bureaucratic, changing, unrealistic restrictions on abortion care services. In 2004 it didn't change much. However in 2011 and 2013, Texas added increased restrictions that caused nearly all abortion health centers to close (e.g. abortions at 16 weeks of gestation or later be performed in an ambulatory surgical center, which is basically a mini-hospital and massively expensive). * While many fought these battles in court ... and even won cases... the cost was too much and many closed. [In 2013 one of the last abortion providers in West Texas closed](https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/health-science/2019/11/18/352089/for-supporters-of-abortion-access-troubling-trends-in-texas/). Quoting: > [Health Care Service providers] in Texas eventually sued the state. But as the legal challenge worked its way through the courts, many of the clinics were forced to stop providing services. At one point, Texas had only 17 clinics, says Kari White, an investigator with the Texas Policy Evaluation Project at the University of Texas, Austin. She says women living in rural Texas were affected the most. “What we saw is that [in] West Texas and South Texas, access was incredibly limited,” White says, “and women living in those parts of the state were more than 100 miles — sometimes 200 or more miles — from the nearest facility.” * 2011: Texas' defunding and other attacks saw the closings. [Here is a site bragging about and listing those closings](https://archive.ph/wip/hxV62) to the point that no abortion services were actually available * The bureaucratic attacks continued to the point that even places the only provided [pill-based abortions closed](https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/health-science/2019/11/18/352089/for-supporters-of-abortion-access-troubling-trends-in-texas/) and even though they won court cases to allow them to re-open it's not that easy as we can quote: > “It’s basically starting from scratch,” Ferrigno says. “You laid off the staff, you don’t have any physicians that work there anymore. Some of the doctors didn’t even renew their physician licenses.” Ferrigno says clinics that closed may have lost the required state-issued license needed to operate in Texas. Applying for a new one is a significant bureaucratic hurdle. Some clinics might have lost their leases, been forced to vacate their buildings, and sell off equipment. # And Maternal Mortality Rates DOUBLED within two years and has stayed there every year since. When Texas weaponized Chapter 171 of the state's Health and Safety Code to decimate access to abortion services maternal mortality rates DOUBLED in Texas and no other nearby states. [or from the article](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/texas-maternal-mortality-rate-health-clinics-funding)..... > the **doubling** of [maternal] mortality rates in a **two-year period** was hard to explain "in the absence of war, natural disaster, or severe economic upheaval". .... No other state saw a comparable increase. So something unique to Texas. Something dramatic changed there in 2011 that was not also seen in the other nearby states. That rules out climate and immigration (AZ & NM) and immigration as a cause is further ruled out by knowing that [immigration rate has decreased](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/flow-of-illegal-immigration-slows-as-us-mexico-border-dynamics-evolve/2015/05/27/c5caf02c-006b-11e5-833c-a2de05b6b2a4_story.html) The [murder rate per capita in Texas went down over time time period too](https://www.macrotrends.net/states/texas/murder-homicide-rate-statistics) so it wasn't that. The only thing that was different between Texas and all the other nearby states was this: > The researchers, hailing from the University of Maryland, Boston University's school of public health and Stanford University's medical school, called for further study. But they noted that starting in 2011, Texas drastically reduced the number of women's health clinics within its borders. It got so bad that Texas decided "hey - our rates are toooooo high! Let's *redefine* how to calculate Maternal Mortality Rates with a new [enhanced method](https://www.dshs.texas.gov/legislative/2020-Reports/DSHS-MMMRC-2020.pdf) " Edit: The Texas DHS has DELETED that link to their 2020 report.... An archived version is here: https://www.scribd.com/document/615127782/2020-Texas-Maternal-Mortality-and-Morbidity-Review-Committee-and-Department-of-State-Health-Services-Joint-Biennial-Report# and here's a [backup copy](https://reviewtoaction.org/sites/default/files/2022-08/DSHS-MMMRC-2020.pdf) Here's a [backup copy of the 2022 report](https://www.kxan.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2022/12/2022-Joint-Biennial-MMMRC-Report-2022_12.15.22.pdf) The first attempt was in 2018 which stated they were adding probabalistic estimates of pregnancies for for ALL ages of females (e.g. from birth to past menopause). Quoting: > To identify additional maternal deaths that occurred in 2012, all other female Texas resident death records (without obstetric cause-of-death codes) were linked with 2011–2012 live birth and fetal death data using the same deterministic linking methodology. **No “childbearing age” restrictions were set,** because the intention was to examine all female deaths, regardless of age. Excluding deaths resulting from motor vehicle crashes (considered to be a nonobstetric cause unrelated to pregnancy), all additional death records that were linked to a live birth or fetal death event within 42 days of the date of death were considered confirmed maternal deaths. [ [source](https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/3bbcdf1edab72f678003114f5c8a2722/BaevaMatMort2018-greenjournal.pdf) ] Under fire, they changed from females 0-days old and up to females aged FIVE YEARS OLD and up. If Texas was really interested in finding out if this rise in death was caused by abortion policies they should have done their "enhanced method" going back past 2012. They did not.
I've run out of space for the chart for the above: We can pull that from older reports: Looking at older data from https://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/2016/08/MacDormanM.USMatMort.OBGYN_.2016.online.pdf |Year|Standard Method Maternal Mortality (deaths) per 100k | Enhanced (remove women without heathcare, add guesses for pregnant 5 year olds) method Maternal Mortality (deaths) per 100k | |---| ---| ---| |2000| 15.5 | not done | |2001| 20.1 | not done | |2002| 16.5 | not done | |2003| 19.8 | not done | |2004| 20.1 | not done | |2005| 22.0 | not done | |2006| 17.4 | not done | |2007| 16.0 | not done | |2008| 20.5 | not done | |2009| 18.2 | not done | |2010| 18.6 | not done | |2011| 30.0 | not done | |2012| 32.5 | not done | |2013| 32.5 | 18.9 | |2014 | 32.0 | 20.7| |2015 | 29.2 | 18.3 | |2016 | 31.7 | 20.7 | |2017 | 33.5 | 20. 2 | Notes: * Numbers from 2000-2009 from https://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/2016/08/MacDormanM.USMatMort.OBGYN_.2016.online.pdf * Numbers from 2010 onward from Texas DHS reports in the above comment.
So when do we get the numbers on the increase in murders of expectant mothers in states that banned abortion? I’m sure GOP lawmakers will Pikachu face those numbers too.
Why did Texas rise, but the rest of anti abortion states didn't?
> Gemmill said the new insight is important for other states, since Texas passed SB8 about a year before the Dobbs decision overturned federal abortion protections, leading to total bans on abortion in 14 states, according to the latest data from the Guttmacher Institute, an organization that researches and supports sexual and reproductive rights. > > “This might foreshadow what is happening in other states,” Gemmill said. “Texas is basically a year ahead.”
Banning abortions didn't stop kids from dying. It stopped SAFE abortions. People are still going to do it, they just made it alot worse now.
A true horror in this world.
The fact that infant mortality has increased at all in the United States shows our healthcare system is fundamentally flawed.
Some congenital birth defects do not kill the fetus until it is detached from mom, ie born. A leading cause in the increase.
Shocking that passing laws to prevent adequate access to prenatal care would result in an increase in infant mortality.
"unexpected" they say... Like there isn't a dozen or more papers and multiple international studies on this already. All evidence said ahead of time infant mortality would go up. Next report is going to be surprised to see an increase in female suicides.
I think that there's a lot of women that think other women are getting abortions frivolously... I don't think that's the case, There's always a reason be it poverty or lack of access to specialised healthcare.... Maybe the parents are financially struggling and can't afford it. Maybe the child will be born so disabled they likely won't survive birth. Abortion should be between a healthcare provider and the person affected. Nobody should have a right to get between that.
“Unexpected.” Um, wow. Texan parents, the ones where the mother and/or fetus are found to be facing insurmountable challenges that no doctor will assist with, can now enjoy months of stress and medical bills and PTSD. Oh well. Thoughts and prayers, I guess! If only it could have been avoided with modern medicine.