Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Infant Mortality Rate Rises in U.S. for First Time in More Than 40 Years

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 07:37 PM
Original message
Infant Mortality Rate Rises in U.S. for First Time in More Than 40 Years
Some substantial but unknown percentage of Bush voters in 2004 voted for Bush primarily because of his strong pro-life stance. As one of my pro-life relatives said during one of our rare political discussions prior to the 2004 election, if Bush gets voted out of office, a lot of babies will die.

Given this state of affairs, one would think (or hope) that these people would be interested and concerned about the infant mortality rate in the U.S. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any recent information on this topic, as the latest statistics I could find were from almost three years ago - 2002. I understand that sometimes it takes a while to accumulate these statistics and put the reports together. Nevertheless, I worked as an epidemiologist in county and state health departments for 12 years, from 1982 to 1994, and I dont remember anything as basic as national infant mortality statistics not being available for this long a period of time. Even Cuba, whose infant mortality rate is now lower than that of the U.S., recently reported 2004 statistics. If I was a conspiracy theorist or if I had severe doubts about the integrity of our current Presidential Administration I would suggest that it may have ordered our Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to cease any further release of this information after the bad news of 2002. But maybe I just didnt do a good enough job of searching for this information.

Anyhow, as noted in this report by the American Public Health Association (APHA), the infant mortality rate in the United States increased from 2001 to 2002 by 3%, from 6.8 deaths per thousand infants to 7.0 deaths per thousand infants. That rate, though higher than in almost every other industrialized country in the world today, decreased by a great amount during the 20th century (it was about three times higher as recently as 1970 than it was at the start of the 21st century), and 2002 saw the first significant increase in infant mortality in this country since 1958.

Infant mortality rate has long been considered one of the best indicators of the health status of a community or country. According to Georges Benjamin, executive director of APHA, potential reasons for the surprising turnaround in infant mortality in this country include: women receiving less prenatal care or losing their jobs, cuts to nutrition programs, and climbing poverty rates.

Under such circumstances we must consider ourselves very fortunate to have such a pro-life President otherwise we might now be seeing even greater increases in infant mortality rate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. yeah, but abortions are down
So if they die once they hit the air, that's peachy keen to the culture of life. They've served their function, punishing a woman for having sex she might have enjoyed, the slut.

Yes, this is really how they "think."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HockeyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Lack of Health Insurance
Moms cannot PAY for prenatal care, resulting in lower infant mortality. OR if as that survey said, more woman are giving birth to UNWANTED babies, do you really think they are going to bend over back wards worrying about prenatal care?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #2
18. That's true
Increasing poverty in our country, and cuts in health care programs, which are two closely related issues, are responsible for a good part of the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Well, I think the problem with a lot of them is that they're just plain
ignorant. They don't have a clue as to what's going on.

Their religious leaders tell them how to vote, so they don't have to worry about it. It saves them lots of time. It's much less time consuming to vote on faith than it is to spend lots time becoming familiar with the issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Samurai_Writer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #1
25. Actually abortions are up from what they were under Clinton (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #25
44. Yes, that's an important point
I had heard that too, and recently I did some searches to see if that could be documented (down under Clinton, up under Bush), but the information I found was somewhat ambiguous, so I couldn't really nail it down. If you have any good links on this I would appreciate it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Samurai_Writer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #1
26. Actually abortions are up from what they were under Clinton (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #1
27. Ironically Abortions are UP.
So it's a lose lose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #27
40. Yes, that's another good point
I had heard that too, and recently I did some searches to see if that could be documented (down under Clinton, up under Bush), but the information I found was somewhat ambiguous, so I couldn't really nail it down. If you have any good links on this I would appreciate it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lindacooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
65. No, abortions are not down; they are up under chimpy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
4. Current stats on infant mortality in the US: UN report 2005
Edited on Tue Dec-20-05 08:54 PM by ultraist
http://www.citiesforprogress.org/index.php?option=com_c...

snip

Parts of the United States are as poor as the Third World, according to a shocking United Nations report on global inequality.

Claims that the New Orleans floods have laid bare a growing racial and economic divide in the US have, until now, been rejected by the American political establishment as emotional rhetoric. But yesterday's UN report provides statistical proof that for many - well beyond those affected by the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina - the great American Dream is an ongoing nightmare.

The document constitutes a stinging attack on US policies at home and abroad in a fightback against moves by Washington to undermine next week's UN 60th anniversary conference which will be the biggest gathering of world leaders in history.

The annual Human Development Report normally concerns itself with the Third World, but the 2005 edition scrutinizes inequalities in health provision inside the US as part of a survey of how inequality worldwide is retarding the eradication of poverty.

It reveals that the infant mortality rate has been rising in the US for the past five years - and is now the same as Malaysia. America's black children are twice as likely as whites to die before their first birthday.

Full report:
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005 /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #4
12. Thanks for the link to the UN report
We need more and more "stinging attacks on U.S. policy".

It's too bad that most U.S. citizens don't see us like the rest of the world does.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
5. health care in the US is a joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #5
13. It's not good, especially considering how much money we have
According to one international report I saw recently, we're 43rd in infant mortality rate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 02:49 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. grown-up mortality ain't great either
especially for those who have no insurance or who are insured through an HMO or PPO.

You can get big tits and fat lips and have the fat sucked out of your ass though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 03:58 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. But only if you have enough insurance
The insurance companies made real sure during the Clinton Administration that his plan to greatly expand insurance coverage was stopped. Their ad campaign was disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tsiyu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 08:56 PM
Response to Original message
6. Infant mortality is the truest measure - IMO - of a nation's success
The higher death rate of infants is one of the best indicators that our nation is headed for the toilet.

Greedy, Ruthless Repukes: Pro-life MY ASS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Infant mortality rate is certainly the best indicator of health status
That's what they teach us in schools of Public Health.

And as such, it is a damn good indicator of how much a government cares for its citizens.

Of course, we alread have the administration's response to Katrina to tell us how much it cares.

I think that the best indicator that our country is headed for the toilet is the utter failure of our national news media. God help us if the Dems don't take over Congress in 06 and the Presidency in 08, so that we have a fighting chance to create a climate where we can have a free and independent press.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bmbmd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
56. Does the meth and crack cocaine
epidemic contribute to this anomaly? Also, I seem to remember reading that infant mortality is defined differently in different countries. For instance, in the US, a stillbirth is considered infant mortality, while in other areas it is considered fetal wastage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. Drugs may play some role
But they are not one of the more important causes of infant mortality. And anyhow, I'm not aware that the cocaine epidemic has become worse during Bush's administration. I believe that the most important reasons for the reversal of the long downward trend in infant mortality during the Bush administration are those reasons stated by the American Public Health Association, which I note in my OP.

Infant mortality is defined as the death of any infant which occurs any time following delivery, up until one year of age. If a death occurs prior to delivery it is defined as fetal mortality. If death occurs shortly prior to delivery it also is referred to as perinatal mortality. But I am not aware that anyone defines infant mortality differently than what I state above. In any event, studies that produce infant mortality rankings by country should use the same definition for each country in the study.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #6
24. smart people saw that the ussr was headed for the toilet
when the cia was still insisting that it was the evil empire.
mr darwin's law says we are no longer fit to survive. there you have it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raccoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #6
28. Headed for? Seems to me the flushing sound is always in
the background.

Strongly agree with you, ghost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JanMichael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
7. Hell even before Bush we weren't "all that".
The obvious issue of class and ethnicity has always kept our rates high. Blacks even under his Holiness Bill still reached developing nation rates.

Now it's just amplified by the overt Capitalist fuckwits.

Anyway it's good to see Cuba getting some recognition for its remarkable Human Development achievments under its Socialist system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. It's true that, as I say in my OP, we compare very poorly with other
industrialized countries, with regard to infant mortality rate, and many other measures of a healthy population as well. And as you note, the racial disparity sticks out like a sore thumb as well.

But at least under Clinton infant mortality continued to improve -- at about 3% per year. But now we're actually going BACKWARDS for Chrisakes!

I think that it would be very difficult for any President, given the political climate in this country, to cause an acceleration in the rate of decline of IMR. But to actually cut so many social programs and facilitate an increase in poverty, as this shithead has done, so as to cause a reversal of the downward trend -- that's something that IMO we should throw in the face of those convervatives who vote for Bush because he is "pro-life".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boojatta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
34. Recognition for achievements balanced by recognition of anything else?
"Anyway it's good to see Cuba getting some recognition for its remarkable Human Development achievments under its Socialist system."

What is their record regarding human development when the humans are no longer infants and begin to develop independent political opinions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JanMichael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Look outside the box.
Such as the UN Human Development Index.

And in the terms of "independent political opinions" much of what you read is US political paid opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boojatta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Will I have to look outside the box and outside of the website that you
Edited on Wed Dec-21-05 01:52 PM by Boojatta
linked to if I want an answer to the question that I asked?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JanMichael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. Well the worst human rights abuses in Cuba are under US direction
It's political/religious persecution without the benefit of council or formal charges.

If that's where you want to go with this line of thought becuase nobody and no nation is without warts.

Back to Human Development: We shouldn't even be comparing what Cuba has done to the United States as they are starting from drastically different points. One rich and imperialist the other poor and colonized.

But even with the handicaps Cuba (And most every other "developed" country) smokes our Infant Mortality rates. Bravo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #39
43. Very good points n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CAcyclist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #34
49. If you have something to contribute
then provide some evidence, otherwise shut up and sit down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
10. Here's some interesting Red vs. Blue state comparisons
Edited on Tue Dec-20-05 10:58 PM by Time for change
From the same article as above referenced, the 10 states with the worst health status index are all red. Of the 10 states with the BEST health status index, 8 of them are blue:

Top 10 Healthiest States

1. Minnesota
2. New Hampshire
3. Vermont
4. Hawaii
5. Utah
6. Massachusetts
7. North Dakota
8. Connecticut
9. Wisconsin
10. Maine

Bottom 10 Healthiest States

41. North Carolina
42. Florida
43. Alabama (TIED)
43. West Virginia
45. Georgia
46. Arkansas
47. South Carolina
48. Tennessee
49. Mississippi
50. Louisiana


This is no coincidence. Bush voters don't believe in "big government". The problem with that, however, is that a public health infrastructure is needed to facilitate healthy populations.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #10
19. I would surmise Utah is "healthy" because of the Mormon population.
Edited on Wed Dec-21-05 09:33 AM by Straight Shooter
I've been close to quite a few Mormons and have found them to be really diligent about taking care of their health. It seems to be a reflection of "your body is a temple" kind of thing. So, maybe that's part of the reason.

We also need to look at the environment in those states, and what percentage of the mortality rate can be attributed to living in toxic environments.

I have an opinion, which I don't believe there has been a study to link it to infant mortality rates, that stressed-out mothers are more likely to have a stillborn baby or a baby who dies within a short time. It has been proven, though, that chemicals pass from the mother to the fetus and can affect the ability of the baby once it's born to endure stress. Being born is very stressful. (I can hear the fundies scoffing at that.)

====================

But, you know, it's God's will that these babies die, because he loves them soooo much that he can't wait for his son Jesus to put his arms around them in a big ol' hug up there in Heaven.

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. No doubt you are right about Utah
Mormons do practice very good personal health care.

And environment certainly is important. Of course that's something that Bush voters don't tend to take as seriously as most normal people.

And you are probably right about stress being an important factor, though that is very hard to prove because "stress" is such a poorly defined issue. In other words, different studies generally tend to use different definitions of it, and it's hard to tell what the best definition would be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #20
55. So how much is personal responsibility and how much someone else's?
If some groups do better than others what are all the factors and what ways are there to address them?
If mormons do something 'more right' and have better health in general they are costing the overall population less with the government's hand in it.

In other words - how much should we depend on government to help us and how much should we help ourselves and how does it all tie together in a diverse society?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. Health status is very complex
There are certain things that people can do to maintain good health. Refraining from smoking cigarettes is perhaps the most important thing. Avoiding excessive alcohol and consuming a nutritious diet are also very important.

But there are also many aspects of health that are well beyond individual choice. Exposure to environmental or work place toxins is one. Infant mortality is very heavily affected by access to good prenatal care. A large segment of our population cannot affort this on their own, so they depend on various social programs to obtain the prenatal care that they need. Under the Bush administration these programs have been cut substantially. That plus the fact that a bigger percentage of women today are living in poverty, are important reasons why we are seeing a reversal of the several decades long trend of declining infant mortality in this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. well stated
And to me, since a lot of the health problems could probably be traced backed to something relating to companies (chemicals, et al), smog, and so on and so forth than we should, as a society, work harder to insure all our citizens are afforded the same health care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. Yes, I believe that everyone should have the right to decent health care
even if it wasn't for the pollution induced disease.

After all, children don't have anything to say about how much money their parents have for health care.

So, I certainly agree with you on that. Too bad that Clinton's plan got derailed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainbow gatherer Donating Member (91 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. Can social class birth rate differences be responsible?
Middle and upper class people have smaller families. If they were to have larger families the health of their families would not be hurt at all. However, the share of these people's children would increase.

Poor people have more health problems due to lack of care and unhealthy lifestyles being more purvasive in their circles. They also make up a growing share of births.

So if either you could increase the number of children born to the middle class, or decrease the number born to the lower class, you would decrease our overall infant mortality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raccoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #23
29. Poor people also are less likely to have health insurance.
although fewer and fewer Americans have that any more.

Also my guess is poor people have less access to birth control and abortion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MountainLaurel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. Not just that
They also have much more sporadic access to health care facilities: fewer doctors located in their neighborhoods (and often the poor must rely on public transportation or friends to rides if the site is not nearby), fewer specialists to deal with the diseases that plague the poor such as diabetes, heart disease, or gestational diabetes (since we're talking about infant mortality), doctors who won't accept Medicaid, fewer decent grocery stores where they can get decent fresh foods and must thus rely on processed crap. In some cases, infant mortality stats are related to a lack of mental health care: A parent with undiagnosed and untreated problems is more likely to kill their kid. Or the child dies in a fire because the electric has been turned off and the family was getting by using candles (as happened here in DC last year).

In addition, the poor can't just take off from work to go visit the doctor to begin with: They don't work, they don't get paid. In some workplaces, if you call out sick or come in late because you had an appointment, you get fired. No questions asked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raccoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. Great post. And that is so right,
"In some workplaces, if you call out sick or come in late because you had an appointment, you get fired. No questions asked."

Absolutely true. I think lots of people don't get that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #30
37. These are all very important issues that contribute to infant mortality
And then, when on top of that, you have social policies that decrease access of poor people to needed health care services, that compounds the problem. That is in all probability why we see the first increase in infant mortality in 40 years in 2002.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #23
32. I think the number of children does make a difference.
To my understanding, though, Mormons prefer large families. Am I wrong? Something about the mother receiving greater reward in the afterlife commensurate with the number of children she has?

BTW, if that's true, isn't it ironic how a male founder of a religion ensures that the women will endure greater responsibility and demands on their time to keep them occupied at home?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #32
41. In general, a large number of children is mildly related to decreased
health status. But that is probably not related mainly to the large number of children, but rather the fact that poor families tend to have more children than middle class or wealthy families. But Mormons may be an exception to that general rule.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainbow gatherer Donating Member (91 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #10
22. Utah is Mormon and...
Mormons don't smoke, they have children (reduced breast cancer in women) and don't drink . Interestingly enough some of the healthy states are highly educated, yuppy-ish and so they exercise, smoke and drink a lot less.

The southern states are unhealthy due to diet, smoking and drinking. When you have the health habits of a Russian male your life expectancy will reflect that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #22
33. You're right about the Mormons
They have very healthy life styles, and that has to be one of the reasons that Utah has such a high health index.

The point you make about education is also important. Exit polls from the 2004 election show that highly educated people (degree above college) are much more likely to vote for Kerry than Bush -- even though there is also a positive correlation between voting for Bush and family income.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Giant Robot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
11. You summed up the point nicely
Yes that percentage of Bush supporters logically should be appalled at this turn of events, as more babies are dying this way now instead of by abortions. But it really is not about life for them. It is about blind obedience to this single issue dogma. It is about an inability to think critically and see pictures in more colors than just black and white. And it is about an unquenching need to feel morally superior to others and force this morality upon the country and world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 06:53 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. I"m afraid that you're right about that,
though in different degrees for different people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Giant Robot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. I tried to hit the highlights
I'm sure most are some combination, and there may be a scattering of other reasons, but I believe this rant of mine is generally what is the causation for this odd behavior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 08:13 AM
Response to Original message
17. Perhaps an equally important issue is
the lack of reporting on this subject by our Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This is supposed to be a non-partisan federal public health agency. The latest statistics that are currently available are from 2002, and the last report that I could find is from January 2005, which comments on the rise in 2002.

What has happened since then? It seriously seems to me that there is a very high likelihood that CDC has been muzzled by its superiors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gronk Groks Donating Member (582 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #17
47. Latest U.N. report...U.S. Infant Mortality up each of last 5 years.
From: Cities for Progess
The annual Human Development Report
http://www.citiesforprogress.org/index.php?option=com_c...


Decline in health care

Child mortality is on the rise in the United States

For half a century the US has seen a sustained decline in the number of children who die before their fifth birthday. But since 2000 this trend has been reversed.

Although the US leads the world in healthcare spending - per head of population it spends twice what other rich OECD nations spend on average, 13 per cent of its national income - this high level goes disproportionately on the care of white Americans. It has not been targeted to eradicate large disparities in infant death rates based on race, wealth and state of residence.

The infant mortality rate in the US is now the same as in Malaysia

High levels of spending on personal health care reflect America's cutting-edge medical technology and treatment. But the paradox at the heart of the US health system is that, because of inequalities in health financing, countries that spend substantially less than the US have, on average, a healthier population. A baby boy from one of the top 5 per cent richest families in America will live 25 per cent longer than a boy born in the bottom 5 per cent and the infant mortality rate in the US is the same as Malaysia, which has a quarter of America's income.

Blacks in Washington DC have a higher infant death rate than people in the Indian state of Kerala

The health of US citizens is influenced by differences in insurance, income, language and education. Black mothers are twice as likely as white mothers to give birth to a low birthweight baby. And their children are more likely to become ill.

Throughout the US black children are twice as likely to die before their first birthday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MountainLaurel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. We're on par with Malaysia
Which has a national income that is one-quarter of ours.

:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gronk Groks Donating Member (582 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #50
63. Infant Mortality @ 3rd world levels in America...
...be interesting to figure out how many more infants have died under shrub's administration than would have died under the level of the last year of the Clinton administration.

Now THAT'S a crime!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. It comes to about 800
But still, it's just a guess, because we don't know for sure that Bush's policies are responsible. But I think that's a pretty good guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
auburngrad82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
38. that's because "pro life" stops at birth
After that the kid's on his/her own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. But as pointed out by some other posters on this thread
Even abortions have gone up under Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
45. Abortion rate in U.S. plummets during Clinton Presidency
The legal abortion rate in the U.S. decreased during Clinton's presidency from about 23 per 1,000 live births in 1992 to about 16 in in 2000:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html

A major reason for this was the fact that the teenage pregnancy rate during Clinton's two terms plummeted to an all time low.

The abortion rate under Bush's presidency held steady in 2001 and 2002 -- But again, I can't find any data past 2002. Hmmmmm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-21-05 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
46. Financial condition of mother is important factor in abortion rate
Poverty among young women leads to increases in abortion rate. This is one big reason why the decline in abortion rate experienced during the Clinton administration stalled when Bush took office, and is now likely to start going the other way:
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Stassen-Response...

"pro-lifers" should consider issues like this if they are considering voting for someone like Bush based solely on his stand on abortion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adamuu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
48. finally we see what pro-life is really about
Ohhhh so they're not really interested in seeing fewer babies die... they're just interested in punishing women who make mistakes. They think people won't have morals unless they beat them over the head with a stick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
51. Now Republicans kill dogs AND babies.
But that's only because we refuse to count the adult human beings who die from their heartless and deliberate incompetence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
52. None of this matters.........
to the "pro-life" theo-fascists. As long as the embryos are not aborted, everything is peachy-keen. Once the child leaves the womb their interest ebbs, it's somebody else's problem them. They exist only to protect the "unborn, who cannot speak for themselves". Apparently they think that immediately after child-birth the children can fend for themselves, "pull themselves up by their booty-straps" and take full responsibility for their own lives.
It's division of labor I guess. They only get paid up until the moment of birth, after that it's someone else's job.
Assholes. Fucking Republicans are evil personified. There's not one iota of "christ" in their "christian" philosophy, they're hypocrites of the first order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #52
69. All evil people are hypocrites
Edited on Fri Dec-23-05 10:53 AM by Time for change
They have to be. They can't go around acting like who they really are -- that would be too obvious, and they would be shunned by everyone. So they put on a show of their "Christian" or other virtues, so that at least they can fool enough people to get what they want.

I'm not saying that all "pro-lifers" fit in this category. I believe that some unknown number of them, maybe even most of them, are sincere in their beliefs. I'm using this description to apply to Bush, his cronies, and some of his followers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
entanglement Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
53. I have an idea about why many 'pro-life' people don't care
Your average Gawd-fearing Republican thinks that poverty is mostly a problem of Black / Brown people and couldn't care less about infant mortality / lifespan in those communities (I'm willing to bet many of them are quite pleased that people of color suffer in this country); So these statistics aren't going to have any effect on them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. I'm sure that there will be many who will not be affected by these stats
However, I have to believe that there are at least some who will be. If even 5% are, that could make a huge difference in the political landscape.

I just have to believe that at least some pro-lifers are sincere about their concern for the defenseless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
59. They only care about RICH WHITE REPUBLICAN BABIES unless preaching
about the eeeeeevillll "liberals" who dare to be concerned about the health of children and mothers who live in poverty without health insurance.

I'd vote for this if it weren't too late for it. Thank you, TfC, you do so much valuable work here. :yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #59
62. Thank you Hope - actually it was one of your recent posts that gave me the
idea for this one. The one about the causes of death from Katrina. :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #62
66. Ah, THIS post about the Katrina deaths, you mean:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
thread title (11/19 GD): NYT reports study of Katrina dead - MOST DIED AFTER THE STORM

They died from what the Bush Administration did before, during and after the storm - not from the storm itself. No matter how the Bushies suppress the truth, the blood of these people, like the blood of all those dying babies, is on their hands.

And the numbers of children dying from Bushie death-dealing in Iraq are much, much higher than the Bush Administration will admit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
thread title (12/16 GD): "Lancet study now censored because it shows a mass murder"

Many, many thousands of dead children from the "culture of life" people:



artist web site: http://www.coolon.net
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. Yep, that's it. It reminded me of my days working for the
Departments of Health in FL and PA. As an epidemiologist one of my main responsibilities was to assess trends in causes of death, to get an idea of where to put our resources towards improving health and reducing untimely deaths.

That's what your post did. It provided evidence that the main culprit in the New Orleans tragedy was not so much the forces of nature, which we can't do all that much about, but our government. That's the kind of thing that more people need to know about.

My OP for this thread has a similar theme.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #67
68. The parallel you draw is clear. The deaths these people are leaving
behind make their priorities - the things they care about and the things, or people, they don't crystal clear.

Thanks for telling me this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. You're welcome. Keep up the great work! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 26th 2017, 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC