Infant mortality rises in US states with abortion bans

Is it ever right to kill a woman because she's pregnant? That's the alternative sometimes, abortion can save the woman's life. Without abortion, mum and baby die. How is that better?!

'less than perfect' is a coy way of describing catastrophic abnormalities. These can cause enormous suffering, for the baby and for the family.

These must be the most difficult experiences to go through and it's up to the mother what she wishes to do, supported hopefully by understanding, compassionate, and knowledgeable medics.

Your 'no' leads to women dying; and to women being forced to deliver babies with significant abnormalities who have no hope of survival, let alone any quality of life.

So you are ill at ease with disability and less than "perfect" lives?
But you're avoiding the question, is it ever right to deliberately kill a baby in utero or just after birth?
I say no.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/tiniest-patients-fetal-surgery-delivers-big-results-flna890052

Thanks. The situation in the US is dire, I think.

All these people who are anti abortion but not properly universal health care, are monsters.

They can call pro-choicers names but it you aren't filling in the gaps behind closing off abortion you are simply creating unnecessary suffering and not saving anyone from anything.

In the US, well parts of it, the majority of black people are poor and have a worse education that their white peers (due to historical zoning).

That means less access to travel out of state.

Less chance of pregnancy care, vitamins, sonograms, black people are more likely to have diabetes than white.

There is also something no one wants to think about and that is that if you are pregnant and don't want to be you might do things in the hope of ending the pregnancy.

Survive at 24 weeks without any medical intervention and go on to lead a life that is without any significant disabilities or conditions that need ongoing medical care?

I’m sure there are some, but mostly not.

It’s always ‘playing god’ and a baaaad thing when medical intervention is to ease suffering, but applauded and encouraged when it is to prolong an unviable or miserably painful life.

The need for abortion is based on women's rights. The need for late term abortion is based, at least for most people, on medical issues with the foetus or mother. It is very hard to think of a reason, except this, for abortions being permitted over 24 weeks gestation.

I might believe that 'as early as possible, as late as necessary' but when we are trying to convince others, medical need is paramount.

Practically, the only late abortions that take place happen because of the severe disability of the foetus, or something life threatening to the mother.

Thankyou to all the posters here who've responded to me.
I've had some clarity overnight about why the JAMA paper disturbs me (granted, I've only read the summary).
It seems to rest on an assumption that, "Abortion needs to be legal because there are some pregnancies that, objectively, should end in termination."
That's a really dodgy basis for justifying access to abortion, imo.
Securing legal (and practical) access to abortion is about returning agency to the woman who is actually pregnant.
I can have all sorts of opinions about the futility or meaninglessness or burdensomeness of any particular child's life, but that's not what the need for abortion is based on. It's about whether or not a woman wants to bring her own pregnancy to term.
If any social pressure to abort a pregnancy is brought to bear on a woman it's, imo, a violation. And the (hopefully completely misunderstood) suggestion that that pressure be brought to bear more heavily on Black women just set off alarm bells. Which I think clouded my thinking and comprehension.

Add to this the fact that the richest man in the world is already slashing support for disabled families and children. This isn't about caring for 'life' or believing that profoundly disabled children should live, because they want to ensure such children and their families get no support, no encouragement, no enrichment of their lives unless they are fortunate enough to have parents who can afford to buy these things privately.

I will never forget Savita Halappanavar.

CDC data analysis https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/ss/ss7307a1.htm#T1_down

Savita Halappanavar. That's what can happen. Don't forget women like her.

Zero infants are killed by abortion.

As opposed to how many infants who would have been killed by abortion?

I wonder if americans who don’t want abortion are going to be willing to pay for a lifetime of medical and social care needed by babies born with serious health conditions?
I am disabled myself and am a retired learning disability nurse so in no way am I suggesting all pregnancies with a risk of the baby being disabled should be terminated but there are conditions which will mean life long suffering. To insist such pregnancies continue to birth is not only cruel but will ultimately be extremely costly in medical and care bills.
Given the US doesn’t want to pay for universal healthcare or to support poor or disabled people how is the resultant increase in severely disabled and ill babies being born who will become severely disabled and ill children/ adults work out for them?
I can only suppose they don’t mind suffering and dying after birth because that is “god’s will”. There is sometimes a bit of sentimentality and charity fundraising for “sick kids” but it is much less fashionable to do anything for the very same babies and children once they are adults.
Although the US doesn’t give a shit about women’s rights, it certainly gives multiple shits about money so this has not been thought through.

sorry @Grammarnut this is the post I was thinking of, I've tagged the wrong person.
I don't disagree with anything you say. I went on a bit of a fact finding mission after reading the free summary of OP's paper because I was very ignorant about alot of the race and wealth disparities relating to reproductive freedoms in the USA.

My issue with your comment is that the only measure you are using is the death of the baby and it's irrelevant whether that is abortion or incompatible with life. But there is a cost to the mother too in having to go through with a pregnancy, there's a cost to other family members including children. Why are women not trusted to make the right decision for themselves.

Wanted to add this, River. I did give this reason for abortion: when one looks at (the) abject poverty in which some women live, who may also be abused mentally, physically and sexually - (i)n such cases abortion may well be the right choice of action
These facts of many women's lives in the early twentieth century (and every century before it) were some of the reasons why the 1967 abortion act was passed in the UK. In order to help the wives of men who mistreated them. To help women who had no recourse to contraception because their DH would not allow it and would throw out packets of pills, caps, refuse to use a condom because they were entitled to sex without the 'reduction in pleasure' caused by condoms and to father children at their will (for such men, in poor work, their wife was the only person they had power over, so they used that power). Women whose DH beat them and who, in the 60s, for both economic and social reasons had no way to escape this misery and the misery of the children they bore. It's not the thin end of any wedge, it is the wedge itself - men abused women's reproductive capacity and in 1967 women were finally able to stop them (sometimes). Greater access to childcare and paid work has much reduced (not ended) the abuse of women in intimate relationships, thanks to feminism.

Not on your Nelly do they. That might cut pharma's and the health industries' profits.

I did not say it was 'better for a severely disabled child to die than live with an impoverished family'. I said that the US figures showed that children who would die either at birth or soon after due to conditions incompatible with life, were being brought to term and dying soon after birth (possibly in great pain). I think I cited anencephaly. The abortion of babies whose deformities are not compatible with life is permitted upto term in the UK, though the time limit for elective abortions is 24 weeks, for comparison with the US. Incompatibility with life is not the same as severely disabled.
I do not support abortion for such things as cleft paletter or club foot, which should be obvious (I was born with a cleft palette, as it happens).

Every baby ideally would be wanted, and to be looked after properly to see it into independent adulthood -
Unwanted babies born into neglect and chaos is cruel.
Contraception is the answer here, but in reality people don't always use it.

Very early termination is more humane, surely.