Infant mortality rises in US states with abortion bans

[IwantToRetire]

Researchers estimate there were 478 infant deaths across 14 states which have outright bans or heavy restrictions - which they say would not have occurred had the laws not been in place.

The rise comes after the US Supreme Court reversed a ruling in 2022 that made abortion up to foetal viability a national right, allowing individual states to decide on whether to allow the procedure.

Alison Gemmill, co-leader of the study, said "restrictive abortion policies" could be "reversing decades of progress" in reducing infant deaths across the US.

The study, published this week by researchers, external from the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, found an increase in mortality rates for babies born with congenital issues, as well as among groups where death rates already were higher than average.

This included black infants, as well as for babies whose parents were unmarried, younger, did not attend college, and for those living in southern states.

Full article at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8d9z853jndo

so children born with conditions not compatible with life (serious heart or brain defects for example) died after delivery.
certainly an area where further studies and research will be needed and possibly in the case of poverty additional support put in place.

I’m confused, the abortion restrictions or in some places bans have been in place since Jan. That’s like 6 weeks?

Roe v Wade was overturned in June 2022 and several states had trigger laws which immediately came into effect banning abortion. Many more states have joined since. Plenty of time to start seeing these patterns.

If you're going to quote articles then you might want to make sure they're not complete garbage.

If you want to contribute to the debate, could you please lay out what exactly is garbage? Always happy to take a critical eye to things.

The Supreme Court overturned the ruling giving a federal right to abortion in 2022. Since then laws on abortion have been set at state level.

12 states ban abortion altogether, 4 allow it up to 6 weeks, 2 up to 12 weeks, 1 up to 8 weeks.

The other 31 states allow abortion up to foetal viability. Interestingly, this includes some states, such Montana and Arizona, where abortion protections were enshrined in state constitutions on the same date in 2024 as the votes in the presidential election went in favour of Trump.

There's no point. Mumsnet hates people who are pro-life/anti-abortion and I no longer get into debates about it because I will just get deleted.

So stay out of the threads. They annoy you and you're not contributing anything. I'm genuinely curious what your criticism of the article it.

Tbh I usually do but that article is completely misleading and if you can't see that then that's up to you.
I can't contribute anything because I'll be silenced.

You do know you're coming across as having no real argument because you refuse to present it and are also boosting this thread?

Is your issue with the study (criticism of methodology or analysis?) or with the BBC's presentation of the study findings?

I've got plenty of arguments against abortion but they're not allowed on this site and I'm also not an arsehole who would share those views on a site where people come for abortion support.

Researchers estimate there were 478 infant deaths across 14 states which have outright bans or heavy restrictions - which they say would not have occurred had the laws not been in place.
This is the very first paragraph and it's a lie. It's saying that if the parents had been allowed to have an abortion then the babies wouldn't have died. Except they would have, wouldn't they.

This is hardly a surprise is it? People are being forced to carry higher risk pregnancies, whatever the reason may be. It's extremely worrying that Vance is attacking UK abortion protection laws in speeches. With the global rise of the far right and abortion still technically being criminal here.

OK. I can see that it is definitely frustrating/upsetting to some people to see that wording, although it is aligned with current medical standards (which I know you also disagree with and these things do change over time so I'm not saying they're fixed or fact just current standards).

However, I see it like palliative care for terminal patients. We try to minimise their pain and suffering. These babies didn't have that option.

But then I'm also for assisted dying if it is tightly regulated. I just don't think people should have to experience unnecessary pain, especially if their condition is terminal.

OK, so it's a good thing to force the mother to give birth even though ,as you state, the babies would have died anyway?

And get into crippling medical debt for the privilege of doing so

@ThejoyofNC

It's saying that if the parents had been allowed to have an abortion then the babies wouldn't have died. Except they would have, wouldn't they.

Just to be clear, if a baby has a condition that means doctors know they will only live for a matter of hours or days once born, do you still believe that the morally right thing (in your ideal world, if you were making the rules) is for the mother to be legally required continue the pregnancy and give birth rather than terminate when the incompatibility with life after birth is discovered?

Yes, that is my belief.

@ThejoyofNC

Thanks for being honest about it rather than backtracking.

I can't in good faith engage much further with someone who would wish to legally force a woman or girl, against her wishes, to carry and give birth to a baby that will die shortly afterwards despite the almost unthinkable trauma that every step of that process would cause her. Despite knowing the baby will live a very short time afterwards and if incompatible with life, probably a painful time too.

I hope you find it in your heart one day to consider the ramifications of your beliefs.

Have a good day.

There are women who choose to continue pregnancies of babies who will not live very long due to the conditions they have who would find your view very upsetting too. Carers will do much to prevent pain for these babies. I have been involved in caring for women who make this choice. Your articulated beliefs have ramifications too.

I am pro choice but the arguments are nuanced and I can see from both sides. Debate it’s important.

@HaPPy8

There are women who choose to continue pregnancies of babies who will not live very long due to the conditions they have who would find your view very upsetting too. Carers will do much to prevent pain for these babies. I have been involved in caring for women who make this choice. Your articulated beliefs have ramifications too.

I genuinely apologise if my post was poorly worded, truly. And would hate it to cause upset to anyone.

I completely appreciate that some women would choose to go through with such a pregnancy and have reasons for wanting to do so. I can understand that for some women that would be the right choice for them. They should be fully supported. I think that it might be the choice I would make too in some situations.

The important bit of my post, I suppose, was that the PP would have women go through this against their will in her ideal world. That is the unthinkable trauma I mentioned. To be legally forced to go through the pregnancy and birth against their wishes.

I can't imagine a much more traumatic experience than having to do that against your will.

I do hope that @ThejoyofNC and all those who agree with his/her standpoint are willing to pay the medical expenses caused by their tenets, for the mothers and the babies.

I just cannot understand why? Why cause the unnecessary suffering of a baby and a woman? I can't imagine how awful it must be forced to give birth knowing your baby will suffer and die shortly after birth.

I'm pro-choice but I can kind of see the logic of pro-lifers when it's about the potential for a healthy child. I just can't see the logic for this though. It just seems so cruel.

At first I thought that was one of the most insensitive thread hijacks I've seen but actually, its should stand so that everyone can see exactly what these 'pro lifer's' stand for.

@ThejoyofNC so if a woman was pregnant through incest and the foetus had deformities (more likely with incest) which meant its brain or heart or another organ were developing outside its body or not at all, resulting in the fact it will die either inside the woman (causing expensive and life threatening conditions for the woman who was the main caregiver for her other children), or soon after an assisted birth, you would still want her to continue the pregnancy?

At what point is the woman and her family more important than a unviable foetus?

@Hermyknee

The problem with this debate is that we think that if we present a horrific and traumatic enough example to someone who shares the beliefs of @ThejoyofNC then they will say that in that case yes, they would prioritise the pregnant woman (or girl) over the foetus.

I suppose at least that poster is honest about the fact that they wouldn't do so. It doesn't make it any less upsetting to hear someone care so little for the women (or girls) who are pregnant.