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 in what way did having abortion rights to viability (i.e. term) save lives? The figures show that infants who would have been aborted because they had abnormalities incompatible with life were brought to term and then died (possibly in great pain, which is certainly an issue).
Abortion would not have saved the lives of children born of unmarried parents, the very poor etc., those infants would not have been born.
The issue here is two-fold. A too restrictive abortion policy which does not allow for abortion in cases where the infant is incapable of life (e.g. anencephaly) along poor public health, poor contraception provision and poor health care of mothers from some demographics (e.g. black mothers, poor mothers of any ethnicity).
The UK has a restrictive abortion law (less restrictive than in other parts of Europe, however) which allows termination of any pregnancy up to 24 weeks (point of viability) but also allows later abortion if the infant in utero has a condition incompatible with life, and obviously for when the infant dies in utero (to save the life of the mother). Ectopic pregnancies have to be terminated, there is no other choice and an abortion policy that said ectopic pregnancies could not be terminated would lay HCP open to charges of manslaughter, I would think. The UK law works well and is not an issue - except in what counts as disability i.e. abortion ought not to be allowed for club foot, cleft palette etc (though a cleft palette can indicate other abnormalities which will arise later, it is not that usual and a simple operation repairs the cleft - I was born with a cleft palette and I am fine, with a corrected speech defect).
The US has religion on steroids in some places and needs to teach biology properly and also reform its health care system. That's about all these reports show. That is, if you have stupid laws you will have stupid (and dangerous) outcomes.

No. Because a foetus is not the same as a baby or infant.

It appears that she has to be seen to be punished for conceiving a child (whether against her will or not is IMO irrelevant) that will not survive. She has to be seen to have the risks to her life, she and her family have to be seen to emotionally suffer to the highest degree, she and her family have to be seen to be penalised financially to the highest level by continuing the pregnancy, having the most expensive birth, the most expensive interventions, the most expensive death.

Works out well for profitmaking medical organisations, though. If she's actually covered by insurance, they're going to rake it in from each of those women - and if she's not, well, there could be a home, a vehicle, salaries - loads of money.

I think both women should have the choice to do what they consider to be right for them.

Women are also dying in higher numbers, from conditions such as missed miscarriage.
Some of those women are already mothers, so the anti abortion policy also has a knock on effect on their families.

Give me an actual pro-lifer over a misogynist who claims to be pro-lifer but just wants to punish women.

I am 100% prochoice for everyone else. But I am pro-life for myself. I could never end a pregnancy under any circumstance. Because what if they were wrong. There was an article in the BBC this week about a couple of mothers who ended their babies lives through abortion because of wrong information. And someone who refused abortion after being told the baby was incompatible with life that was fully healthy. This is why some people are prolife. And in the case of incest, rape etc I simply believe it's not my place to end life.
Maybe that perspective from someone that is prochoice, might support debate that's a nicer tone. Rather than the tone of contempt from some on the prochoice side.

Just to be clear i didn't think there was anything wrong with Relocate's tone. That was just coincidence it was her post i quoted

I heard this story on the news yesterday and thought 'No shit Sherlock!'. Of course there are going to be many babies born now that would otherwise have been terminated for medical reasons. It's horrendous that their poor mothers are forced to go through with the pregnancy of a non-viable foetus, when safe medical termination exists, but that's one of the consequences of an abortion ban and it increases the suffering of babies and their mothers (and wider families).

I'm not sure how any of that has to do with what I said. I am also pro-life for myself. Which is actually pro-choice because I am choosing that for myself.

I am genuinely curious as to that posters reasoning, which she has not explained at all. Although, it would be a lie to say I don't hold contempt for anyone who thinks it's okay to force women to give birth.

I feel it's a fair belief that one life has more meaning than the other ie a woman's versus 28 week foetus/baby. But i don't think people have the right to end another's life. And i do see a 28 week old baby as a person in their own right. It's a difference of opinion, with no hard factual one is right or wrong, and not worthy of contempt.
Again, overall I'm prochoice but there's a lack of balance in prolifers here being able to contribute genuinely because of the overt derision towards them.

Never with people who hold these views. And if the child did happen to survive they never offer assistance in raising them either

Anyone has the right to choose for themselves. The issue for me with prolifers is they wish the removal of my bodily autonomy. That to me is unacceptable

There is an overt derision because the concept of forcing women and girls to give birth is so disgustingly cruel and wrong. Don't agree with abortion, then fine, don't have one but don't try and impose that on other women.

This is because in some places even things like edwards / patau don't qualify for an abortion. A lot of babies are literally dying in horrible pain in their first few days of life.

You can't just claim an article from a reputable news source is "garbage" without at least explaining why.

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

Mumsnet doesn't hate people who are pro-life/anti-abortion. MN users hate people who are forced birthers. If your version of being pro-life is giving support, housing, food, wraparound-around care to young and/or vulnerable mums, so they can keep their babies if they want to, but can afford to, fill your boots.

But I was involved in a program for many years like that, offering housing and support to young, vulnerable mums, in our own homes, and ALL the homes were pro-choice. Every one. Where were all the pro-lifers? Not supporting the mums, that's for sure.

If your form of pro-life is forcing vulnerable, poor, young mums to carry a lifeless or traumatic unwanted pregnancy to term for your own beliefs, you are knowingly inflicting the worst kind of torture on women. And it's worth saying, if you actually want to reduce the number of abortions, look at the countries that have the fewest. It's not where they are illegal, just the opposite. It's where they are accessible and free. Because that tends to go together with good: women's rights, contraception, sex education and human rights. All of which increase women's control of their own fertility.

Bad at empathy and statistics.

@GrettaGreen

Again, overall I'm prochoice but there's a lack of balance in prolifers here being able to contribute genuinely because of the overt derision towards them

'Overt derision' in the case of those who believe it would be morally right for women and girls to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth against their will is a perfectly reasonable stance.

Think about what they're advocating for in their ideal world. How does that work? Are the women and girls kept in prison and forced to continue the pregnancy? To give birth in a prison hospital wing?

Really think about what they're advocating for in their ideal world. How it would work in practice. And then consider whether you think it's wrong for people to share overt derision for those views.

It's no secret that banning abortion leads to more deaths of both mothers and babies as well as babies being born with very low quality of life. I live in a country where in theory there is the right to abortion but in practice it is difficult to access and late abortion is not allowed. When I was pregnant I met another mum who found out at around 25 weeks that her baby was severely brain-damaged, would have no quality of life and would probably live a life of constant pain. She was not allowed an abortion and ended up going to another country to get one. I think she did the right thing. Pro-lifers are never interested in quality of life ime.

Just to add, I hate the designation "pro-life". I am pro-life. I want everyone to have a good chance of a decent life. That is why choice is so important.

There are some conditions where foetuses are shown so profoundly disabled it is inhumane to let them suffer - Neural tube defects- Cyclopia- Far more humane to terminate after early testing.

I hear all that. I agree with those thoughts. I just think that a derisive tone doesn't educate or help shift people to prochoice. The only real outcome is that they got a chance to belittle people and others feel belittled.

I've been here a longtime and it's a well known issue on the 'feminist' board. It's why it's such an echo chamber, focused on essentially bitching rather than genuine debate which as someone prochoice, gender critical, I'd prefer.

I'll see myself out back to the main boards.

It’s ridiculous as like you say you can almost see the opinion of pro lifers when they are talking about a potential healthy child but it seems that some areas of the US just cannot see that abortion isn’t just a ‘social choice’ it’s also a medical treatment in many cases either for the life of the mother or to prevent the birth of a child so severely unwell
they die during or soon after birth ?

What kind of debate is there left to have? You can write out all the facts and figures, present them with so many real examples of babies and women suffering and they'll still scream "baby murderer" at you.

I think that's why it makes people so angry. There is no sensible reasoning with pro-lifers, so the only options are get angry or leave it unchallenged, which is very hard to do when it comes to such an emotive issue.

@GrettaGreen

If a man came onto any board on here and said that women belong in the kitchen and were only good for cooking and cleaning, he would be treated with overt derision and robustly challenged by lots of posters.

I respect the view that women should be legally forced to give birth to a baby against their will just as much as I respect the views of the hypothetical man I just mentioned. That is to say, I don't respect those opinions at all.

I'll continue to treat them with overt derision and challenge both, despite not thinking it will change their minds. Because I think it's the right thing to do and also because I think it's important that readers who may be on the fence, or may believe lies or falsehoods those posters use to bolster their arguments, see the other side of the debate.