Study shows states with the most anti abortion laws also have the worst women's health

Prove there is a shortage or that we have a problem keeping babies alive other than the ones the mother wants to kill.

 

As in the actual child in the womb.

All for it and no one is "punished" except the innocent life in the womb when the mother punishes it for being there.

 

Our infant mortality rate is the highest of any industrialized country. Pretty much speaks for itself.

 

Only because of the way we record them. We have one of the best system of neonatal care in the world and try to save everyone of them, at least the ones the mothers don't want dead.

 

Prove they're recorded wrong...

 

Nope not born yet so not an actuality but only a possibility

 

No you don’t otherwise this map would be more homogenous

 

That is an internal comparison you're trying to make a point about external comparisons.

 

Already exist, there's no "possibility" about it.

 

Why I didn't say they were recorded wrong.

 

Qibbling….OK explain how recording them doesn't mean we have one of the highest infant mortality rates ...

 

Statistics compiled in one country versus statistics compiled in another under different standards and factors.

• Unlike in the U.S., low birth weight infants are not counted against the “live birth” statistics for many countries reporting low infant mortality rates.

• According to the way statistics are calculated in Canada, Germany and Austria, a premature baby weighing less than 500 grams is not considered a living child.

• In the U.S., very low birth weight babies are considered live births. The mortality rate of such infants – considered “unsalvageable” outside of the U.S. and therefore never alive – is extraordinarily high; up to 869 per 1,000 in the first month of life alone. This skews U.S. IM statistics.

• Since 2000, 42 of the world’s 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400 grams (0.9 lbs) were born in the U.S.

• Some of the countries reporting infant mortality rates lower than the U.S. classify babies as “stillborn” if they survive less than 24 hours whether or not such babies breathe, move, or have a beating heart at birth. But in the U.S., all infants who show signs of life at birth (take a breath, move voluntarily, have a heartbeat) are considered alive and are reflected in our IM statistics.

• If a child in Hong Kong or Japan is born alive but dies within the first 24 hours of birth, he or she is reported as a “miscarriage” and it does not affect the country’s reported IM rates.

• In Switzerland and other parts of Europe, a baby born less than 30 centimeters long is not counted as a live birth. Therefore, unlike in the U.S., such high-risk infants cannot affect Swiss IM rates.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/physic...a-successful-health-care-system/#4622083931f0

 

So you find infant mortality rates in the US acceptable???

 

Of course there can and will be improvements as medical science and technology improve, what is the line of scrimmage between "acceptable" and "non-acceptable"?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
So you find infant mortality rates in the US acceptable???

No answer.

"Non-acceptable" is any in the "world's greatest country"

Certainly not the level it's at...

 

No answer.

 

I answered : "Non-acceptable" is any in the "world's greatest country"

Certainly not the level it's at...""


Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it wasn't an answer ..

The situation should embarrass Americans...

 

No answer

What situation, you haven't proved the statistics "unacceptable" what would be "acceptable" to you? Are you really saying that NO babies dying after birth is even attainable or that we should not try to save as many as we do in order to get the numbers down. That even one baby dying at birth or shortly thereafter is "unaccetable"? I asked you what is that scrimmage line, that line in the sand and be specific and REALISTIC.

 

Our rural hospitals do not have the resources of the best hospitals in the country. You cannot argue that they do.

Every dollar wasted on trying to pass anti-abortion laws could have been used to upgrade rural hospitals and well-baby clinics in low income areas. We could be saving more babies wanted by their parents. But instead, we pay millions to lawyers to argue worthless cases and spend millions on anti-abortion laws that get struck down by the courts.

"Pro-life" is just a code word for State control of a woman's uterus. Nothing more.

 

Every dollar sent to Planned Parenthood could have been used to upgrade rural hospitals and well-baby clinics in low income areas. We could be saving more babies wanted by their parents. But instead we send money to PP to kill them.

"Women's reproductive health" is just code words for kill the baby. Nothing more.

 

Why save fetuses NOT wanted by their parents???

What a load of pure crap.

NO babies are killed in abortion. Planned Parenthood supplies accessible affordable BC and other health related services.

Only 3% of their services are abortions which ARE health related.


WHO IS THIS "WE" you say send money to PP to kill fetuses ??

 

How about "lower than other countries especially Third World countries" ...

 

How about those third world countries trying to save as many as we do?

 

How about "lower than other countries especially Third World countries" ...

 

As has been shown previous they don't try to save the babies we do and therefore do not count them as births and later deaths. Apples to oranges statistics.