Log in

No account? Create an account

March 2018



Powered by LiveJournal.com

Disturbing fact of the day

Pregnancy-related deaths more frequent than reported
"A new study highlights why a broader definition of maternal mortality raises public health challenges."
By Stephanie Stapleton, AMNews staff. April 9, 2001.

Washington -- Maternal mortality in the United States is measured in single digits.

However, a study published in the March 21 JAMA offered a new round of evidence that the number of women who die from pregnancy-related illnesses or episodes is chronically undercounted. Even more disturbing, the study's data, collected in Maryland, conclude that the primary cause of these deaths was homicide.

"Clearly, pregnancy is a lot safer than it was 50 years ago, but not as safe as we would expect. Many deaths are not counted," said Isabelle L. Horon, DrPH, director of the Maryland Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene Vital Statistics Administration in Baltimore, and lead author of the JAMA article.

Uncovering the number of homicides, which accounted for 20% of all pregnancy-related deaths in the study, was not the goal of her research, she added."

Why wasn't the headline:1 in 5 of all pregnancy-related deaths homicides

Not surprising to me. It is in keeping with my economic theory of reproduction. Children are expensive. If men can't find any other way of getting out of paying for them I'm not suprised they turn to murder. And of course our patriarchal society doen't care.


Word Up

Speaking of killing unborn children ... Has anyone else noticed something? This pregnant woman who was murdered by her husband that is all over the news? Her husband is being indicted on two counts of murder. Does anyone else find that slightly disturbing? I thought that a fetus was not a person under the law per Roe v. Wade? Am I nuts or is that a bit strange? Legally speaking, fyi. I of course find what the man did reprehensible and feel he should be placed in front of a firing squad very soon. However, are women's rights groups asleep on this? If I had a womb, I'd be mildly concerned about that ...

Re: Word Up

Yes I do find that disturbing. The whole concept of what protection a fetus should have under the law is very difficult. A woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy should she feel it necessary but does that mean a fetus should have no legal protection at all? On the one hand a victim of thalidomide could be without legal recourse since the harm was done before they became a person. On the other hand, it is possible to see women imprisoned for having a beer or smoking a cigarette while they were pregnant. We’ve already seen some of that as well as a hospital refusing to allow a pregnant cancer victim to have an abortion even though her physician felt continuing the pregnancy would shorten her life and both she and her family wanted the abortion. She didn’t live long enough for the fetus to become viable. Still, nobody wants to see the man who kicks his 8 month pregnant partner in the stomach so she loses the baby get away with only an assault charge. It’s very complicated and I don’t see how we will ever be able to find a “one size fits all” law. It’s tempting to say if the fetus is viable it has rights but then you are left with that thalidomide baby who was damaged in the first trimester.

This is a question with no easy answers. I’m going to post a version of this in my journal. I belong to a couple of communities and I’d like to hear other opinions.

Re: Word Up

Roe v. Wade did not declare that a fetus isn't a person. What it did say is that during the first two trimesters of a pregnancies, a woman's right to control her own body outweighs any rights that the fetus may have. It's a very different statement.

Roe v. Wade doesn't prevent a six-week fetus from inheriting an estate when a parent or grandparent dies, for example.

In the case of a third party, even the father, murdering a pregnant woman, her right to control her own body isn't at issue. The double-murder charges have no implications on Roe v. Wade.

Re: Word Up

Hmm ... Interesting. Thank you for that information.