“The United States is, and has been for quite some time, in the midst of a maternal and infant mortality crisis,” said Dr Jamila Perritt, a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist and president of Physicians for Reproductive Health.
Banning access to reproductive healthcare, including abortion care, is “directly causing an increase in morbidity and mortality in our community”, she said. “We have really robust evidence that shows us that when people have sought abortion care and are unable to obtain it, their psychological, social, physical and emotional health is harmed.”
Maternal and infant mortality will probably increase because of the restrictions – especially if national limitations, like enforcement of the Comstock Act, are put into place.
A few bits – the US has recently changed the way it measures maternal mortality which is a part of the explanation. The two cases in Georgia everyone is making so much of were women who *did* have abortions and got those complications that never happen from taking the pills.
But, as ever, it’s the whole thing that needs to be looked at. How many are not aborted – if we’re to weigh the bodies – as a result of the changes? Perhaps that should be used as an offset against those who die because no abortion?
OK, OK, yes. I’m an extremist and all that.
However, something that would be really interesting to find out. Has the birth rate risen? These same changes – has the birth rate risen or not? And even that will be complex. The pregnancy to birth rate will, presumably, have risen. But if the pregnancy rate has fallen – more people take more care – then the effect on births in total could go either way.
Given the toxicity of the underlying subject I’m not sure we’ll ever see any proper papers on this. But perhaps we should?
Claiming that infant mortality will increase because of fewer abortions suggests that this doctor should indeed be certified, just not by the Board of Obstetricians (is there a Board of Semantics?)
Or is she saying that fewer abortions means more babies which means ipso facto that a higher number will eventually die from various causes while still infants?
Well, I do like the logic. If you want the baby, it’s human, and killing it would be evil.
If you don’t want the baby, it’s a nuisance, and NOT killing it would be evil.
I know what they’re not looking at: the Pfizer Papers on the basis of which their jab was released, which the company wanted hidden for seventy five years but which the redoubtable Naomi Wolf got released and handed to a team of experts to extract relevant information. It’s not good news for fertility, maintaining a pregnancy to term, healthy outcomes or breastfeeding and yet the jab was approved. I guess killing/preventing babies is part of the medical establishment zeitgeist.
I’m mildly surprised that no Dem politician has yet worked out a way to promote abortions in Republican-voting families while promoting fecundity in Dem-voting. I suppose such a policy would be too long-term to interest a politician – the same result could be achieved faster by just opening the border.
“The United States is, and has been for quite some time, in the midst of a maternal and infant mortality crisis,” said Dr Jamila Perritt, a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist and president of Physicians for Reproductive Health.
Physicians for Reproductive Health is a lobbying group for abortion doctors.
I think that anyone who talks bout the US as a single ‘community’ with a single legal regime and a single culture should just be laughed at and then ignored.
PiP, ironically, the Ds have implemented a culture that selects for being outbreed.