Idaho dissolves maternal mortality review committee

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Apr 17, 2009
111,666
37,688
2,250
Canis Latrans
This makes no sense.

Maternal mortality has increased over the past two decades, and the US is the highest among comparable developed nations. Given Idaho’s abortion ban, you would think they would want to work hard to make childbirth safer and improve healthcare for women and infants. Analyzing preventable deaths gives information on how prevent them in the future.

It can’t be budgetary either, because it is budget neutral.


The rate of pregnancy-related deaths in Idaho remains high, according to the latest annual report published by a committee studying maternal deaths in the state.

The release of the report comes just as the maternal mortality review committee, or MMRC, has officially terminated its work, after the Idaho Legislature declined to remove its June 30, 2023 sunset date.

The latest report, analyzing deaths that occurred in 2021, will be the committee’s last, unless new legislation is passed allowing its work to continue. This leaves Idaho as the only state without a maternal mortality review committee.

For four years, the committee made up of doctors, social workers, coroners, emergency personnel and more, studied each death that occurred during pregnancy or within a year after, in an effort to eliminate preventable maternal deaths, as well as health problems that result from being pregnant or giving birth.

Of the 42 pregnancy-associated deaths the committee analyzed between 2018 and 2021, all but one – or 98% – were found to be preventable.
 
This makes no sense.

Maternal mortality has increased over the past two decades, and the US is the highest among comparable developed nations. Given Idaho’s abortion ban, you would think they would want to work hard to make childbirth safer and improve healthcare for women and infants. Analyzing preventable deaths gives information on how prevent them in the future.

It can’t be budgetary either, because it is budget neutral.

If you're embarrassed by how many women die, quit counting. It's the MAGA way.
 
This makes no sense.

Maternal mortality has increased over the past two decades, and the US is the highest among comparable developed nations. Given Idaho’s abortion ban, you would think they would want to work hard to make childbirth safer and improve healthcare for women and infants. Analyzing preventable deaths gives information on how prevent them in the future.

It can’t be budgetary either, because it is budget neutral.

Idaho doesn't care about women.
 
This makes no sense.

Maternal mortality has increased over the past two decades, and the US is the highest among comparable developed nations. Given Idaho’s abortion ban, you would think they would want to work hard to make childbirth safer and improve healthcare for women and infants. Analyzing preventable deaths gives information on how prevent them in the future.

It can’t be budgetary either, because it is budget neutral.

A core belief of the GOP is that women being powerless and in danger is a net good for society
 
Also from the report...ahem...

''The legislation that established the MMRC gave members legal protection to review specific case information for maternal deaths and the authority to request records from health and law enforcement agencies.

“Absent the statute, or the enabling legislation, the committee can’t function in the same way,” Elke Shaw-Tulloch, with the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare,
told Boise State Public Radio in May.

Some lawmakers questioned why Idaho needed state-specific maternal mortality information and the far-right lobbying group Idaho Freedom Foundation argued the committee would inevitably lead to the expansion of government.

One of the MMRC’s key recommendations for preventing maternal deaths has been to expand postpartum Medicaid coverage from 60 days to 12 months. A bill introduced this past legislative session to do so did not receive a hearing.
 
There is merit to the argument of eliminating a bad statistic by eliminating the statistician.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #12
So…apparently making a recommendation to expand Medicaid coverage for women and infants equals a horrible expansion of government and reason to terminate this panel?

Banning abortion and forcing unwilling women to carry a pregnancy to term is a good use of government, but working to reduce the mortality of those women is “bad”.
 
This makes no sense.

Maternal mortality has increased over the past two decades, and the US is the highest among comparable developed nations. Given Idaho’s abortion ban, you would think they would want to work hard to make childbirth safer and improve healthcare for women and infants. Analyzing preventable deaths gives information on how prevent them in the future.

It can’t be budgetary either, because it is budget neutral.


They examined 42 in 3 years? Well, that's why it was dissolved. That's 42 cases in 3 years. That is not an alarming number by any means.

In just one year of those 3 years they had over 21,000 births.

 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #14
They examined 42 in 3 years? Well, that's why it was dissolved. That's 42 cases in 3 years. That is not an alarming number by any means.

In just one year of those 3 years they had over 21,000 births.

That’s just the ones they examined. Idaho’s pregnancy related death rate in 2020 was 41.8 per 100,000. Alarming or not, it is higher than the national average and that of comparable countries. And that review panel cost them nothing.
 
This makes no sense.

Maternal mortality has increased over the past two decades, and the US is the highest among comparable developed nations. Given Idaho’s abortion ban, you would think they would want to work hard to make childbirth safer and improve healthcare for women and infants. Analyzing preventable deaths gives information on how prevent them in the future.

It can’t be budgetary either, because it is budget neutral.

Did you read the article?

These studies are done all over the place and have been going on for years. The results are the same: 98% of the infant deaths are preventable. Many of them die from the mother being stupid, like doing drugs or drinking.

Why do we need to keep spending money to keep getting the same findings?

Is Biden going to stop Fentanyl from crossing our border? Nope. So don’t act like you care about all these deaths.
 
That’s just the ones they examined. Idaho’s pregnancy related death rate in 2020 was 41.8 per 100,000. Alarming or not, it is higher than the national average and that of comparable countries. And that review panel cost them nothing.
Well other countries aren’t dumb enough to allow open borders and have fentanyl poison their population. Nor do they flood their countries with third world imports that drives infant mortality up.

So let’s stop pretending this government program is going to find something we don’t already know: Pregnant mothers, stop drinking and doing drugs. Secure the border to reduce the flood of fentanyl. Stop rampant third world immigration. Then we will see infant mortality rates drop.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #17
Well other countries aren’t dumb enough to allow open borders and have fentanyl poison their population. Nor do they flood their countries with third world imports that drives infant mortality up.

So let’s stop pretending this government program is going to find something we don’t already know: Pregnant mothers, stop drinking and doing drugs. Secure the border to reduce the flood of fentanyl. Stop rampant third world immigration. Then we will see infant mortality rates drop.
Thanks for the rant, but that has nothing to do with the increase in maternal mortality, it’s just your soapbox.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #18
Did you read the article?
I sure did. Did you?


These studies are done all over the place and have been going on for years. The results are the same: 98% of the infant deaths are preventable. Many of them die from the mother being stupid, like doing drugs or drinking.

Obviously you did not read the article. It is about MATERNAL deaths. Not infant mortality.

Why do we need to keep spending money to keep getting the same findings?

Obviously you did not read the article. It specifically stated this review panel is revenue neutral.


Is Biden going to stop Fentanyl from crossing our border? Nope. So don’t act like you care about all these deaths.

Obviously you did not read the article. It has nothing to do with Biden, fentanyl or the border.


Here’s a thought: read the article.
 
This makes no sense.

Maternal mortality has increased over the past two decades, and the US is the highest among comparable developed nations. Given Idaho’s abortion ban, you would think they would want to work hard to make childbirth safer and improve healthcare for women and infants. Analyzing preventable deaths gives information on how prevent them in the future.

It can’t be budgetary either, because it is budget neutral.

You did not study the whole issue. They still are tracking maternal deaths.
 

Forum List

Back
Top