Idaho dissolves maternal mortality review committee

[Rogue AI]

Studying why women are dying in childbirth is an expansion of government and the welfare state?

Up to a year after is not the same as dying in childbirth.

 

[Coyote]

Your own article said that the vast majority were preventable deaths. Drugs and alcohol are the biggest ones.

Yes, it did say that. However it did not say anything about drugs or alcohol. If those are leading factors in maternal deaths…provide a link.

 

[Coyote]

Science Update: Drug use, suicide, and homicide account for more than a fifth of pregnancy-associated deaths, study suggests

In the United States, more than 20 percent of deaths during pregnancy and the first year after childbirth are due to drug use, suicide, or homicide, an NICHD-funded study suggests. The number of pregnancy associated deaths from these causes increased between 2010 and 2019, with drug-related...

www.nichd.nih.gov

Of the 11,782 pregnancy-associated deaths that the researchers identified, 11.4 percent were due to use of illicit or prescription drugs, 5.4 percent were due to suicide, and 5.4 percent were due to homicide. The prevalence of pregnancy-associated deaths because of drug use increased 190 percent between 2010 and 2019.

….The researchers speculate that the higher risk of drug-related and suicide deaths in the postpartum period may be attributable to lack of specialized mental health and substance use services, the stress of caring for a newborn, hormonal changes, and other factors.


That is 11.4%. Suicide, I suspect, is tied into post partum depression, which can be very serious, and this particular study shows why a review board is important.

 

[Coyote]

CDC Newsroom

Press releases, advisories, telebriefings, transcripts and archives.

www.cdc.gov

More than 80% of pregnancy-related deaths were preventable, according to 2017-2019 data from Maternal Mortality Review Committees (MMRCs), which are representatives of diverse clinical and non-clinical backgrounds who review the circumstances around pregnancy-related deaths to identify recommendations to prevent future deaths. Information from MMRCs in 36 U.S. states on leading causes of death by race and ethnicity can be used to prioritize interventions that can save lives and reduce health disparities.

The leading underlying causes of pregnancy-related death include:

• Mental health conditions (including deaths to suicide and overdose/poisoning related to substance use disorder) (23%)
• Excessive bleeding (hemorrhage) (14%)
• Cardiac and coronary conditions (relating to the heart) (13%)
• Infection (9%)
• Thrombotic embolism (a type of blood clot) (9%)
• Cardiomyopathy (a disease of the heart muscle) (9%)
• Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (relating to high blood pressure) (7%)

The leading underlying cause of death varied by race and ethnicity. Cardiac and coronary conditions were the leading underlying cause of pregnancy-related deaths among non-Hispanic Black people, mental health conditions were the leading underlying cause for Hispanic and non-Hispanic White people, and hemorrhage was the leading underlying cause for non-Hispanic Asian people.

 

[Rogue AI]

Of the 11,782 pregnancy-associated deaths that the researchers identified, 11.4 percent were due to use of illicit or prescription drugs, 5.4 percent were due to suicide, and 5.4 percent were due to homicide. The prevalence of pregnancy-associated deaths because of drug use increased 190 percent between 2010 and 2019.

….The researchers speculate that the higher risk of drug-related and suicide deaths in the postpartum period may be attributable to lack of specialized mental health and substance use services, the stress of caring for a newborn, hormonal changes, and other factors.


That is 11.4%. Suicide, I suspect, is tied into post partum depression, which can be very serious, and this particular study shows why a review board is important.

Your problem here starts with 'associated' deaths, not deaths while giving birth. That in itself is the first major expansion of the government's role. That's how it always begins and never ends, pretty soon every death can be 'associated'.

 

[westwall]

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”.

If the only recommendation that they had was to increase government spending, then yeah.

Tell me why you need a specific Board to track the mortality?

The rate is so low that the agencies tasked with tracking State mortality rates can do it easily, and if a problematic trend is observed, action can be taken.

Your solution always revolves around expanding government, with no real effort to fix the perceived problem because then your precious government stooges have to get real work.

 

[Coyote]

If the only recommendation that they had was to increase government spending, then yeah.

I doubt it was the only recommendation, but it is a perfectly good one consider.

Tell me why you need a specific Board to track the mortality?

The board doesn’t track mortality, it analyzes each death to see if it was preventable and come up with policy recommendations.

The rate is so low that the agencies tasked with tracking State mortality rates can do it easily, and if a problematic trend is observed, action can be taken.

Again, they don’t track it. Others do that.

Your solution always revolves around expanding government, with no real effort to fix the perceived problem because then your precious government stooges have to get real work.

This board costs nothing, it is non-partisan, and potentially lifesaving. Why oppose that?

 

[Coyote]

Your problem here starts with 'associated' deaths, not deaths while giving birth. That in itself is the first major expansion of the government's role. That's how it always begins and never ends, pretty soon every death can be 'associated'.

The purpose of the group is not to study deaths in childbirth but from pregnancy through the first year of motherhood.

Specifically..how is this expanding the government’s role?

You expanded the government’s role by denying them the ability to make their own decisions about pregnancy. That is a considerable invasive expansion.

Now, because of strict abortion laws in many states it is quite likely we will see a. Increase in high risk pregnancies and associated mortality. How are you going to mitigate that without analyzing the deaths In the context of public health policy that might help mitigate them?

 

[Rogue AI]

The purpose of the group is not to study deaths in childbirth but from pregnancy through the first year of motherhood.

Specifically..how is this expanding the government’s role?

You expanded the government’s role by denying them the ability to make their own decisions about pregnancy. That is a considerable invasive expansion.

Now, because of strict abortion laws in many states it is quite likely we will see a. Increase in high risk pregnancies and associated mortality. How are you going to mitigate that without analyzing the deaths In the context of public health policy that might help mitigate them?

Sounds like something a non-profit organization should do, not the government.

This is typical of today's liberals, start at something legitimate, like deaths during childbirth and then expand it into whatever they want and claiming it is somehow all linked when of course it is not. Just more disingenuous nonsense the taxpayer should not be burdened with.

 

[Coyote]

Sounds like something a non-profit organization should do, not the government.

Why?

This is typical of today's liberals, start at something legitimate, like deaths during childbirth and then expand it into whatever they want and claiming it is somehow all linked when of course it is not. Just more disingenuous nonsense the taxpayer should not be burdened with.

Sticking to the point, why do you oppose something that could reduce maternal mortality?

 

[Rogue AI]

Why?



Sticking to the point, why do you oppose something that could reduce maternal mortality?

If there any legitimacy to this, they wouldn't need 'associated' events. Just another sorry attempt to get the taxpayers to fund liberal activism.

 

[westwall]

I doubt it was the only recommendation, but it is a perfectly good one consider.




The board doesn’t track mortality, it analyzes each death to see if it was preventable and come up with policy recommendations.



Again, they don’t track it. Others do that.





This board costs nothing, it is non-partisan, and potentially lifesaving. Why oppose that?

Why is it a good one to consider? What does it actually accomplish other than spend other peoples money?

Like I said, they were doing the same job that other State agencies are already doing.

No government Board costs nothing.

 

[Coyote]

If there any legitimacy to this, they wouldn't need 'associated' events.

Not sure what you mean by that.

Just another sorry attempt to get the taxpayers to fund liberal activism.

Reducing maternal mortality should be something we can all get behind. Apparently not.

 

[Coyote]

Why is it a good one to consider? What does it actually accomplish other than spend other peoples money?

Improving health and reducing mortality in pregnant women, new mothers and infants.

The spending other people’s money argument just doesn’t work anymore given that the right is perfectly happy to do just that on their own pet causes.

Like I said, they were doing the same job that other State agencies are already doing.

What other agencies are doing this exact job at no cost to taxpayers?

It costs the taxpayers nothing, so why oppose it?

No government Board costs nothing.

It is an independent advisory panel that is budget neutral.

 

[Rogue AI]

Not sure what you mean by that.





Reducing maternal mortality should be something we can all get behind. Apparently not.

Except it's not about 'maternal mortality', whatever that is. It's an unnecessary and unethical attempt to fund liberal activism with tax dollars.

 

[Coyote]

Except it's not about 'maternal mortality', whatever that is. It's an unnecessary and unethical attempt to fund liberal activism with tax dollars.

Where on earth do you get that from? Again. It costs nothing. Zip. Any policy recommendations are just that, recommendations.

What do you suggest as an alternative?

 

[westwall]

Improving health and reducing mortality in pregnant women, new mothers and infants.

The spending other people’s money argument just doesn’t work anymore given that the right is perfectly happy to do just that on their own pet causes.



What other agencies are doing this exact job at no cost to taxpayers?

It costs the taxpayers nothing, so why oppose it?



It is an independent advisory panel that is budget neutral.

So it DOES cost money. And somehow they claim it is neutral. What money does it bring in to offset their cost?

No government entity does anything for free, but there ARE government agencies already tasked with that job.

 

[Coyote]

So it DOES cost money. And somehow they claim it is neutral. What money does it bring in to offset their cost?

Revenue neutral.

 

[westwall]

Revenue neutral.

So how does it generate money to offset their cost?

That's what revenue neutral means.

 

[Coyote]

So how does it generate money to offset their cost?

That's what revenue neutral means.

No idea, but the legislature labels it as revenue neutral. So it costs nothing.

Why not renew it? I really haven’t any good reason not, and it is a sad reality that we have a much higher maternal death rate (and infant death rate) than comparable countries. We shouldn’t frankly.