Up to a year after is not the same as dying in childbirth.Studying why women are dying in childbirth is an expansion of government and the welfare state?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Up to a year after is not the same as dying in childbirth.Studying why women are dying in childbirth is an expansion of government and the welfare state?
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.Your own article said that the vast majority were preventable deaths. Drugs and alcohol are the biggest ones.
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
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'.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.
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?
Again, they don’t track it. Others do that.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.
This board costs nothing, it is non-partisan, and potentially lifesaving. Why oppose 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.
The purpose of the group is not to study deaths in childbirth but from pregnancy through the first year of motherhood.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'.
Sounds like something a non-profit organization should do, not the government.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.
If there any legitimacy to this, they wouldn't need 'associated' events. Just another sorry attempt to get the taxpayers to fund liberal activism.Why?
Sticking to the point, why do you oppose something that could reduce maternal mortality?
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?
Not sure what you mean by that.If there any legitimacy to this, they wouldn't need 'associated' events.
Just another sorry attempt to get the taxpayers to fund liberal activism.
Improving health and reducing mortality in pregnant women, new mothers and infants.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.
It is an independent advisory panel that is budget neutral.No government Board costs nothing.
Except it's not about 'maternal mortality', whatever that is. It's an unnecessary and unethical attempt to fund liberal activism with tax dollars.Not sure what you mean by that.
Reducing maternal mortality should be something we can all get behind. Apparently not.
Where on earth do you get that from? Again. It costs nothing. Zip. Any policy recommendations are just that, recommendations.Except it's not about 'maternal mortality', whatever that is. It's an unnecessary and unethical attempt to fund liberal activism with tax dollars.
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.
Revenue neutral.So it DOES cost money. And somehow they claim it is neutral. What money does it bring in to offset their cost?
Revenue neutral.
No idea, but the legislature labels it as revenue neutral. So it costs nothing.So how does it generate money to offset their cost?
That's what revenue neutral means.