US maternal mortality rate is terrible compared to the rest of the industrial world. And it appears to get worse at least in VA. And the red states are the worst approaching Third World stats. Toss in the new draconian abortion restrictions for low income women (effectively) and we are probably heading to an even greater national tragedy.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/maternal-mortality-rate-by-state
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
A little bit of googling reveals there is no shortage of studies that claim to find a link between abortion restrictions and high maternal mortality rates. Does it follow that liberalizing abortion will reduce maternal mortality?
Not logically. There are many possible ways to explain the correlation.
It is obvious that mothers need medical care. Unfortunately, we have made medical care difficult or expensive for too many people, mothers especially. I blame the politicization of medicine for this outcome, a process that began when state and local governments encouraged insurance companies to begin financing hospitals and medical care.
If we want to improve health outcomes for pregnant women we should restore free markets in healthcare.
P.S. The Pilot digital edition is paywalled for me.
LikeLike
Since we have one of the highest, if not the highest, maternal death rate among the industrial nations, abortions would save those woman who choose to abort from the risk of childbirth.
The oped noted that maternal death rates went from 37.1 to 86.6 deaths per 100,000 in two years, 2018-2020.
That is over three times as high as the death rate for influenza in Mississippi, the worst for flu mortality. And about 10 times as high as the flu death rate in VA.
(Kind opens a thinking person’s eyes to the virtue of forced pregnancies.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Since we have one of the highest, if not the highest, maternal death rate among the industrial nations, abortions would save those woman who choose to abort from the risk of childbirth.”
Which abortions are those? Are they the ones that are medically necessary, or the ones that are just easy to get?
LikeLike
“Which abortions are those? Are they the ones that are medically necessary, or the ones that are just easy to get?”
Any abortion for ANY reason reduces the risk of maternal mortality for the woman. If someone forced YOU to take such risks and undergo such suffering for the sake of another “person” you would not tolerate it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“If we want to improve health outcomes for pregnant women we should restore free markets in healthcare.”
How do people with no money and no insurance get served in a “free market in healthcare?”
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “How do people with no money and no insurance get served in a ‘free market in healthcare?'”
There is almost no such thing in America as “people with no money.” A free market would provide services at lower cost, which would improve access to health care.
LikeLike
There is almost no such thing in America as “people with no money.”
That is a bizarre fantasy world you live in. In the real world one in five people in our country have NEGATIVE net worth. And a lot of the others could not pay for the costs of a pregnancy and delivery even when things go smoothly is somewhere north of $10,000.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-in-five-american-households-have-zero-or-negative-wealth-2017-11-11
The point you people never seem to understand is that a “free market” in ANYTHING will never provide goods or services for people who cannot pay.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “The point you people never seem to understand is that a ‘free market’ in ANYTHING will never provide goods or services for people who cannot pay.”
The point collectivists never seem to understand is that free markets provide more goods and services to people who can pay.
LikeLike
Collectivists? Liberals want decent, affordable healthcare for all Americans so they can contribute to a capitalist free market. That is really common sense not collectivism.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“The point collectivists never seem to understand is that free markets provide more goods and services to people who can pay.”
Oh, I think we “collectivists” (is it now> LOL!) understand that very well. That is why in this country we have countless mothers without access to pre-natal care while countless other women have all the access they want to tummy tucks and breast enhancement. The market serves those who can pay and ignores those who cannot.
So, you STILL haven’t answered the question – “How do people with no money and no insurance get served in a ‘free market in healthcare?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
“There is almost no such thing in America as “people with no money.”
Go into any public library in any city in the country and take a look around. I can promise you, those people asleep on the sofas and chairs in the reading room have no money.
Take a walk through any big city in the country and those bodies sleeping on the sidewalks have no money.
Ask any social worker in the country who has to find housing for displaced families whether or not those people have money. Ask the Salvation Army workers who serve up hot meals at Thanksgiving whether their guests have money.
Those people have no money for food or housing, forget healthcare. Forget dental checkups, blood pressure medicine, glasses or hearing aids. If you are a homeless woman who gets raped, forget prenatal care. You won’t need it because you’re probably going to die and decrease the surplus population anyway.
LikeLiked by 3 people
There are many conservatives who think the ER is quality healthcare for the poor.
I look at healthcare as a part of the national infrastructure. Like public utilities (water, sewage disposal), police, fire departments, courts, roads, public transport, etc. These are the hallmarks of an industrial society. They free up employers and employees to focus on production. They provide healthy, educated workforces. Provide public safety and transport of goods for domestic uses and to ports for export.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Before too much speculation, note that ‘Maternal Mortality’ was defined as a woman dying within a year of giving birth, regardless of cause.
So, a woman dying of a drug overdose, or as the result of violence, or hit by a bus, would be counted. That doesn’t really tell you much about the quality or availability of health care.
LikeLike
If the statistics for other countries are captured on the same basis, why wouldn’t it tell you something about the relative quality or availability of health care?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because for all we know, deaths actually resulting from childbirth or pregnancy could be more, less, or the same as other countries.
We could simply have a higher death rate from overdoses, for example.
This is an exceedingly clumsy case of imputing causation by correlation.
LikeLike
“This is an exceedingly clumsy case of imputing causation by correlation.”
Differences in other causes of death among young women might realistically explain away small differences. These are not small differences. Your reasoning is not convincing. And, to be candid, I think I sense another stone being tossed at “urban” people – all that violence and drug abuse making us look bad. Again.
But, we understand, if a problem is a “hoax” nothing needs to be done about it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nope, the excess deaths of young women are in rural areas too.
There could be a maternity problem, or it could be something else entirely, or a mix,
But there is no value in prescribing cures without first better understanding the problem.
LikeLike
“Nope . . .”
You are simply ridiculous. Whatever fantasies you can spin up to explain damning evidence, it has long been obvious that our medical system is far worse than almost every other industrial democracy. And not just in terms of maternity care and survival. The only area where we might be better than average is treating gun shot wounds.
LikeLiked by 1 person
because you say so?
What is your evidence that the reported maternal deaths have anything to do with health care? Since we don’t even know the cause of death, that’s going to be hard to prove.
So, other than your pre-existing prejudice, what do you base that on?
LikeLike
That was brought up. So how much that might affect the stats is probably slight.
So even if we cut the stats by half, it is sill embarrassing.
We just have bad healthcare in the US for millions. Fortunately, I can afford the thousands we pay each year for co-pays and I have decent coverage through Medicare Advantage.
But before we go too far, remember that most women giving birth are young or at least under 35. That many young women dying during or after childbirth is not a bragging point, rich or poor. In other words, we can blame people all day long, but we lag other industrial countries in healthcare for all Americans. Look at lifespans in the Deep South. Are they just trash or are they Americans? Lifespan In Mississippi was around 71 or 72. WTF in a very conservative state.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Again, you just don’t know.
The high maternal death rate could be 100% drug overdoses, or 100% true maternal deaths, or half drug overdoses and half auto accidents.
There is just no way to know with what is presented.
LikeLike