4 years in office and babies are dying in increasing numbers.

[scrapinpeg]

I would say that the conjecture here is your implication that these numbers are somehow due to the present administration and to "pro-lifers."

It is a real and important issue, which should be rationally understood and dealt with, rather than glibly used for such an obviously political attack.

[Inquartata]

Good luck with that, scrapinpeg...

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

First increase.

That's not a big deal then. More babies died this year than last year. Maybe it was an unlucky year. That doesn't point to a problem with the President.

[CutLass]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

That's not a big deal then. More babies died this year than last year. Maybe it was an unlucky year. That doesn't point to a problem with the President.

first increase in 46 years. after 46 years the number of infant mortalities went up.
can you spell i-n-d-i-c-a-t-o-r?

[mrbiggs]

Why? Maybe 1 in 50 years, infant mortality rates go up by chance. I don't see what it indicates. More babies dies this year than last year doesn't point to the White House. If it did, then why wouldn't we have seen the same effect the last 4 years Bush was in office?

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

I would say that the conjecture here is your implication that these numbers are somehow due to the present administration and to "pro-lifers."

I'm not saying that it is the fault of the present admin and to "pro-lifers". I DO think that it is hypocritical of the "pro-lifers" to basically turn their collective backs. Or am I misinterpreting the pro portion of "pro-life"?

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

It is a real and important issue, which should be rationally understood and dealt with, rather than glibly used for such an obviously political attack.

glibly, that's a funny word...

[Soldier]

How do you know the "pro-lifers" are turning their backs?

And, by the way, the very title you put on this thread, seems to try to pin the blame on Bush.

[CutLass]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Why? Maybe 1 in 50 years, infant mortality rates go up by chance. I don't see what it indicates. More babies dies this year than last year doesn't point to the White House. If it did, then why wouldn't we have seen the same effect the last 4 years Bush was in office?

Sorry, bad mood earlier.
The data is 2001 data. So at this point it could indicate that changes the Bush Administration made in some of the factors could be appearing in the form of increased infant mortality.

[Larrison]

Originally Posted by CutLass

Sorry, bad mood earlier.
The data is 2001 data. So at this point it could indicate that changes the Bush Administration made in some of the factors could be appearing in the form of increased infant mortality.

Whooaahhh. wait a minute. If memory serves, GW Bush did not take office until January 2001, and the first budget he submitted and was voted on by Congress did not get passed until October 2001. (The government fiscal year is October to September -- the budgets are submitted by the president about the first of February, discussed and voted on by congress over the summer, and then go into effect in October, as funded by the Congress. So even if Bush proposed something it might not have been funded.)

If this data is 2001 data, then I'd say its was based upon policies proposed and funded and implemented in 2000 time period, if not in 1999 to include a 9 month gestation/ nutrition/ health care period of prenatal care.

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by CutLass

Sorry, bad mood earlier.
The data is 2001 data. So at this point it could indicate that changes the Bush Administration made in some of the factors could be appearing in the form of increased infant mortality.

Sometimes bad things just happen.

[Inquartata]

Nothing happens unless the government causes it. Bush runs the government. Ergo, Bush caused this...phenomenon.

See how ridiculous it sounds when you boil it down to its essence?

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

That's not a big deal then. More babies died this year than last year. Maybe it was an unlucky year. That doesn't point to a problem with the President.

There are so many other problems with the President; I don't see why we should focus on this one, particularly.

That's assuming it is a problem that the Presidency has caused or influenced, which is pure speculation. I reiterate: Correlation is not causality.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

{snip}
That's assuming it is a problem that the Presidency has caused or influenced, which is pure speculation. I reiterate: Correlation is not causality.

And if we really wanted to go down that road--isn't the obvious counterargument by Bush supporters that in Bush's first 3 years, infant mortality was better than it ever was during Clinton's presidency?

--Philistine

[scrapinpeg]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

I'm not saying that it is the fault of the present admin and to "pro-lifers". I DO think that it is hypocritical of the "pro-lifers" to basically turn their collective backs. Or am I misinterpreting the pro portion of "pro-life"?



glibly, that's a funny word...

Are you seriously suggesting that pro-life people choose to actively ignore issues of infant mortality? What on earth gives you that idea?

yes, glibly is a very funny word!

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


I think that the comparison done in many of the posts here - that between the infant mortality rate (IMR) of different years in USA - is not the best one to make. More enlightening, IMO, is to compare the IMR of different countries, at the same time.

That is where the USA falters. The stats shows the USA have worse IMR that most, if not all, other 1st-world countries. This is not because of lower total health expenditures, either - that is also showed by stats. USA has many more very young mothers (and old, but that is another thing) than most other 1st world countries, and among the very young there are more medical problems.

Another reason, and one that I suspect is the most important, is that pre-natal care is to an appreciable degree distributed according to money, not according to specialist opinion by ob/gyn doctors. In Sweden, where the IMR is very low, all (but a extreme few) pregnancies come to the knowledge of those doctors, and all are screened for risk factors, regardless of the economic status of the mother.

As always, the answers will be easier to find if one breaks up the IMR stats into relevant categories, such as preterm/to term/overborne, single/twin/multiple births, age of mother, known heriditary problems, etc.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

Are you seriously suggesting that pro-life people choose to actively ignore issues of infant mortality? What on earth gives you that idea?

Yes, "pro-life" people do choose to actively ignore issues SUCH as infant mortality. It doesn't stop there. Many "pro-lifers" are anything but PRO life. They seem to have rallied around the banner of "no abortions" without consideration for such issues as poverty, healthcare, nutrition, war, etc. Is this a generalization? Prove to me that I'm wrong...

[Calder]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Nothing happens unless the government causes it. Bush runs the government. Ergo, Bush caused this...phenomenon.

See how ridiculous it sounds when you boil it down to its essence?

If it were only that simple. Anyone who has spent any ammount of time in either military or governmental service knows that while, in its basic "theoretical" essence, this is true, Bush is at the head of hte government, our government is set up (and especially when coupled with a massive media output that can, according to all information available via THAT output, influence public opinion) to avaoid just such a thing...one person having to much power, and thus, controlling to much of the decision making process. However, being part of this "military service" I can say this, I think there are a great many who agree that the direction we are being taken seems to be more along HIS own personal lines then that of what the entire country may want....but again, who knows what the "entire country wants." We certainly can allow the media to tell us what we want, although a large number of them think that is their job. And a large number of ignorant Americans forget that they think that is their (the media's) job...so just because CBS says its so, doesnt always make it true.......

[Calder]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Yes, "pro-life" people do choose to actively ignore issues SUCH as infant mortality. It doesn't stop there. Many "pro-lifers" are anything but PRO life. They seem to have rallied around the banner of "no abortions" without consideration for such issues as poverty, healthcare, nutrition, war, etc. Is this a generalization? Prove to me that I'm wrong...

As for ignoring infant mortality, why cant anyone seem to be pro-choice & pro-life?? For example, all the pro-life zealots who seem to think its ok to blow up a doctors office or hassle a woman about choosing to have an abortion, do seem to ignore that as a whole, the the United States has one of the lowest rates of "infantcide" (spelling?) not just infant mortality. The infant death rate has dropped in recent years in India, but as a whole, excluding natural causes, they have held one of the highest death rates (aka, murder) of infant girls next to China for many many years (without getting into a religious/philisophical/cultural debate about dowry related social injustices) I couldnt agree more, many pro-lifers are anything BUT pro life.....its the whole "it wont happen in my backyard" thing but when etching out their moral shape, they seem to forget that there is a much greater world out there where the fact that a woman is given the choice AT ALL should be heralded as a wonderfull thing, regardless of what that choice might be. This doesnt even take into account a complete and utter ignorance to the issues of world population, personal responsibility and financial commitment. Nothing sucks worse then seeing a family who cant seem to control their loins not be able to afford things for their kids because they dont believe in not having as many as they end up with...get some control. I live in Utah...land of big familys, hard corps pro-lifers and some real ignorance outside of ones own selfish sphere...

[jeff]

Grist for the sub-sub-sub-thread being pursued by esskreemr and scrapinpeg: NPR interviewed a conservative fundamentalist (Richard Land, pres of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission) and a liberal minister (Rev. Jim Wallis is the founder of the organization Sojourners).

Land said (I paraphrase from memory) "we've won the war - there is no question now that religious institutions can influence public policy, and we will", adding that a social moderate (his words) would not be nominated in the Republican party "west of the Hudson".

Wallis, author of a book God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It said that the right wing religious misused the Bible: "the Bible is about justice", referred IIRC to the positive duty to the poor and weak, and said that (again, from memory) "we as a society show our priorities by which initiatives we fund or cut, and a policy that cuts funding for the poor while creating permanent tax cuts for the rich is against Biblical principles".

Finally found URL: http://www.npr.org/templates/rundown...n.php?prgId=13

[esskreemr]

Shhhhhhhh....Jeff, you're not supposed to talk about christian charity and good will for others when issue is politics or war