Infant Mortality Rate Rises in U.S. for First Time in More Than 40 Years

Some substantial but unknown percentage of Bush voters in 2004 voted for Bush primarily because of his strong “pro-life” stance. As one of my pro-life relatives said during one of our rare political discussions prior to the 2004 election, if Bush gets voted out of office, “a lot of babies will die”.

Given this state of affairs, one would think (or hope) that these people would be interested and concerned about the infant mortality rate in the U.S. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any recent information on this topic, as the latest statistics I could find were from almost three years ago - 2002. I understand that sometimes it takes a while to accumulate these statistics and put the reports together. Nevertheless, I worked as an epidemiologist in county and state health departments for 12 years, from 1982 to 1994, and I don’t remember anything as basic as national infant mortality statistics not being available for this long a period of time. Even Cuba, whose infant mortality rate is now lower than that of the U.S., recently reported 2004 statistics. If I was a “conspiracy theorist” or if I had severe doubts about the integrity of our current Presidential Administration I would suggest that it may have ordered our Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to cease any further release of this information after the bad news of 2002. But maybe I just didn’t do a good enough job of searching for this information.

Anyhow, as noted in this report by the American Public Health Association (APHA), the infant mortality rate in the United States increased from 2001 to 2002 by 3%, from 6.8 deaths per thousand infants to 7.0 deaths per thousand infants. That rate, though higher than in almost every other industrialized country in the world today, decreased by a great amount during the 20th century (it was about three times higher as recently as 1970 than it was at the start of the 21st century), and 2002 saw the first significant increase in infant mortality in this country since 1958.

Infant mortality rate has long been considered one of the best indicators of the health status of a community or country. According to Georges Benjamin, executive director of APHA, potential reasons for the surprising turnaround in infant mortality in this country include: “women receiving less prenatal care or losing their jobs, cuts to nutrition programs, and climbing poverty rates”.

Under such circumstances we must consider ourselves very fortunate to have such a “pro-life” President – otherwise we might now be seeing even greater increases in infant mortality rate.

So if they die once they hit the air, that's peachy keen to the culture of life. They've served their function, punishing a woman for having sex she might have enjoyed, the slut.

Yes, this is really how they "think."

Moms cannot PAY for prenatal care, resulting in lower infant mortality. OR if as that survey said, more woman are giving birth to UNWANTED babies, do you really think they are going to bend over back wards worrying about prenatal care?

Increasing poverty in our country, and cuts in health care programs, which are two closely related issues, are responsible for a good part of the problem.

ignorant. They don't have a clue as to what's going on.

Their religious leaders tell them how to vote, so they don't have to worry about it. It saves them lots of time. It's much less time consuming to vote on faith than it is to spend lots time becoming familiar with the issues.

I had heard that too, and recently I did some searches to see if that could be documented (down under Clinton, up under Bush), but the information I found was somewhat ambiguous, so I couldn't really nail it down. If you have any good links on this I would appreciate it.

So it's a lose lose.

I had heard that too, and recently I did some searches to see if that could be documented (down under Clinton, up under Bush), but the information I found was somewhat ambiguous, so I couldn't really nail it down. If you have any good links on this I would appreciate it.

http://www.citiesforprogress.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=105&Itemid=1

snip

Parts of the United States are as poor as the Third World, according to a shocking United Nations report on global inequality.

Claims that the New Orleans floods have laid bare a growing racial and economic divide in the US have, until now, been rejected by the American political establishment as emotional rhetoric. But yesterday's UN report provides statistical proof that for many - well beyond those affected by the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina - the great American Dream is an ongoing nightmare.

The document constitutes a stinging attack on US policies at home and abroad in a fightback against moves by Washington to undermine next week's UN 60th anniversary conference which will be the biggest gathering of world leaders in history.

The annual Human Development Report normally concerns itself with the Third World, but the 2005 edition scrutinizes inequalities in health provision inside the US as part of a survey of how inequality worldwide is retarding the eradication of poverty.

It reveals that the infant mortality rate has been rising in the US for the past five years - and is now the same as Malaysia. America's black children are twice as likely as whites to die before their first birthday.

Full report:
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/

We need more and more "stinging attacks on U.S. policy".

It's too bad that most U.S. citizens don't see us like the rest of the world does.

According to one international report I saw recently, we're 43rd in infant mortality rate.

especially for those who have no insurance or who are insured through an HMO or PPO.

You can get big tits and fat lips and have the fat sucked out of your ass though.

The insurance companies made real sure during the Clinton Administration that his plan to greatly expand insurance coverage was stopped. Their ad campaign was disgusting.

The higher death rate of infants is one of the best indicators that our nation is headed for the toilet.

Greedy, Ruthless Repukes: Pro-life MY ASS

That's what they teach us in schools of Public Health.

And as such, it is a damn good indicator of how much a government cares for its citizens.

Of course, we alread have the administration's response to Katrina to tell us how much it cares.

I think that the best indicator that our country is headed for the toilet is the utter failure of our national news media. God help us if the Dems don't take over Congress in 06 and the Presidency in 08, so that we have a fighting chance to create a climate where we can have a free and independent press.

epidemic contribute to this anomaly? Also, I seem to remember reading that infant mortality is defined differently in different countries. For instance, in the US, a stillbirth is considered infant mortality, while in other areas it is considered fetal wastage.

But they are not one of the more important causes of infant mortality. And anyhow, I'm not aware that the cocaine epidemic has become worse during Bush's administration. I believe that the most important reasons for the reversal of the long downward trend in infant mortality during the Bush administration are those reasons stated by the American Public Health Association, which I note in my OP.

Infant mortality is defined as the death of any infant which occurs any time following delivery, up until one year of age. If a death occurs prior to delivery it is defined as fetal mortality. If death occurs shortly prior to delivery it also is referred to as perinatal mortality. But I am not aware that anyone defines infant mortality differently than what I state above. In any event, studies that produce infant mortality rankings by country should use the same definition for each country in the study.

when the cia was still insisting that it was the evil empire.
mr darwin's law says we are no longer fit to survive. there you have it.

the background.

Strongly agree with you, ghost.

The obvious issue of class and ethnicity has always kept our rates high. Blacks even under his Holiness Bill still reached developing nation rates.

Now it's just amplified by the overt Capitalist fuckwits.

Anyway it's good to see Cuba getting some recognition for its remarkable Human Development achievments under its Socialist system.

industrialized countries, with regard to infant mortality rate, and many other measures of a healthy population as well. And as you note, the racial disparity sticks out like a sore thumb as well.

But at least under Clinton infant mortality continued to improve -- at about 3% per year. But now we're actually going BACKWARDS for Chrisakes!

I think that it would be very difficult for any President, given the political climate in this country, to cause an acceleration in the rate of decline of IMR. But to actually cut so many social programs and facilitate an increase in poverty, as this shithead has done, so as to cause a reversal of the downward trend -- that's something that IMO we should throw in the face of those convervatives who vote for Bush because he is "pro-life".

"Anyway it's good to see Cuba getting some recognition for its remarkable Human Development achievments under its Socialist system."

What is their record regarding human development when the humans are no longer infants and begin to develop independent political opinions?

Such as the UN Human Development Index.

And in the terms of "independent political opinions" much of what you read is US political paid opinion.

linked to if I want an answer to the question that I asked?

It's political/religious persecution without the benefit of council or formal charges.

If that's where you want to go with this line of thought becuase nobody and no nation is without warts.

Back to Human Development: We shouldn't even be comparing what Cuba has done to the United States as they are starting from drastically different points. One rich and imperialist the other poor and colonized.

But even with the handicaps Cuba (And most every other "developed" country) smokes our Infant Mortality rates. Bravo.

then provide some evidence, otherwise shut up and sit down.

From the same article as above referenced, the 10 states with the worst health status index are all red. Of the 10 states with the BEST health status index, 8 of them are blue:

Top 10 Healthiest States

1. Minnesota
2. New Hampshire
3. Vermont
4. Hawaii
5. Utah
6. Massachusetts
7. North Dakota
8. Connecticut
9. Wisconsin
10. Maine

Bottom 10 Healthiest States

41. North Carolina
42. Florida
43. Alabama (TIED)
43. West Virginia
45. Georgia
46. Arkansas
47. South Carolina
48. Tennessee
49. Mississippi
50. Louisiana


This is no coincidence. Bush voters don't believe in "big government". The problem with that, however, is that a public health infrastructure is needed to facilitate healthy populations.

I've been close to quite a few Mormons and have found them to be really diligent about taking care of their health. It seems to be a reflection of "your body is a temple" kind of thing. So, maybe that's part of the reason.

We also need to look at the environment in those states, and what percentage of the mortality rate can be attributed to living in toxic environments.

I have an opinion, which I don't believe there has been a study to link it to infant mortality rates, that stressed-out mothers are more likely to have a stillborn baby or a baby who dies within a short time. It has been proven, though, that chemicals pass from the mother to the fetus and can affect the ability of the baby once it's born to endure stress. Being born is very stressful. (I can hear the fundies scoffing at that.)

====================

But, you know, it's God's will that these babies die, because he loves them soooo much that he can't wait for his son Jesus to put his arms around them in a big ol' hug up there in Heaven.

:sarcasm:

Mormons do practice very good personal health care.

And environment certainly is important. Of course that's something that Bush voters don't tend to take as seriously as most normal people.

And you are probably right about stress being an important factor, though that is very hard to prove because "stress" is such a poorly defined issue. In other words, different studies generally tend to use different definitions of it, and it's hard to tell what the best definition would be.

If some groups do better than others what are all the factors and what ways are there to address them?
If mormons do something 'more right' and have better health in general they are costing the overall population less with the government's hand in it.

In other words - how much should we depend on government to help us and how much should we help ourselves and how does it all tie together in a diverse society?

There are certain things that people can do to maintain good health. Refraining from smoking cigarettes is perhaps the most important thing. Avoiding excessive alcohol and consuming a nutritious diet are also very important.

But there are also many aspects of health that are well beyond individual choice. Exposure to environmental or work place toxins is one. Infant mortality is very heavily affected by access to good prenatal care. A large segment of our population cannot affort this on their own, so they depend on various social programs to obtain the prenatal care that they need. Under the Bush administration these programs have been cut substantially. That plus the fact that a bigger percentage of women today are living in poverty, are important reasons why we are seeing a reversal of the several decades long trend of declining infant mortality in this country.

And to me, since a lot of the health problems could probably be traced backed to something relating to companies (chemicals, et al), smog, and so on and so forth than we should, as a society, work harder to insure all our citizens are afforded the same health care.

even if it wasn't for the pollution induced disease.

After all, children don't have anything to say about how much money their parents have for health care.

So, I certainly agree with you on that. Too bad that Clinton's plan got derailed.

Middle and upper class people have smaller families. If they were to have larger families the health of their families would not be hurt at all. However, the share of these people's children would increase.

Poor people have more health problems due to lack of care and unhealthy lifestyles being more purvasive in their circles. They also make up a growing share of births.

So if either you could increase the number of children born to the middle class, or decrease the number born to the lower class, you would decrease our overall infant mortality.

although fewer and fewer Americans have that any more.

Also my guess is poor people have less access to birth control and abortion.

They also have much more sporadic access to health care facilities: fewer doctors located in their neighborhoods (and often the poor must rely on public transportation or friends to rides if the site is not nearby), fewer specialists to deal with the diseases that plague the poor such as diabetes, heart disease, or gestational diabetes (since we're talking about infant mortality), doctors who won't accept Medicaid, fewer decent grocery stores where they can get decent fresh foods and must thus rely on processed crap. In some cases, infant mortality stats are related to a lack of mental health care: A parent with undiagnosed and untreated problems is more likely to kill their kid. Or the child dies in a fire because the electric has been turned off and the family was getting by using candles (as happened here in DC last year).

In addition, the poor can't just take off from work to go visit the doctor to begin with: They don't work, they don't get paid. In some workplaces, if you call out sick or come in late because you had an appointment, you get fired. No questions asked.

"In some workplaces, if you call out sick or come in late because you had an appointment, you get fired. No questions asked."

Absolutely true. I think lots of people don't get that.

And then, when on top of that, you have social policies that decrease access of poor people to needed health care services, that compounds the problem. That is in all probability why we see the first increase in infant mortality in 40 years in 2002.

To my understanding, though, Mormons prefer large families. Am I wrong? Something about the mother receiving greater reward in the afterlife commensurate with the number of children she has?

BTW, if that's true, isn't it ironic how a male founder of a religion ensures that the women will endure greater responsibility and demands on their time to keep them occupied at home?

health status. But that is probably not related mainly to the large number of children, but rather the fact that poor families tend to have more children than middle class or wealthy families. But Mormons may be an exception to that general rule.

Mormons don't smoke, they have children (reduced breast cancer in women) and don't drink . Interestingly enough some of the healthy states are highly educated, yuppy-ish and so they exercise, smoke and drink a lot less.

The southern states are unhealthy due to diet, smoking and drinking. When you have the health habits of a Russian male your life expectancy will reflect that.

They have very healthy life styles, and that has to be one of the reasons that Utah has such a high health index.

The point you make about education is also important. Exit polls from the 2004 election show that highly educated people (degree above college) are much more likely to vote for Kerry than Bush -- even though there is also a positive correlation between voting for Bush and family income.

Yes that percentage of Bush supporters logically should be appalled at this turn of events, as more babies are dying this way now instead of by abortions. But it really is not about life for them. It is about blind obedience to this single issue dogma. It is about an inability to think critically and see pictures in more colors than just black and white. And it is about an unquenching need to feel morally superior to others and force this morality upon the country and world.

though in different degrees for different people.

I'm sure most are some combination, and there may be a scattering of other reasons, but I believe this rant of mine is generally what is the causation for this odd behavior.

the lack of reporting on this subject by our Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This is supposed to be a non-partisan federal public health agency. The latest statistics that are currently available are from 2002, and the last report that I could find is from January 2005, which comments on the rise in 2002.

What has happened since then? It seriously seems to me that there is a very high likelihood that CDC has been muzzled by its superiors.

From: Cities for Progess
The annual Human Development Report
http://www.citiesforprogress.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=105&Itemid=1


Decline in health care

Child mortality is on the rise in the United States

For half a century the US has seen a sustained decline in the number of children who die before their fifth birthday. But since 2000 this trend has been reversed.

Although the US leads the world in healthcare spending - per head of population it spends twice what other rich OECD nations spend on average, 13 per cent of its national income - this high level goes disproportionately on the care of white Americans. It has not been targeted to eradicate large disparities in infant death rates based on race, wealth and state of residence.

The infant mortality rate in the US is now the same as in Malaysia

High levels of spending on personal health care reflect America's cutting-edge medical technology and treatment. But the paradox at the heart of the US health system is that, because of inequalities in health financing, countries that spend substantially less than the US have, on average, a healthier population. A baby boy from one of the top 5 per cent richest families in America will live 25 per cent longer than a boy born in the bottom 5 per cent and the infant mortality rate in the US is the same as Malaysia, which has a quarter of America's income.

Blacks in Washington DC have a higher infant death rate than people in the Indian state of Kerala

The health of US citizens is influenced by differences in insurance, income, language and education. Black mothers are twice as likely as white mothers to give birth to a low birthweight baby. And their children are more likely to become ill.

Throughout the US black children are twice as likely to die before their first birthday.

Which has a national income that is one-quarter of ours.

:cry:

...be interesting to figure out how many more infants have died under shrub's administration than would have died under the level of the last year of the Clinton administration.

Now THAT'S a crime!!!!

But still, it's just a guess, because we don't know for sure that Bush's policies are responsible. But I think that's a pretty good guess.

After that the kid's on his/her own.

Even abortions have gone up under Bush.

The legal abortion rate in the U.S. decreased during Clinton's presidency from about 23 per 1,000 live births in 1992 to about 16 in in 2000:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html

A major reason for this was the fact that the teenage pregnancy rate during Clinton's two terms plummeted to an all time low.

The abortion rate under Bush's presidency held steady in 2001 and 2002 -- But again, I can't find any data past 2002. Hmmmmm.

Poverty among young women leads to increases in abortion rate. This is one big reason why the decline in abortion rate experienced during the Clinton administration stalled when Bush took office, and is now likely to start going the other way:
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Stassen-Response.pdf

"pro-lifers" should consider issues like this if they are considering voting for someone like Bush based solely on his stand on abortion.

Ohhhh so they're not really interested in seeing fewer babies die... they're just interested in punishing women who make mistakes. They think people won't have morals unless they beat them over the head with a stick.

But that's only because we refuse to count the adult human beings who die from their heartless and deliberate incompetence.

to the "pro-life" theo-fascists. As long as the embryos are not aborted, everything is peachy-keen. Once the child leaves the womb their interest ebbs, it's somebody else's problem them. They exist only to protect the "unborn, who cannot speak for themselves". Apparently they think that immediately after child-birth the children can fend for themselves, "pull themselves up by their booty-straps" and take full responsibility for their own lives.
It's division of labor I guess. They only get paid up until the moment of birth, after that it's someone else's job.
Assholes. Fucking Republicans are evil personified. There's not one iota of "christ" in their "christian" philosophy, they're hypocrites of the first order.

They have to be. They can't go around acting like who they really are -- that would be too obvious, and they would be shunned by everyone. So they put on a show of their "Christian" or other virtues, so that at least they can fool enough people to get what they want.

I'm not saying that all "pro-lifers" fit in this category. I believe that some unknown number of them, maybe even most of them, are sincere in their beliefs. I'm using this description to apply to Bush, his cronies, and some of his followers.

Your average Gawd-fearing Republican thinks that poverty is mostly a problem of Black / Brown people and couldn't care less about infant mortality / lifespan in those communities (I'm willing to bet many of them are quite pleased that people of color suffer in this country); So these statistics aren't going to have any effect on them

However, I have to believe that there are at least some who will be. If even 5% are, that could make a huge difference in the political landscape.

I just have to believe that at least some pro-lifers are sincere about their concern for the defenseless.

about the eeeeeevillll "liberals" who dare to be concerned about the health of children and mothers who live in poverty without health insurance.

I'd vote for this if it weren't too late for it. Thank you, TfC, you do so much valuable work here. :yourock:

idea for this one. The one about the causes of death from Katrina. :toast:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5632930
thread title (11/19 GD): NYT reports study of Katrina dead - MOST DIED AFTER THE STORM

They died from what the Bush Administration did before, during and after the storm - not from the storm itself. No matter how the Bushies suppress the truth, the blood of these people, like the blood of all those dying babies, is on their hands.

And the numbers of children dying from Bushie death-dealing in Iraq are much, much higher than the Bush Administration will admit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5616912
thread title (12/16 GD): "Lancet study now censored because it shows a mass murder"

Many, many thousands of dead children from the "culture of life" people:

http://www.allhatnocattle.net.nyud.net:8090/usa_WAR.jpg

artist web site: http://www.coolon.net

Departments of Health in FL and PA. As an epidemiologist one of my main responsibilities was to assess trends in causes of death, to get an idea of where to put our resources towards improving health and reducing untimely deaths.

That's what your post did. It provided evidence that the main culprit in the New Orleans tragedy was not so much the forces of nature, which we can't do all that much about, but our government. That's the kind of thing that more people need to know about.

My OP for this thread has a similar theme.

behind make their priorities - the things they care about and the things, or people, they don't crystal clear.

Thanks for telling me this.