So. You mean forcing people who: May not want the child; Have a barely viable fetus; Have health complications; May not be able to afford food; Etc; to go through the entire pregnancy and birth a child, results in a greater number of born children dying? Whodathunk?
this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2024
71 points (97.3% liked)
Texas
1498 readers
110 users here now
A community for news, current events, and overall topics regarding the state of Texas
Other Texas/US Lemmy Communties to follow
Sports
- Houston Astros
- Houston Texans
- Houston Rockets
- Texas Rangers
- Dallas Cowboys
- Dallas Stars
- Austin FC
- San Antonio Spurs
Rules (Subject to Change)
-
Be a Decent Human Being
-
Posting news articles: Please use exact article Titles
-
Posts must have something to do with Texas
-
Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
-
No NSFW content
-
Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I guarantee Republicans thunk, but it's that they simply don't care.
Those babies are born, goddamnit, and it's God's ~~problem~~ plan whether they live or die. I wish that was sarcasm.
I'll make the argument that they neither think nor care. They got their political W and have moved on to some new, bright, shiny fuckery
No, it’s military fodder. Poor people, After all make up most enlisted. Workforce fodder. And people with kids to focus on don’t have time or inclination to riot, protest, punch up, form unions, or go on strike. Children will always be the bigger concern.
That it intersects with the evangelical vote is happy coincidence.
Anymore the military fodder is the happy coincidence, it's the capitalists who need people willing to work hard, for shit wages, and then spend all those wages on rent and food.
Can’t have finding workers getting more competitive.
What most of these ignorant politicos and evangelicals don’t get about late term abortions is it’s stillbirth removal.
And, abortion is a medical procedure where the nomenclature doesn’t care about context. The medical chart says abortion for chosen termination, expedited miscarriage (to avoid bleeding out & pain), stillbirth removal, etc. I do not know if that nomenclature holds for “pruning” implanted fetuses in the IVF process.
Tangentially, enough politicians and Barrett herself have groused about “domestic supply of infants”, birth rates, and such that IVF will never suffer the same fate as abortion access, no matter what evangelicals feel on the topic. How the evangelicals feel was never the primary point.
Did the study mention how much mother mortality AND overall hospital stays for both mother and child increased as a result?
Nuh uh because facts don’t matter
Wait, is it 8% or 13%?
Year-over-year, 255 more infants, defined as babies under one year old, died in 2022 than in 2021.
So, 1961 infant deaths in 2021 and 2216 in 2022, amounting to a 13% increase in total infant deaths. The rising mortality rate appears to be driven by congenital defects in the newborns.
The majority of excess deaths over the previous year were caused by congenital anomalies, the study found, while deaths due to other reasons like complications during the pregnancy also increased year over year; the data showed that babies born with congenital anomalies increased in Texas by nearly 23 percent but decreased across the U.S. by 3 percent.
So, basically, Texas mothers are being told the fetus is nonviable and doomed to die. But then the state prohibits the mother from terminating the pregnancy. She's got to carry the baby to term, give birth, and then watch the baby live a few tortured months in the NICU before expiring.
Not disputing the numbers you're showing but another post in c/news (below) was saying 8% today, and Beau of the Fifth Column's youtube channel was saying 8% last night so I'm confused about the discrepancy. At work right now so can't really research what's up
8% figure in this link https://lemmy.world/post/16899680