Before I get to the story, the healthcare debate has stirred interesting stats re: black women:
“The infant mortality rate for black babies is about 2-1/2 times greater than it is for white babies; an African-American woman is twice as likely to give birth prematurely as a white woman; a black infant is nearly 4 times more likely to die as a result of being too early and/or too small than a white infant.” ~ Huffington Post, November 17…
“African-American women are twice as likely to suffer a late-pregnancy loss [defined as stillbirth 20 weeks and after] as white women… and while the national rate of stillbirth has declined in the past 20 years, the racial gap has not narrowed.” ~ ABC News, November 17
“Abortions increase the risk of low birth weight in future pregnancies by a factor of 3, and of premature birth by a factor of 2, according to the largest US study of its kind.” ~ Time magazine, December 18, 2007
“[S]tudies have shown that African American women develop breast cancer at an earlier age, are often diagnosed at a later stage of the disease, and develop more aggressive types of breast cancer.” ~ National Medical Association, which represents 30k black physicians, November 19
“Breast cancer is the most common cancer among African-American women and the second most common cause of cancer death, exceeded only by lung cancer.” ~ Hudson Valley Press, October 28
“Black women… have the highest breast cancer death rate of any race…. [T]the US Dept. of Health reports that Black women ages 35 to 44 have a breast cancer death rate more than twice that of white women in the same age group” ~ News One for Black America, November 18
“In the United States, the abortion rate for black women is almost 5 times that for white women…. Currently, about 1/3 of all abortions are obtained by white women, and 37% are obtained by black women.” ~ Guttmacher Institute Policy Review, Summer 2008
“Compared with women obtaining first abortions, those obtaining repeat abortions are more likely to be black (38% vs. 26%)….” Guttmacher Institute, November 2006
“Chinese researchers… found a statistically significant overall odds ratio of 1.17 (17% increased breast cancer risk….) among women with induced abortions.” AbortionBreastCancer.com, reporting on a study published in Medical Oncology, September 23, 2009
Ok, where was I? Oh, yes, a story on pro-abortion Jesse Jackson’s meeting Wednesday with the overwhelmingly pro-abortion Congressional Black Caucus to promote pro-abortion socialized healthcare, per The Hill:
The Rev. Jesse Jackson on Wednesday night criticized Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) for voting against the Democrats‘ signature healthcare bill.
“We even have blacks voting against the healthcare bill from Alabama,” Jackson said at a reception Wednesday night. “You can’t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man.”
The remark stirred a murmur at the reception, held by the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation….
“The poorest people need healthcare protection,” Jackson said. “They have the highest infant mortality and the lowest life expectancy. They’re dying from lack of access.”…
If Rev. Jackson is truly interested in mortality rate and life expectancy, he should look at abortion, which not only directly kills members of his community but indirectly kills them by aftershocks.
[Photo of black preemie via BET.com; photo of African American woman via News One for Black America; graphic of African-American abortion rate via Guttmacher; photo of Jackson via CBS News]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
How can you vote FOR government-run health care (GRHC) and be against slavery?
You will be enslaved by “payroll deductions” (taxes) if you “elect” to participate.
You will be enslaved by fines and/or jail time if you don’t participate.
You will be enslaved to fund (and perform) abortions, even if it violates your conscience and moral & religious beliefs.
The country is already enslaved to other nations in funding it’s debts. This GRHC scheme will further enslave us to them.
Yes, please, let’s have Jesse Jackson, a complete sell out to his God, his people and LIFE tell us who can call himself black. He’s someone who was formerly (at least his declarations) pro-life but realized there was more blood money for the taking if he would sear his conscience and flip flop. How about the Rev. David James Manning, can he call himself black if he dares to speak out against The One? He’s had federal agents visiting him as a result, read Alan Keyes & spread the word Reverend Manning’s 1st amendment rights being trampled upon:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116543
As I went to check my email, I was faced with this: “Obama has said he wants the bill to remain neutral on abortion” the AP reports today. To borrow a phrase from Joe Wilson: LIAR! In what bizarro-world is everyone paying for abortions “neutral” ?
:) This particular post was true elegance in prose, Jill!
It reminds me of the Professor (Kirke) in C.S. Lewis’s “Chronicles of Narnia”: “Logic! Simple logic! What *do* they teach them at these schools?” It’s getting harder and harder to attribute such failure to “connect the dots” to mere innocent ignorance…
My husband remembers a speech given by Jesse Jackson when he was in college at Michigan State in the late 60’s when Jackson was pro life. He was the product of a crisis pregnancy himself. When he went national the blood money was enough to turn him into a pro abort.
You can’t sacrifice your own people to the ‘god of the almighty dollar’ and call yourself a black man either, Jesse (take note of that, BO).
Isn’t it a bit racist of Jackson to suggest that there’s some kind of standard of “good black person” against which he can measure people to determine whether or not they meet the bar? Who determines the criteria you have to meet to “call yourself a black man?” If a white man or an Asian man met those standards, could they call themselves a black man? This sort of amounts to him telling African Americans that they aren’t allowed to think for themselves. And that strikes me as kind of opposite to what the Civil Rights Movement was supposed to be about…
Jackson’s statement reveals all….
The racism that Jesse Jackson and company is fighting against in not about prejudice against a skin color. They are fighting against a ‘prejudice’ against a political identity.
They hijack the black identity and use it to thwart dissent of their views by trying to censor their political enemies (i.e. accusing people of racism).
Do we have medical doctors in the House or Senate who could sound the alarm on these statistics? The silence is deafening.
I’m a black WOMAN. Can I oppose the health care bill?
“The infant mortality rate for black babies is about 2-1/2 times greater than it is for white babies; an African-American woman is twice as likely to give birth prematurely as a white woman; a black infant is nearly 4 times more likely to die as a result of being too early and/or too small than a white infant.” ~ Huffington Post, November 17″
It would be useful only to compare black rates to the population rates of only those who have had abortions.
Due to small racial differences it is likely impossible to get exactly equivalent infant mortality rates and life expectancies. For example while Japanese have the world’s highest life expectancy, Asians living in the USA have an even higher life expectancy because we have better medical care and Asians have a slightly longer life expectancy on average anyway. The reason that the US doesn’t always compare favorably to other industrialized nations for infant mortality and life expectancy is that we are much more racially diverse. However each of the races in the USA has better rates than those same races do in any other country. So while blacks may not do as well as the national average in the USA, they are better off in the USA than they are in any other country.
Jesse has been wrestling for years with his identity as a black man and as a Baptist minister. Started off being pro-life then switched when he ran for POTUS and the DemocRATS, PP and NARAL told him it was not politically correct. Then had infidelity issues for years which resulted in a child out of wedlock (glad the mother chose life, though). Then he wanted to do something unmentionable to Barack’s genitals while his mic was still on at an TV interview because BHO said black men needed to take responsibility as fathers (have to admit that was probably one of the few speeches by BHO that I agreed with). Oh well, I wouldn’t take what Jesse says about who qualifies to be a “black man” too seriously.
Infant mortality rates are an unreliable indicator of the quality of a health care system. They are too tied to demographics and lifestyle factors.
I’m a black WOMAN. Can I oppose the health care bill?”
yes you can my dear. It’s disgraceful how many African American babies are being aborted and how many women who are getting Breat cancer.
what the heck Jesse? what the hell is you problem? you SOLD out to liberals!!
The reason that the US doesn’t always compare favorably to other industrialized nations for infant mortality and life expectancy is that we are much more racially diverse.
Wrong. That’s simply incorrect and ignorant of the facts.
The reason the US ranks low in life expectancy (compared to the rest of the G8) and ranks in the mid 40s among leading health care systems is because the US system isn’t really a system. It’s a market. And free markets, for better or for worse, lead to unequal access.
We have the best doctors and the best hospitals in the world. But only a sliver of our population has access to them. And far too many don’t have adequate access. If you look at top-10 health care systems you will see a lot of different models. There are government-owned (UK), highly-regulated private industry (Germany, Japan), and publlc-private hybrids (Japan, Denmark, France, Taiwan). In all of those systems, which provide more balanced access and enjoy higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality, the focus is on equal access. Whether it’s insurers required to accept every new customer, or the government providing basic care for all, an equal access model is in-place in those countries which assures a healthier life and eliminates the risk of an individual ever becoming bankrupt due to health care bills.
Incredible how the readers of this blog can point a finger at racial differences for dragging our numbers down. We are a great nation. We should want to be # 1. But because of the fundamental unequal access of our health care system, we are # 47.
No matter how opposed you are to health care reform (even I am, but for different reasons). You should watch this Frontline episode that examines how some of the top-10 systems run health care, both public and private.
Frontline: Sick Around The World (2008)
Infant mortality rates are an unreliable indicator of the quality of a health care system. They are too tied to demographics and lifestyle factors.
If you know what the Czech eat and drink, please explain why they rank higher than us. “No negros” is not a valid answer. Oh, and they have legal abortion through 12 weeks.
The Center for Disease Control and Alan Guttmacher have data that documents in recent years, the percentage of African American babies in the US that are conceived and killed in the womb is between 42% and 47%, depending on the year.
It’s Black Genocide.
Sorry Jesse. Anyone who blatently and callously ignores these types of alarming statistics defining the magnitude and gross injustice of the Slaughter of the Innocents does not deserve the respect the title “Reverend” ordinarily deserves.
You are acting like a fool.
Repent, wash the blood off of your hands, and get your heart right with God.
Paladin, 9:12a: Thanks very much… :)
Here’s a thought regarding comparison of US statistics for infant mortality to those of other countries.
Perhaps we are trending away from it, but haven’t we as a country been more likely to try and save preemies and other sick babies than other countries? I don’t know from experience how other countries run this issue but I suspect that many babies in other countries who would be considered “preemies” here would be considered a “late miscarriage” in other countries and consequently left to die. IF that is the case, then it would heavily skew their infant mortality rates because they would be counting those babies as “miscarriages” which would be counted separately from the more full-term infants who later died and were counted under the term “infant mortality” for statistical purposes.
Not only that, what of the cultural differences in other countries regarding aborting disabled babies? If in other countries it is considered “normal” to abort these children, then theoretically you would have less ill children born and less chance of these children dying after birth due to their disabilities/illnesses, and that would have an impact on infant mortality rates as well. There’s too much “abortion for fetal indications” in this country already, no doubt about that, but there are also many people who feel as pro-lifers do on the issue and allow their disabled children to live. How does that compare to similar statistics/situations in other countries?
Again, I’m not familiar with how things are done in other countries, I just wanted to throw those questions out there and see if anyone else knows more about this – actual numbers, and how they might be skewing foreign infant mortality statistics.
And in thinking of these things, I’m reminded again of the child who was born in the UK just a few days shy of the arbitrary 22-week cutoff and allowed to die. I’m sure they counted him a “late miscarriage” as well. That is very sad, I believe he could have had a full and happy life if only the mother could have convinced the healthcare professionals there to help her son.
Recently I looked up the mortality rates for preemies by gestational age at birth and was shocked that in this day and age, a child born at the same gestational age I was born at over 25 years ago still only has a 78% chance of survival. I thought we’d made more advances than THIS. It makes me more thankful than ever that I’m here. So many other babies, such as the “almost-22 week” baby in the UK, could have the same wonderful story as me if only they had been given a chance. Just basic medical care, is it too much to ask?
(and btw, I still oppose the healthcare bill – my father was a broke college student when I was born and I was treated at the hospital as much as necessary without consideration of the fact that my father had no insurance, no nothing – Dad made it work with what was available even then, I think the same could be true now… although I will say that I do think that the current healthcare situation could use some fixing, I have never believed that a government takeover is what will really fix things.)
If you know what the Czech eat and drink, please explain why they rank higher than us. “No negros” is not a valid answer. Oh, and they have legal abortion through 12 weeks.
Posted by: Dhalgren at November 20, 2009 8:46 PM
Why don’t you explain why the Czechs do so much better than Slovakia which ranks lower than we do and is populated by the same people as the Czech Republic. Better yet explain the enormous difference between North and South Korea, ranked 10th and 134th respectively. Oh yeah, North is socialist and South isn’t.
“No negros” is not a valid answer.
Sure it is, especially if you are only accounting for a very small difference, which is what we are talking about. Just like average racial height and height distribution is different for different races. There is also a different standard deviation for the different races, and again, the difference is pretty small, but not zero and very likely cannot be eliminated by nutrition or lifestyle or medical care. However, we should do our best to make sure everyone has the best care rather than make sure everyone is equal, which isn’t possible anyway.
BTW
Are you a creationist?
“There are government-owned (UK), highly-regulated private industry (Germany, Japan), and publlc-private hybrids (Japan, Denmark, France, Taiwan). In all of those systems, which provide more balanced access and enjoy higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality, the focus is on equal access.”
Posted by: Dhalgren at November 20, 2009 8:40 PM
Sorry, those countries don’t have the levels of impoverished immigrants that we do. Those immigrants bring their lower health status with them. However research shows that Mexican immigrant males have higher life expectancy in the US than they do in Mexico. Interestingly Mexican immigrant males also have more disabling conditions late in life than they do in Mexico. This basically means that even though immigrants from Mexico have lower health status than those staying in Mexico, they still live longer in the US than the average guy in Mexico. So much for inadequate access for the bottom echelon of society. They don’t however have as high a life expectancy as blacks or whites born in the USA.
Research by post codes shows that the UK doesn’t have such equal access within the system. The hospitals in lower class neighborhoods have lower quality and longer waits than hospitals in better neighborhoods. It is even more unequal when you account for those who only use out of system private providers.
hippie,
Thanks for very informative posts. Is the geographical size of a country factored in regarding “access”? For example, when comparing England and the U.S.,all other things being equal, there will be limits to improving access due to the sheer size of the U.S., right?
I can’t answer that, Janet. I am just repeating info from studies I have read. These two studies are separate. Two separate points. First, people of a given group have better access and health outcomes in the US than they do elsewhere. So if you compare yourself to someone like you living somewhere else, even with no $$ you are better off in the US than anywhere else. However, you will be billed for the services but then we are talking finances not health. The study in the UK was totally within the UK and simply documented the lower quality and availability of services to poorer people within a system that claims to give the same care to everyone. It doesn’t. There were no parallels given to the US.
Okay, I didn’t state this directly.
Second point is that even within socialized systems, the poor have less real access and lower quality.
hippie,
I didn’t mean to put you on the spot with my question. It’s something I’ve wondered about but I wouldn’t know where to start to find the answer. Thanks for the info!
Have a good day!
Forwarding this article to Drudge and PFLI.
Saw the teaser and all the related statistics started pouring into my head (getting ready to write).
Clicked to read more, and saw that the work was already done.
Very cool.