Premature Babies, Infant Mortality, and Socialized Medicine

A recent report by Dr. Linda Halderman begins with the question:

Q: If socialized medicine is so bad, why are infant mortality rates higher in the U.S. than in other developed nations with government or single-payer health care?

A: U.S. infant mortality rates (deaths of infants <1 year of age per 1,000 live births) are sometimes cited as evidence of the failings of the U.S. system of health care delivery. Universal health care, it’s argued, is why babies do better in countries with socialized medicine.

But in fact, the main factors affecting early infant survival are birth weight and prematurity. The way that these factors are reported — and how such babies are treated statistically — tells a different story than what the numbers reveal.

Dr. Halderman goes on to handily destroy this broadly accepted myth of the global left, and I certainly suggest looking over the insurmountable case she presents.

Americans may remember this argument being brought up in the healthcare debate.  Proponents of the ObamaCare model, which more closely resembles a Euro or Canadian-style system, would suggest that since American infant mortality rates are higher than these other nations with more socialized healthcare, they must have better healthcare systems than America, right?  The implication is that these other nations are able to save more infants' lives, which is presumably evidence of a more efficient healthcare construct. 

But I guess that all just depends on what your definition of "life" is.  Americans recognize a life if it, well... lives.  Born.  Breathing.  Heartbeat.  Reacting to stimuli.  Any of these things.  It's not rocket science.

These other nations with socialized medicine only recognize an infant's life if it meets their standards of what they think "life" is- or at least what it should be for reporting purposes.  According to Dr. Halderman's report:

-Low birth weight infants are not counted against the “live birth” statistics for many countries reporting low infant mortality rates.

-Some of the countries reporting infant mortality rates lower than the U.S. classify babies as “stillborn” if they survive less than 24 hours whether or not such babies breathe, move, or have a beating heart at birth. **

And if an infant doesn't meet these state requirements it takes to be considered alive, can that infant ever really die?

Not according to the comrade that's tallying the low "infant mortality rates" that are touted as a measure of the success of state-run healthcare.

So do you really want socialized medicine, America? Where the state must first declare that your prematurely born baby meets the requirements of being considered a life and therefore worthy of saving before efforts are made and resources are dedicated to the task?  This is not fear mongering- and it's certainly not far-fetched.  Consider how Dr. Halderman concludes her report::

Too short to count?

In Switzerland and other parts of Europe, a baby born who is less than 30 centimeters long is not counted as a live birth. Therefore, unlike in the U.S., such high-risk infants cannot affect Swiss infant mortality rates.


Efforts to salvage these tiny babies reflect this classification. Since 2000, 42 of the world’s 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400g (0.9 lbs.) were born in the United States.


The parents of these children may view socialized medicine somewhat differently than its proponents.

Indeed.  They are certainly lucky for their children to have been born in the American healthcare system, rather than a single-payer or universal healthcare system that would have declared their child to have never existed at all.  Let us hope that the future may hold such joy for some lucky parents in America.

-William Sullivan

Thanks to Rick Moran of American Thinker

** Perhaps pertinent to note, 40% of all infant deaths result in the first 24 hours after birth.

Race Before Reason

Rick Santorum effectively destroyed Sharpton's moral credibility a couple of weeks ago. Santorum had suggested that, as a black man and a constitutional lawyer who should be sensitive about civil rights, our president should be against abortion in all forms. Sharpton took exception to that, and was subsequently beaten down by the logic that spewed forth from Santorum's mouth.

Santorum suggested that unborn children are legally allowed to be killed and siphoned from their mother's womb for the same reason that slavery was tolerated: an obscure legal distinction about the value of their lives in society.

This makes perfect sense to most people-- but not Sharpton. Al goes on to suggest that this scenario is entirely different, because it was not a state of biological development that caused the obscurity for blacks; whether a fetus or an elderly, blacks were considered less worthy of civil rights than others. He goes on to question the humanity of the fetus, whether it has a heartbeat, or developed lungs, is crucial to the abortion debate.

Really, Al? Even many of the pro-choice abortion advocates I speak with or encounter blogging concede the fact that the fetus, after a certain point in fetal development, is a human life. And for those that are still wacky enough to argue otherwise, science, not religious doctrine, handily proves them wrong. After twenty weeks or so, a fetus can sleep, urinate, and respond rapidly to stimulus such as a bright light. This would also suggest the nervous development to feel pain. Yet pro-choice advocates would still suggest they be eligible for legal destruction?

Going even further, (as I'm sure Al knows, being a fan of Obama and all) our president failed to vote against infanticide, or partial birth abortions. Maybe Al should think about that. Our president has advocated the murder of a fully developed fetus, so in Obama's eyes, biological development, or any lack thereof, obviously isn't any concern of his. It is apparently his belief that a fully developed child lacks not only civil, but human rights until the moment he leaves his first home in the womb.

Santorum's points about the fetus’ lack of legal humanity certainly stand true. What about his contention that the unborn children of the black community are bearing the brunt of the savagery?

Not only is this a tragic fact, but destroying the unborn children of the black community has even been suggested as public policy by leaders such as Nancy Pelosi! She has suggested that abortion be a vital factor in her version of a “final solution” to stemming the social cost of welfare. And we certainly don’t have to remind Al Sharpton about the racial tapestry of the welfare recipients in this country. He’s made quite a comfortable living exploiting poverty stricken blacks.

And his reluctance to pay taxes for his success presents yet another blow to his moral credibility, this one being rather ironic. On one hand, he insists that the rich should pay heftier taxes in order to provide for the blacks in poverty that he and Obama wish to keep aborting at holocaustic levels. On the other, he refuses to pay the taxes that would be redistributed among the masses that he supposedly champions.

There is nothing to revere in the “Reverend” Al Sharpton. Rather, he seems to lack any semblance of a moral compass, clinging to race-baiting and defense of President Obama rather than embracing morality and reason.

William Sullivan