4 ms·

I don't think this is accurate. First, "choosing to give birth" is a little biased. In a state like Texas, 96% of Texas counties have no clinics that provided a

by kaitai 9y ago

I don't think this is accurate. First, "choosing to give birth" is a little biased. In a state like Texas, 96% of Texas counties have no clinics that provided abortions. 43% of Texas women lived in those counties in 2014. Abortion rates are down there. Maternal mortality in Texas is the worst in the US. You'd be better off, as a mom, giving birth in Iran. South Dakota has one, maybe two clinics that do abortions, and they fly in docs from Minnesota. Abortions aren't that common there either. So "choice" is, well, not really there. Anyhow. Sexism certainly plays a role but it's not really the main thing. You can be a sexist pig doctor and still practice evidence-based care! OB/GYN in the US is often not evidence-based, does not use standardized protocols, and concentrates on the day of birth rather than pre- and post-natal care. In the US we are extraordinarily good at getting babies out alive. We are not good at getting babies to stay alive or keeping moms healthy/alive, because those goals don't involve one day of technical genius, they require sustained care and social services (good nutrition, access to mental health care, maternity leave including prenatal maternity leave, etc). Weird fun fact: some studies indicate that giving maternity leave the 2 weeks before giving birth has more positive influence on maternal and infant survival and health than increasing maternity leave from 6 months to 12 months. Just two weeks! And yet pre-birth maternity leave isn't standard at all in the US.

Consultant32452 9y ago
>First, "choosing to give birth" is a little biased. Oh boy, I can already tell where this is headed. Okay, "choosing to get pregnant." >Abortions aren't that common there either. Cool, since abortions are so rare then the distinction between "choosing to get pregnant" and "choosing to give birth" is basically meaningless. >So "choice" is, well, not really there. TIL: the only way to "choose not to give birth" is an abortion. And the over half million abortions in the US each year are "not that common" and also "not a choice" due to the fact that abortion availability varies by region. >Sexism certainly plays a role but it's not really the main thing. That may be true, but I think the article is clearly suggesting that sexism plays a role. It refers to women as second class citizens. It also chastises the medical consensus that the maternal mortality rate is caused by: obesity, age, and chronic illness like diabetes is problematic because it places the fault on the people who are obese, unhealthy, and "choosing to get pregnant" later in life. >and social services Yes, we're in agreement there, that the article does suggest that the solution to the problem should be spreading the costs of the decisions of women across all of society in the form of social services. >And yet pre-birth maternity leave isn't standard at all in the US. Weird fun fact: some studies indicate that single motherhood significantly increases infant and maternal mortality, and yet we keep increasing the state incentives towards single motherhood.
- kaitai 9y ago
  I gotta say, I got pregnant despite taking measures to prevent it. It's not that abnormal. (Now you're going to tell me that I had sex so it was a choice. Let the reader reflect on his or her own experiences.) Also, state incentives for single motherhood are a farce. That's some crazy propaganda -- when's the last time you talked with a single mom? And what incentives are you talking about? Crappy maternity leave, no free childcare, no free snowsuits or diapers, formula costing money and breastfeeding costing time.... OB/GYNs for all their faults go into the profession with the desire to help women. Sexism on their part is not the reason for poor maternal health outcomes in the US.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    >That's some crazy propaganda Historically women who chose unreliable reproductive partners suffered disastrous consequences. She lacked adequate resources to provide for her child and was ostracized by society. Women, and men alike ("shotgun weddings"), directly suffered the consequences and paid the costs of such decisions. The modern welfare state spreads the cost of these poor decisions to broader society. Nearly 40% of single parent households live in poverty, compared to just 7% of married couples. The high school dropout rate of the children of single parents is 71%. Why do these stats matter? In the 1960s when we started the "war on poverty" by creating modern welfare programs the poverty rate was 7%, now it's about 40%. The unmarried birth rate was about 5%, now it's 41%. >Crappy maternity leave, no free childcare, no free snowsuits or diapers, formula costing money and breastfeeding costing time.... Free or subsidized childcare is available at the state level in every state that I'm aware of. SNAP and WIC provides food or formula. Sure, there's no direct subsidy specifically for snow suits or diapers, but there's low income housing, free meals at every free public school in the nation, free cell phones, subsidized broadband internet, etc. >Sexism on their part is not the reason for poor maternal health outcomes in the US. Correct, the root cause of poor maternal health outcomes in the US is poor health decisions on the part of mothers in the US. We can have a separate discussion about whether or not it's the state's responsibility to spread the cost of those poor health decisions to broader society, but that doesn't change the base facts. But once again, if you look at the entire thread you'll note that I was merely providing a summary of the article. I don't believe that OB/GYNs, by and large, are sexist. The article, however, is pretty clearly pushing that idea.

by kaitai 9y ago

Consultant32452 9y ago

>First, "choosing to give birth" is a little biased. Oh boy, I can already tell where this is headed. Okay, "choosing to get pregnant." >Abortions aren't that common there either. Cool, since abortions are so rare then the distinction between "choosing to get pregnant" and "choosing to give birth" is basically meaningless. >So "choice" is, well, not really there. TIL: the only way to "choose not to give birth" is an abortion. And the over half million abortions in the US each year are "not that common" and also "not a choice" due to the fact that abortion availability varies by region. >Sexism certainly plays a role but it's not really the main thing. That may be true, but I think the article is clearly suggesting that sexism plays a role. It refers to women as second class citizens. It also chastises the medical consensus that the maternal mortality rate is caused by: obesity, age, and chronic illness like diabetes is problematic because it places the fault on the people who are obese, unhealthy, and "choosing to get pregnant" later in life. >and social services Yes, we're in agreement there, that the article does suggest that the solution to the problem should be spreading the costs of the decisions of women across all of society in the form of social services. >And yet pre-birth maternity leave isn't standard at all in the US. Weird fun fact: some studies indicate that single motherhood significantly increases infant and maternal mortality, and yet we keep increasing the state incentives towards single motherhood.

kaitai 9y ago
I gotta say, I got pregnant despite taking measures to prevent it. It's not that abnormal. (Now you're going to tell me that I had sex so it was a choice. Let the reader reflect on his or her own experiences.) Also, state incentives for single motherhood are a farce. That's some crazy propaganda -- when's the last time you talked with a single mom? And what incentives are you talking about? Crappy maternity leave, no free childcare, no free snowsuits or diapers, formula costing money and breastfeeding costing time.... OB/GYNs for all their faults go into the profession with the desire to help women. Sexism on their part is not the reason for poor maternal health outcomes in the US.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  >That's some crazy propaganda Historically women who chose unreliable reproductive partners suffered disastrous consequences. She lacked adequate resources to provide for her child and was ostracized by society. Women, and men alike ("shotgun weddings"), directly suffered the consequences and paid the costs of such decisions. The modern welfare state spreads the cost of these poor decisions to broader society. Nearly 40% of single parent households live in poverty, compared to just 7% of married couples. The high school dropout rate of the children of single parents is 71%. Why do these stats matter? In the 1960s when we started the "war on poverty" by creating modern welfare programs the poverty rate was 7%, now it's about 40%. The unmarried birth rate was about 5%, now it's 41%. >Crappy maternity leave, no free childcare, no free snowsuits or diapers, formula costing money and breastfeeding costing time.... Free or subsidized childcare is available at the state level in every state that I'm aware of. SNAP and WIC provides food or formula. Sure, there's no direct subsidy specifically for snow suits or diapers, but there's low income housing, free meals at every free public school in the nation, free cell phones, subsidized broadband internet, etc. >Sexism on their part is not the reason for poor maternal health outcomes in the US. Correct, the root cause of poor maternal health outcomes in the US is poor health decisions on the part of mothers in the US. We can have a separate discussion about whether or not it's the state's responsibility to spread the cost of those poor health decisions to broader society, but that doesn't change the base facts. But once again, if you look at the entire thread you'll note that I was merely providing a summary of the article. I don't believe that OB/GYNs, by and large, are sexist. The article, however, is pretty clearly pushing that idea.