US Infants died at higher rates after abortion bans in the US, research shows

By Deidre McPhillips, CNN
4 minute read
Updated 1:27 PM EDT, Mon October 21, 2024

baebee.png
The infant mortality rate was higher than expected in the US in several months after the Dobbs decision and never dropped to rates that were lower than expected, a new study found.
Cavan Images RF/Getty Images


In the year and a half following the Supreme Court Dobbs decision that revoked the federal right to an abortion, hundreds more infants died than expected in the United States, new research shows. The vast majority of those infants had congenital anomalies, or birth defects.

Earlier research – spurred by a CNN investigative report - found that infant mortality spiked in Texas after a 6-week abortion ban took effect in 2021, and experts say the new data suggests that the impacts of the bans and restrictions enacted by some states post-Dobbs have been large enough to affect broader trends.

“This is evidence of a national ripple effect, regardless of state-level status,” said Dr. Parvati Singh, an assistant professor of epidemiology with The Ohio State University College of Public Health and lead author of the new study.

In the new paper, published Monday in JAMA Pediatrics, Singh and co-author Dr. Maria Gallo, a professor of epidemiology and associate dean of research with the Ohio State University College of Public Health, compared infant mortality rates for the 18 months following the Dobbs decision against historical trends.

They found that infant mortality was higher than usual in the US in several months after the Dobbs decision and never dropped to rates that were lower than expected.

In the months that infant mortality was higher than expected – October 2022, March 2023 and April 2023 – rates were about 7% higher than typical, leading to an average of 247 more infant deaths in each of those months.

About 80% of those additional infant deaths could be attributed to congenital anomalies, which were higher than expected in six of the 18 months following the Dobbs decision, according to the new research. Congenital anomalies can range from mild to severe cases, and some of the most common types can affect an infant’s heart or spine. In some cases, babies with a birth defect may only survive a few months.

“This is the tip of the iceberg,” Singh said. “Mortality is the ultimate outcome of any health condition. This is a very, very acute indicator. It could be representative of underlying morbidity and underlying hardship.”

Other research has found that births have increased in states with abortion bans, and experts say that some of that increase is linked to a disproportionate rise in the number of women who are carrying fetuses with lethal congenital anomalies to term.

“Whether the pregnancy was wanted or unwanted, we know that many of these are pregnancies that would have ended in abortion had people had access to those services,” said Dr. Ushma Upadhyay, an associate professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive science at the University of California, San Francisco. She was not involved in the new study, but does research abortion trends in the US.

Experts say that abortion bans can also affect access to broader health care, which can lead to increased risk for both babies and mothers.

“The well-being of a pregnant person is inextricably linked to the well-being of the pregnancy,” Upadhyay said. Abortion bans may affect access to and willingness to seek prenatal care and broader support systems, she said, and the barriers compound.

“People who face the most structural barriers in terms of poverty, lower levels of education, food insecurity, and other life stressors can’t access abortion care, and these factors also increase their risks of poor pregnancy and birth outcomes,” she said.

Infant mortality includes deaths that occur before a baby has turned one, so it is difficult to parse out exactly what was happening during the months that did see rates that were higher than expected, Singh said. But the timing – four, nine and 10 months after the Dobbs decision – line up with about the time that congenital anomalies can be identified in the fetus and a full-length gestation term.

“These studies are providing a signal that people aren’t getting the care that they need, and because of that, there are spillover effects,” said Dr. Alison Gemmill, a demographer and perinatal epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University who led the research identifying the link between rising infant mortality and abortion restrictions in Texas. “It’s never going to be the case that everybody’s going to be able to overcome the barriers of these bans.”

 
Ah yes, let's prevent those infant deaths by killing them preemptively. Logic!
It kind of does make sense in the case of fetal anomalies. They should be able to keep them and get hospice care if they want but I don't see the harm in aborting a baby who isn't going to live very long.
It's not the same as people who use abortion as birth control for getting rid of healthy babies. I think it's pretty dumb a lot of states with abortion restrictions do not have an exception for fetal anomalies.
 
About 80% of those additional infant deaths could be attributed to congenital anomalies, which were higher than expected in six of the 18 months following the Dobbs decision, according to the new research. Congenital anomalies can range from mild to severe cases, and some of the most common types can affect an infant’s heart or spine. In some cases, babies with a birth defect may only survive a few months.
I mean, that’s usually what causes infant deaths even in areas where abortion is legal. Normally, these issues are detected early enough to allow the mother time to either terminate the pregnancy, or to carry it out.

“The well-being of a pregnant person is inextricably linked to the well-being of the pregnancy,” Upadhyay said. Abortion bans may affect access to and willingness to seek prenatal care and broader support systems, she said, and the barriers compound.
This need to pander to less than 1% of the global population is irritating, to put it mildly. This nonsense is already causing people not to receive any proper diagnosis of sex-exclusive diseases and cancers.
 
Ah yes, let's prevent those infant deaths by killing them preemptively. Logic!
It was self defense, man. Them fuckin' 23 babies all came at him at once maliciously and unprovoked. When that many babies get together they're like piranha. Three people testified that if he hadn't killed those babies, they'd have killed him.
 
Ah yes, let's prevent those infant deaths by killing them preemptively. Logic!
You have to understand the mind of a shitlib at the current moment.
Women are this massively oppressed class that needs feminism and drive thru abortions or else we will have the handmaid's tale.
You have to understand remember how people made fun of right wing preppers who thought Obama and the government were going to become tyrannical and shitlibs in DC and NYC live in perpetual fear.
It's kind of like gender affirming care the narrative and worldview the left lives in is you denying them the right to yeet that fetus is denying women's health.
It's like the the trans issues denying minors hrt is transphobia and bigoted it can't ever be in the minds of the educated shit lib that maybe just maybe Ole conservative Jeb has a point.
 
It was self defense, man. Them fuckin' 23 babies all came at him at once maliciously and unprovoked. When that many babies get together they're like piranha. Three people testified that if he hadn't killed those babies, they'd have killed him.
I consider myself a Christian but certain exceptions just seem reasonable, like a necessary sin. There seems to be no logical benefit to making a family have an anencephaly baby if they don't want to.
Definitely let them keep it for the short time they'll have if they choose... what a horrible situation, no matter what you end up choosing. This could all be stopped if more states allowed fetal anomaly as a legal reason to terminate a pregnancy.
 
I consider myself a Christian but certain exceptions just seem reasonable, like a necessary sin. There seems to be no logical benefit to making a family have an anencephaly baby if they don't want to.
Definitely let them keep it for the short time they'll have if they choose... what a horrible situation, no matter what you end up choosing. This could all be stopped if more states allowed fetal anomaly as a legal reason to terminate a pregnancy.
Problem is that nuanced situations like anencephaly were kicked to the curb with the "shout your abortion" movement.

Most pro-abortion women see a fetus (Latin for "young one") as a parasite that needs to be killed instead of a consequence of having unprotected sex. Yes, abortion is nuanced (Bill Clinton had this right when he said "Safe, Legal, and Rare") but those nuances have been bulldozed through years ago.

There are also very rare but serious complications that are caused by abortions that are simply not talked about. It's why clinics have fought against bills and legislation that make them preform ultrasounds and let the woman see for themselves exactly what a "fetus" is (the growth of new life) because a lot of women change their minds once they realize that they have a baby growing in them.
 
"We need to kill them so that they don't die" - how does this make any sense? They want to murder babies to stop babies from dying.
Why go through a whole pregnancy for a baby you're just going to have to bury? Some people just can't handle the trauma. I can't bring myself to judge them for that like I do the whores who have turned abortion into something to be proud of and use in lieu of birth control.
However, it is wrong they don't let people bury aborted remains or have more infant hospice for babies like this who won't last long but their parents just want to enjoy any time they can.
Sometimes I just hate every side of this debate. Thank you @Bakarina for your intelligent and nuanced response.
Vax status?
Me? I don't really trust the COVID vaccine and only got the first couple myself. I didn't get any boosters because I figured that it was worth it for people with comorbidities but not healthy people, kind of like how they do it in many European countries now.
I trust older style protein vaccines. I wanted that plant based Canadian COVID vaccine that got shut down because it had tobacco industry funding, it seemed a lot safer than mRNA. Get your TDAP boosters peeps!
 
"We need to kill them so that they don't die" - how does this make any sense? They want to murder babies to stop babies from dying.
It's how they explain eugenics.

"This person might have a lower quality of life. Abort it"

Ultrasound, as amazing as the technology is, is not full proof. I have had devastating and scary results from ultrasound (both from personal diagnoses and back when I was pregnant) only for biopsies and other tests to cancel out the original prognosis of the ultrasound.

Again, abortion is nuanced, but it's been taken over by a majority of people that either don't want to take responsibility for their actions or because they're on a power trip (I've known a handful of men that were ecstatic to become fathers only for their girlfriend or wife to kill the kid because he made her mad over something) and then when there's backlash over the whores using abortion like it's the morning after pill, the pro abortion movement will pull out the rare, sad, and ultimately necessary evil times of a baby not being compatible with life or a child being taken advantage of as a reason why they shouldn't face consequences for their actions.
 
It's how they explain eugenics.
I think eugenics is good. It shouldn't be used against social issues like the poor but it could have very positive effects on society if used judiciously.
the pro abortion movement will pull out the rare, sad, and ultimately necessary evil times of a baby not being compatible with life or a child being taken advantage of as a reason why they shouldn't face consequences for their actions.
What I don't get is why the prolife movement seems to be against birth control and the morning after pill but regular prolifers aren't and why is it so hard to have an abortion ban with exceptions for fetal anomaly, incest, rape and health of the mother? Why is one of those always left out, usually exceptions for fetal anomalies? Is it the Down Syndrome activists that think abortion is ableist?
 
I think eugenics is good. It shouldn't be used against social issues like the poor but it could have very positive effects on society if used judiciously.

What I don't get is why the prolife movement seems to be against birth control and the morning after pill but regular prolifers aren't and why is it so hard to have an abortion ban with exceptions for fetal anomaly, incest, rape and health of the mother? Why is one of those always left out, usually exceptions for fetal anomalies? Is it the Down Syndrome activists that think abortion is ableist?
I think eugenics is a necessary evil (there are conditions that are not compatible with life and would just prolong suffering of the child and family, see Luna's thread for more horrifying details).

I think that both the Prolife Movement TM are a bunch of grifters that mirror the exact opposite of what the Pro-Choice Movement TM says regardless of what it is.

There was an incident in Texas where a mother had a fatal diagnosis for her unborn child and "needed" an abortion. However they created a giant fucking circus around it and the woman ended up traveling out of state to get the "much needed abortion". (The reason why I phrased it the way i did is because the Texas Supreme Court was like "if this is medically necessary we don't see how it's against the law, we aren't doctors so we are turning to the professionals on this one" but the woman's doctor played games on whether or not she actually needed one in order to prolong the case as a gotcha).

As for the fetal anomalies, that's extremely broad. There are many anomalies that can be fixed and treated with proper medical intervention. I once read an article about a couple in Australia that a couple aborted their son because he potentially had a clubbed foot (foot is twisted abnormally; can be fixed with early intervention because baby bones are very pliable). Kid ended up not having a clubbed foot but his parents killed him because there was a possibility that the kid had an anomaly.

Part of it is also because of the down syndrome activists (DS can be so broad and while some have a high quality of life, not all of them do. So it's a mixed bag with this topic).
 
Back