Follow on TwitterAmnesty International Condemns U.S. For Soaring Maternal Death Rates
In a scathing new report released today, Amnesty International calls on U.S. President Barack Obama to address its spiraling maternal mortality rates and soaring pregnancy related complications (which disproportionately affects minorities and those living in poverty):
More than two women die every day in the USA from complications of pregnancy and childbirth. Approximately half of these deaths could be prevented if maternal health care were available, accessible and of good quality for all women in the USA.
Maternal mortality ratios have increased from 6.6 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1987 to 13.3 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2006. […]
The USA spends more than any other country on health care, and more on maternal health than any other type of hospital care. Despite this, women in the USA have a higher risk of dying of pregnancy-related complications than those in 40 other countries, [including nearly all the industrialized countries]. For example, the likelihood of a woman dying in childbirth in the USA is five times greater than in Greece, four times greater than in Germany, and three times greater than in Spain. […]
A total of 1.7 million women a year, one-third of all pregnant women in the United States, suffer from pregnancy-related complications.
The report also revealed that severe pregnancy-related complications that nearly cause death — known as “near misses” — are rising at an alarming rate, increasing by 25 percent since 1998.
US Amnesty executive director Larry Cox weighs in:
“This country’s extraordinary record of medical advancement makes its haphazard approach to maternal care all the more scandalous and disgraceful. Good maternal care should not be considered a luxury available only to those who can access the best hospitals and the best doctors. Women should not die in the richest country on earth from preventable complications and emergencies.” […]
“Mothers die not because the United States can’t provide good care, but because it lacks the political will to make sure good care is available to all women.” […]
The group blasts the U.S. health care system as one that systematically creates barriers to keep pregnant women from getting coverage:
The way in which the health care system is organized and financed fails to ensure that all women have access to affordable, timely and adequate maternal health care. For many women, health care costs are beyond reach.
Half of all births are covered by private insurance. However, policies that exclude maternal care are not uncommon and most insurance companies will not provide coverage for a pregnant woman unless she had insurance before she became pregnant.
Some 42 percent of births are covered by Medicaid, the government-funded program for some people on low incomes. However, complicated bureaucratic requirements mean that eligible women often face significant delays in receiving prenatal care. […]
Women who do not receive prenatal care are three to four times more likely to die of pregnancy-related complications than women who do. Those with high risk pregnancies are 5.3 times more likely to die if they do not receive prenatal care.
The group pointed out many other systematic failures, including:
- Nearly 13 million women of reproductive age (15 to 44), or one in five, have no health insurance. Minorities account for just under one-third of all women in the US A (32 percent) but over half (51 percent) of uninsured women.
- One in four women do not receive adequate prenatal care, starting in the first trimester. The number rises to about one in three for African American and Native American women.
- A shortage of health care professionals is a serious obstacle to timely and adequate care, especially in rural areas and inner cities. In 2008, 64 million people were living in “shortage areas” for primary care (which includes maternal care).
- Many women are not given a say in decisions about their care and the risks of interventions such as inducing labor or cesarean sections. Cesarean sections make up nearly one-third of all deliveries in the US A – twice as high as recommended by the World Health Organization.
- The number of maternal deaths is significantly understated because of a lack of effective data collection in the USA.
Here’s a bird’s eye view of how countries rank on lifetime risk of death from pregnancy related causes (as reported by the World Health Organization:
1. Ireland 1 in 47,600
2. Bosnia and Herzegovina 1 in 29,000
3. Italy 1 in 26,000
4. Greece 1 in 25,900
5. Austria 1 in 21,500
6. Germany 1 in 19,200
7. Czech Republic 1 in 18,100
8. Denmark 1 in 17,800
9. Sweden 1 in 17,400
10. Spain 1 in 16,400
26. United Kingdom 1 in 8,200
41. United States 1 in 4,800
In its new report, Amnesty disclosed maternal mortality ratios (per 100,000 live births) for each of the 50 states, and the nation’s capitol:
51 — Washington, DC (34.9 deaths per 100,000 live births)
50 — Georgia (20.5)
49 — New Mexico (16.9)
48 — Maryland (16.5)
47 — New York (16.0)
46 — Louisiana (15.9)
45 — Mississippi (15.2)
44 — Arkansas (14.6)
42 — Delaware, Michigan (13.6)
41 — Florida (13.1)
40 — Nebraska (12.6)
39 — Oklahoma (12.3)
38 — Tennessee (11.7)
37 — North Carolina (11.4)
35 — New Jersey, California (11.3)
34 — W. Virginia (11.2)
32 — South Carolina, Idaho (11.1)
31 — Colorado (11.0)
30 — North Dakota (10.7)
28 — Missouri, Montana (10.5)
26 — Nevada, New Hampshire (10.4)
25 — Alabama (9.6)
24 — Rhode Island (9.2)
23 — Illinois (9.1)
22 — Kentucky (8.8)
20 — Texas, Utah (8.6)
19 — Pennsylvania (8.5)
18 — Ohio (8.4)
17 — Virginia (8.0)
16 — Wyoming (7.8)
15 — Washington (7.5)
13 — Arizona, Wisconsin (7.2)
12 — Iowa (7.0)
10 — Oregon, South Dakota (6.2)
9 — Kansas (5.9)
8 — Connecticut (5.1)
7 — Alaska (5.0)
6 — Hawaii (4.7)
5 — Minnesota (3.7)
4 — Indiana (3.3)
3 — Massachusetts (2.7)
2 — Vermont (2.6)
1 — Maine (1.2)
To put this in perspective, a pregnant woman in our nation’s capitol is fifteen times more likely to die from childbirth than a pregnant woman in Greece, twelve times more likely to die than a pregnant woman in Germany, and nine times more likely to die than her counterpart in Spain. And yet, ironically many of our politicians who live and work in that very same city, continue to tout U.S. health care as the “best in the world.”
TAKE ACTION:
Generate an instant email (c/o Amnesty International) to Kathleen Sebelius @ the US Department of Heath and Human Services demanding immediate action.
Gov’t Accountability: The Only Antidote To Conspiracy Theories
Lately there’s been a deluge of conspiracy theories seeping into the American political discourse. Outside the JFK Assassination, the 9-11 conspiracy theory is perhaps the most popular of them all. There are varying themes, depending on who’s doing the advocating. Some suggest the government actually organized 9-11; others believe the government knew something of an impending attack, but ceased to do anything about it. Both of these theories are built upon the idea that the attacks were a necessary spark for implementing an ideological shock doctrine (i.e. a precursor to launch a war) .
Disclaimer: for the record, I do not advocate for 9-11 conspiracy theories. Additionally, I am not a structural engineer, and thus have little knowledge about the validity of their ‘evidence’, other than what I’ve stumbled upon online and seen on television.
However, in an attempt to demonstrate there is some plausibility, at least in part, to their assertions, consider the third building to collapse that day: World Trade Center Building #7:
Building #7 was not hit by any of the planes, but somehow managed to collapse in a perfect free-fall acceleration that afternoon. The collapse itself has some historic significance: it is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires — something previously deemed impossible. That’s the official record — it was brought down by fires — the first of its kind. The National Institute of Standards & Technology fact sheet highlights this point, as well as some other findings on the collapse of WTC7.
And now the plot thickens, as far as conspiracy is concerned: The owner of WTC7, Larry Silverstein, stated in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY jointly decided to pull the building:
“I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”
WATCH the clip of the documentary:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100[/youtube]
I’ve read that for a building to collapse into its own footprint, as WTC7 did, ALL of the load bearing members must fail at the exact same moment — something achieved in controlled demolitions. Assuming this is true — again, I’m not a structural engineer — there wouldn’t be enough time (in the hours between the plane attacks and building 7’s collapse) to rig such a massive building for controlled demolition. It would have had to have been rigged with explosives well before the attacks, etc. etc.
See how these conspiracy theories are born? But Again — just for the record — my knowledge in structural engineering is non-existent, so I can’t guarantee the validity of the statements I’ve made towards that end. This is merely an attempt to provide a bird’s eye view into a common 9-11 conspiracy theory.
We’ll probably never fully understand all that transpired on 9-11, outside the official record, but as you can see, there are often compelling questions that underline these conspiracy theories; enough to make a reasonable person sit up, scratch his head, and wonder, WTF? Which, of course, isn’t to say there aren’t legitimate answers out there that could, once and for all, put each and every one of these questions to rest.
This is why it is deplorable when the establishment sets out to destroy the reputation and marginalize anyone who doesn’t mechanically parrot whatever the establishment has deemed the ‘acceptable’ explanation for this Goliath of American disasters. Take Van Jones, who was pushed out of the Administration for having reservations, at one time or another, about 9-11:
Jones, who joined the administration in March as special adviser for green jobs at the CEQ, had issued two public apologies in recent days, one for signing a petition in 2004 from the group 911Truth.org that questioned whether Bush administration officials “may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war” and the other for using a crude term to describe Republicans in a speech he gave before joining the administration.
And of course, as these conspiracy theories have spread like wildfire, the Administration has resorted to appointing people, like Cass Sunstein, to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which oversees policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs. Sunstein advocates for the “cognitive infiltration” of groups who advocate for “conspiracy theories” like the ones surrounding 9/11:
[Sunstein] argued that the government should stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine” those groups.
But doesn’t Sunstein and others miss the point by not addressing the underlying cause of all this paranoia? The point is that our government consistently acts in ways that erode public confidence in the accountability of government officials. This results in an environment that actually fosters paranoia and suspicion — an environment primed for incubating conspiracy theories.
There would be very few conspiracy theories if the government routinely launched independent investigations in a timely and transparent manner; thereby exemplifying its commitment to the rule of law. This is about bridging the trust gap between the people and their government. Attempting to infiltrate American conversations with government shills will only exacerbate public distrust — not quell it.
U.S. FAILURES IN INVESTIGATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Despite the fact the WTC Building #7 conspiracy theory has floated around since 9-11-2001, the government actually delayed its investigation of the building for half a decade. The reason?: It decided NOT to hire new staff to support such an investigation. This meant much of the evidence on the ground had been hauled off and disposed of years before the investigation was actually completed, thereby ensuring other independent sources couldn’t verify the government findings:
14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?
When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. […]
It is anticipated that a draft report will be released for public comment by July 2008 and that the final report will be released shortly thereafter. […]
This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.
Considering the US government throws money to the wind daily, it would come as a shock to most Americans to learn their government scoffed at hiring new staff members to conduct a thorough and timely investigation into one of the most catastrophic crimes ever committed against the United States of America: 9-11. Do you see how this plays right into the hands of the conspiracy theorists? You couldn’t make this stuff up.
And now we have a new President whom we hoped would bridge that trust gap between government and people. And how has Obama responded? Whenever he is asked whether he will appoint a special investigator to investigate the most egregious crimes of the Bush administration, including misleading us into an illegal war, torturing detainees, warrantless wiretapping, and the controversial firing of eight U.S. federal prosecutors, he routinely answers:
I prefer to look forward, not backward.
Talk about obliterating the trust between government and people! But Obama took it yet a step further. He actually threatened the British government not to allow its High Courts to reveal Bush Administration crimes, and has also intervened to shut down similar lawsuits in US courts. Did you get that? President Barack Obama is conspiring with administration and DOJ officials to blatantly cover up Bush Administration crimes.
And yet, isn’t that essentially the cornerstone of 9-11 conspiracy theories? — that the government has allegedly engaged in a conspiratorial cover-up of a heinous crime which members of the political establishment either orchestrated, or knowingly allowed to be carried out? You don’t need to appoint Cass Sunstein, Mr. President. You need to appoint special investigators to vigorously enforce the laws of this land.
Conspiracy theories will continue to thrive and flourish as long as accountability remains non-existent in our nation’s Capitol.
Is The Coffee Party Shilling For The DNC?
I was intrigued by the news that a counter-Tea Party movement was formulating on the Left, calling itself the Coffee Party. I envisioned a group perhaps better educated than the misguided Tea Partiers, though driven by a comparable populist anger. After all, many on the Left feel royally duped by their supposed change-agent, President Barack Obama.
He has broken A LOT of promises — ones which were VERY IMPORTANT to his once energized supporters, leaving them thoroughly demoralized. Here are just a few of Obama’s broken promises:
- He would not come to Washington and cut back door deals with entrenched interests — there would be complete transparency during health care negotiations (on C-SPAN), and everyone would get a seat at the table. Nope.
- He would not allow lobbyists nor those with conflicts of interests to serve in his administration.
- A public option would be a key component of any health care bill, and he promised not to mandate that Americans purchase health insurance from ‘for profit’ health insurance companies. He then did the very opposite once elected.
- Americans would be able to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and priced lower than in the U.S., and he’d allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices. Nope, instead he cut a back door deal with the Pharmaceutical Industry agreeing to ban it.
- As President, he would recognize the Armenian Genocide (he used very strong language on this matter). However, once elected he refused to acknowledge it as genocide (when asked by reporters) in Turkey, and he then proceeded to lobby Congress this week to deny a vote on Resolution 252 that would have made such an acknowledgment.
- He would close Guantanamo Bay immediately, and to restore habeas corpus. Nope, he plans to keep suspects imprisoned indefinitely without trial, and Guantanamo Bay remains open for business.
- He would reject the Military Commissions Act, which allowed the U.S. to circumvent Geneva Conventions in the handling of detainees. Nope.
- In the spirit of transparency he would amend executive orders to ensure that communications about regulatory policymaking between persons outside government and all White House staff are disclosed to the public. Nope.
So naturally, I would have expected to see some of this mentioned on the site of this new ‘grass routes movement’ calling itself the Coffee Party. On the contrary, they don’t seem to advocate for a single issue or policy proposal; the group seems completely void of substance.
Take the Coffee Party’s Mission Statement:
The Coffee Party Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans. As voters and grassroots volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them.
“Cooperation”?! That sounds A LOT like “BI-PARTISANSHIP” to me. You know, the term Obama uses as a means to promote corporatist (anti-populist) policies under the cover of “a need to compromise with Republicans or ‘Centrists’.” Let’s face it, President Obama has rhetorically opted for bi-partisanship as a means to crush meaningful change since the very first day he took office. And yet this Coffee Party is ironically parroting Obama’s key talking point in their ‘grass routes’ mission statement? Could this group be shilling for Obama’s political arm — the now crumbling Organizing For America?
There’s nothing in that Coffee Party’s mission statement that suggests a move towards populism or an effort to pull Obama further to the Left (back towards the promises he ran on). Wouldn’t that be the equivalent to what the Tea Party is trying to accomplish from their end? Aren’t Tea Partiers, as delusional as they may be, trying to pull Republican politicians towards populist policies important to them?
Whereas Tea Partiers seem disenchanted with both the Republican party and the government, Coffee Partiers seem contented with the Democratic Party and the government. The only issue that seems to resonate with the Coffee Party is Republican obstructionism. In fact, I couldn’t find a single criticism of the President, nor a mention of Democratic betrayals on their entire site. Some ‘grass routes’ movement!
The group asks every Coffee Party member to sign the following Civility Pledge:
As a member or supporter of the Coffee Party, I pledge to conduct myself in a way that is civil, honest, and respectful toward people with whom I disagree. I value people from different cultures, I value people with different ideas, and I value and cherish the democratic process.
It appears this group is more interested in making a statement about the ugliness they see at Tea Party gatherings than they are in actually promoting policies that might improve Americans’ lives. Their elected Democratic representatives (who control all branches of government) have been selling them out for one year now by putting entrenched interests above their own, and Coffee Partiers don’t have a single thing to complain about with regards to their own party?
Watch this video (off their home page) which the Coffee Party is using to sell themselves, and then tell me if you believe these people are issue-driven:
If this were a Tea Party video, you’d hear a lot of passionate — admittedly crazy-sounding — angst about how their party and government is disappointing them. Tea Partiers joined together as a ‘grass routes movement’, because they feel very strongly about specific issues. The Coffee Party doesn’t seem to stand for anything, beyond getting together to sip lattes.
Surely they must have a strong feeling about some issue of importance to Americans (in the midst of two wars, a horrific recession, and a government that is no longer responsive to the people)? Issues drive movements, not Kumbaya gathering. It’s as if the DNC itself has choreographed a “grass routes movement” void of the populist fervor that once drove Organizing For America.
The Politics Of Genocide Denial
The House Foreign Affairs Committee is preparing to consider H.Res.252—The Armenian Genocide Resolution—this Thursday (March 4, 2010), and it has some key Congresspeople scrambling to kill it. The resolution calls upon the President of the United States: (1) to ensure that U.S. foreign policy reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, […]
An Emotional Paul McCartney Plays ‘My Love’ For Linda On Anniversary Of Her Passing
Here’s a touching video of Paul performing the love song he wrote for Linda, ‘My Love,’ at the Coachella Music Festival on April 17, 2009, the anniversary of her passing. What an amazing song, and such an emotional heartfelt moment for someone to have caught on video. Watch: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ydXAC9FJkg[/youtube] The single “My Love” by Paul […]
With No Exit Polls, The “Why?” For Dem. Coakley’s Senate Defeat Gets Spun
One of the most vexing revelations to come from last night’s Senatorial contest in Massachusetts was the fact there were NO EXIT POLLS. NONE! Not a single news organization conducted exit polls to ascertain a “why?” for such a huge, significant upset. Surely, the networks knew the significance of last night’s election before a single […]
Ann Coulter’s Favorite Democrat, Harold Ford, For New York Senate?
I’ve been watching former Tennessee Congressman and bank executive Harold Ford Jr. as a contributor on MSNBC for some time, and this guy has always struck me as the typical finger-to-the-wind beltway insider. You know, the status-quo politician — always looking to spew the beltway establishment talking points, proud to be far to the right […]
The Spark That Incited Rwanda Genocide Finally Comes To Light
Though deep seated prejudices had existed for generations between the two major Rwandan ethnic groups (the Hutu majority and Tutsi minority), it appeared at least from the surface in 1993 that the two groups might actually implement a power-sharing government as outlined in the Arusha Accords — the peace agreement signed between the Hutu dominated […]
Breaking News: U.S. Threatens Aid To Israel In Pursuit Of Peace Deal
In speaking with PBS on the eve of his visit to the Middle East, U.S. special envoy George J. Mitchell delivered an unveiled threat to Israel: George Mitchell threatened that his country would freeze its aid to Israel if the Jewish state failed to advance peace talks with the Palestinians and a two-state solution. Mitchell […]
A Final Nail In The Public Option Coffin: Nancy Pelosi
The Democratic Party’s betrayal of the Left is effectively complete: Speaker Pelosi (D-Calif.) showed flexibility Tuesday on the public option, acknowledging the political reality that such a plan probably couldn’t make it through the Senate. A public plan, Speaker Pelosi said at a press conference, is meant to “hold insurance companies accountable and increase competition,” […]
Follow AlterPolitics on Twitter
