Women dying in childbirth is something associated with undeveloped countries or America prior to the 20th century.
That it’s still happening in this country — and not only that, but it’s actually gotten worse in the past quarter-century — is stunning.
Granted, these deaths still are rare — only about 700 maternal deaths a year out of 4 million births.
Still, it is a cause for concern when, as a Harvard Medical School doctor told The Associated Press, “an American mom today is 50% more likely to die in childbirth than her own mother was.”
How can that be?
One possibility, say those who have looked over the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, is racial bias in medical treatment, since black women are about three times as likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause as women of other races.
But if there is racial bias in medical care, it can’t be any worse today than it was a generation ago, and if anything it’s probably less.
More likely this rise in maternal deaths is related to other factors cited by the CDC.
One of those is the increase in the number of C-section deliveries. As with any surgery, cutting on a person’s body creates the risk of infection and other complications.
But we suspect one of the biggest factors for the rise in maternal deaths is the soaring rate of obesity. When a non-pregnant person is seriously overweight, the risk of heart disease, diabetes and other illnesses is elevated. When the person is pregnant, the risks are multiplied even more so.
Although doctors and other medical personnel have to be attuned to this danger, the ideal would be for women in their child-bearing years to not fall into that high-risk category in the first place.
Lifestyles have changed. We’re an increasingly sedentary society. Maybe it requires more conscious effort to keep the weight off than a generation ago.
Still, this is yet another warning that obesity is an epidemic that can’t be ignored, no matter how common it has become.
Democrats still have stingy streak
It’s surprising that some of the Democrats running for president apparently didn’t pay attention to previous outings of their stingy fellow party members.
USA Today reported that a handful of presidential contenders talk a good game about being compassionate and generous to the less fortunate, but when it comes to their own wallets, they tighten up.
Based on the candidates’ tax returns, these are some of the more miserly:
N Former Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke and his wife made over $370,000 last year but gave only $1,166 to charity, or 3-10ths of 1 percent.
N Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana, made $135,000 in 2017 but gave only $765 to charity, or 5-10ths of 1 percent. It’s not known what he gave to charity in 2018 since he didn’t have enough in deductions to itemize.
N Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and his wife gave a little under $19,000 of their $566,000 income last year, or 3.3 percent.
Maybe the biblical prescription of 10 percent is a stretch for most Americans, but couldn’t these candidates do at least half that?
The officeholder they hope to unseat, President Donald Trump, might not do any better than these charity-challenged Democrats. Since he won’t release his tax returns, there’s no way to tell.
But he’s not advocating, as they are, for the government to take more from the rich to give to the poor. Thus, he does not have to lead by example. They should.
Tim Kalich is the Editor and Publisher of the Greenwood Commonwealth.
