Close Menu
    Politics

    Strenge Abtreibungsgesetze seit dem Fall von Roe haben zu einer Zunahme der Kindersterblichkeit geführt – nicht zu weniger


    Strenge Abtreibungsgesetze seit dem Fall von Roe haben zu einer Zunahme der Kindersterblichkeit geführt – nicht zu weniger

    https://lasvegassun.com/news/2025/jan/04/strict-abortion-laws-since-fall-of-roe-have-led-to/

    View 33 Comments

    33 Comments

    1. anditurnedaround on

      So they make the women who actually live through the birth give birth to a child that will die anyway?  This is considered a successful movement? 

    2. BruceBannerer on

      Pretty sure this is exactly what people with a brain said would happen.

    3. steve_ample on

      See parallel to the sudden criminal drop in 1991, 18 years after the 73 Roe ruling. Turns out unwanted pregnancies lead to circumstances that lower parental support (and/or overstretched societal support) with sociological implications.

      The article makes it a bit more direct – for a baby likely to have congenital or postpartum issues, taking away a reasonable medical option means a price needs to be paid later, cuz Dobbs don’t make the medical issue go away.

      Of course, you can make the case that the Republicans are pro-fetus, but anti-life after you’re born. Methinks George Carlin had a brilliant line about it.

    4. fROM_614_Ohio on

      The GOP doesn’t care about anything coming out of a vagina, they only care about controlling what goes into it.

    5. williamgman on

      “Children” are only protected while IN the womb. After that..? They don’t care.

    6. invalidpassword on

      It wasn’t about saving lives of the unborn; it’s about controlling women. The men who want women (and mere children) to carry a pregnancy to term, no matter what, are probably lamenting the fact we still have the right to vote.

    7. draidenttv on

      they love to admire children as long as they are in the womb, then its not their headache

    11. HallucinogenicFish on

      But Republicans do not care — and are even trying to cover up the data — because this was never about life or children.

    12. layzieyezislayzieyez on

      Instead of a cluster of cells without an actual brain to feel pain, now we get to see developing fetuses and fully developed adult women die in pain. Great job “pro-lifers”.

    13. TransiTorri on

      Wow, the thing that everyone said would happen… happened. It’s almost like we have decades of data and international data from other places with similar polices to collate together and draw a conclusion from.

    14. Corlegan on

      This will probably not go well…but…

      If the abortion bans have led to a huge surge in “unwanted” births, wouldn’t there be higher infant mortality naturally?

      I am not commenting on the root issue here, just curious.

      Separately, I do think that saying “some babies are dying that we keep from being killed” is an interesting philosophical argument.

    15. R_Lennox on

      George Carlin in his 1996 HBO special:

      > Why, why, why, why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn’t want to fuck in the first place, huh? Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren’t they? They’re all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you’re born, you’re on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months.

      >After that, they don’t want to know about you. They don’t want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you’re preborn, you’re fine; if you’re preschool, you’re fucked.

    17. 1maco on

      Isn’t this pretty obvious? If fetuses with a 50/50 shot of surviving get aborted they don’t count towards infant mortality.

      If 50% of those then get born and die that rises infant mortality but if you count abortion as deaths (which gov’t statistics don’t) the total morality goes down? 

      It’s accounting. Not like “more pregnancies end up non viable after abortion bans”

    19. Arguments_4_Ever on

      Since Roe was overturned:

      Abortions: up

      Maternal deaths: up

      Infant deaths: up

      “Pro-life” has always been the anti-life policy.

    22. GooglyEyeBread on

      Wow. Shocker. Not like we told republicans this would HAPPEN. But of course they don’t care. They only care about controlling people who can give birth.

    23. No_Pirate9647 on

      Force nonviable fetuses to be born. Charge the grieving parent more than if they were allowed to have healthcare/reproductive rights. Force them to grieve even more by denying them healthcare/reproductive rights. Cruelty and wealth extraction is the point.

    24. Evil_phd on

      The left wants fewer abortions. That’s why they advocate for things like strong education, accessible and affordable healthcare, affordable housing, and wages that are in tune with the last 40 years of inflation.

      The right just wants women to suffer for daring to have had sex.

    25. Adept_Information845 on

      But only my abortion is a moral one. Let them eat cake!

    27. naomi_puma on

      It’s about controlling women; lawmakers are not genuinely concerned about life at any stage.

    30. IndependentRegion104 on

      If the deacons 13yo daughter gets pregnant, I just have this funny feeling nobody will ever know because of the abortion. Just what I am thinking.

    31. 1mmapotato on

      That is because women used to be able to terminate non compatible with life pregnancies, now they are forced to give birth to infant who will die shortly after birth.

    32. aliquilts71 on

      Aren’t they making women give birth to babies that have been diagnosed to have no chances of survival? Of course that’s going to lead to increased infant deaths.

    33. dejamintwo on

      Obviously there being more infants born means more infants die. if the same % die.

    Leave A Reply