More of the white coat’s “safe and effective” turning out to be trash. A couple interesting observations, they seem to have changed the reporting so this could only be done in a window of a few years, and it involved data collected in states that paid for abortions. Pay attention to the death cult states serving Moloch. And it goes to show that letting white coats perform surgeries has unforeseen consequences, as the captured medical and pharmaceutical industries just aren’t safe, and far from effective. Technically, they’re very effective at their primary mission of extracting wealth, but not so much at keeping people healthy.
Can they STILL claim it’s ‘healthcare’ if it increases dangerous outcomes in future pregnancies?
By Wes Walker
Where are those ‘believe the science’ folks when you could actually use them?
The claim is that leftists are huge supporters of abortion NOT because it helps them get massive financial kickbacks that fund their political careers, or because it’s good for their libertine sexual mores. They do it because they care so gosh darn much about women.
Their rights. Their freedoms. Their ability to go through life without being burdened by the consequences of a single sexual encounter.
Oh. And their health. Because it’s their reproductive HEALTH they are talking about.
Funny they should bring that particular combination of words into the conversation. Because according to a study that came out this year, abortion has direct impacts on health — specifically in the context of reproduction.
Researchers at Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI) found a creative way to take a snapshot of trends whose data has been difficult to capture. What they were looking for was risk factors of SMM (Severe Maternal Morbidity). CDC has an entry on SMM that includes the following quote:
Severe maternal morbidity (SMM) includes unexpected outcomes of labor and delivery that can result in significant short- or long-term health consequences. SMM has been steadily increasing in recent years.
So, it’s exactly the kind of question that activists whose entire brand centers on ‘reproductive rights’ of women might want to take an interest in, don’t you think? Especially if these serious side effects have been trending in the wrong direction over recent years. We should be excited that someone like CLI is hard at work identifying the risk factors driving this growing medical health crisis that affects women.
After looking at the various risk factors that have been associated with elevated SSM, they wanted to test a hypothesis that a previous pregnancy loss increases the risk of complications in a subsequent pregnancy. To minimize the variables they narrowed the focus of their study to outcomes of a first-born live birth of two different sub-sets. One group had no previous pregnancies. The other had one prior incomplete pregnancy.
Data from 1999 through 2021 were obtained from the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for seventeen states that paid for abortion—Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia—for all women with a pregnancy-related diagnosis or treatment. The 1999–2021 window was used to ascertain reproductive history; the index-birth analysis was restricted to 2016–2021, when the CMS data system and ICD-10 coding supported consistent identification of the CDC SMM indicators. This study has been exempted from institutional review board review by Sterling Institutional Review Board (IRB ID 7269).
Between 2014 and 2016 CMS data transitioned from ICD-9 to ICD-10. In 2016, CMS fully transitioned from Medicaid Analytic eXtract (MAX) files to T-MSIS Analytic Files (TAF), which are standardized research-ready datasets derived from the Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS). Using treatment and ICD codes, we identified all Medicaid beneficiaries with a first recorded live birth between 2016 and 2021. For each woman, all recorded pregnancy outcomes before the index pregnancy were searched in the 1999–2021 claims history. Inclusion in the analytic cohort required either no prior recorded pregnancy outcome or exactly one prior recorded pregnancy loss. Women with more than one prior pregnancy loss were excluded from this analysis, as were women with a recorded live birth before the index birth. Multiple gestations that produced a combination of pregnancy loss and live birth were also excluded. These restrictions were intended to compare women with no prior recorded pregnancy with women having a single prior recorded loss while avoiding the additional complexity of multiple prior losses. — DovePress
If you clicked through to the CDC page, you will note the description includes a list of ’21 indicators with corresponding ICD codes are used to track SSM’. This detail gives a straightforward method of tracing which patients in the cohort experienced SSM and which did not, giving us a picture of what role an unsuccessful pregnancy has in later complications.
Principal Findings
The principal patient-level analysis revealed a 57% higher crude odds of SMM associated with a first live singleton birth among women with one prior pregnancy loss compared with no prior pregnancies. Yet the magnitude of association differed substantially by type of prior pregnancy loss. After adjustment for age at first birth, our regressions revealed significantly higher odds of SMM following indeterminate abortion (OR=1.54; 95% CI, 1.49–1.59), procedural abortion (OR=1.48; 95% CI, 1.43–1.53), natural loss requiring surgical treatment (OR=1.36; 95% CI, 1.30–1.41), and other natural losses (OR=1.20; 95% CI, 1.19–1.22). These differences indicate that the magnitude of SMM rates may vary significantly with the type of prior pregnancy loss. While not explored in this study, we would hypothesize that the number of prior pregnancy losses is likely to be another risk factor.
[…] Conclusion
A recorded history of one prior pregnancy loss was associated with elevated SMM at a first recorded live birth among Medicaid beneficiaries. The association may identify an underlying higher-risk maternal profile, effects related to prior loss, or a combination of pathways that this study cannot separate. These findings support further evaluation of reproductive history as a component of SMM risk stratification. Improved continuity of care and better data integration may help refine risk prediction; whether interventions based on reproductive history reduce SMM requires prospective evaluation.
In other words — someone with a history of abortion has a significantly higher risk of serious complications in her first pregnancy than someone who had no previous abortions.
Maybe it’s time the ‘Shout your abortion’ folks were a little more honest with the women whose interests they claim to represent.
While Massachusetts cheers their new law green-lighting abortion right up to the moment of birth, the rest of us might insist on patients’ rights laws that obligate abortion mills to give ‘informed consent’ of what increased risks the women wanting to end a pregnancy might eventually face later in life.