August 28, 2009 1:35 PM
Michelle Bachman: 5 births is a lot of health care experience
Michelle Bachman - whom I highlighted in June for her stance vis a vis The Obama Census is on the radar again. We are sure to hear a lot more from this rising conservative star.
From Michelle Malkin:
I knew Michelle Bachman was mother of five, but didn't realize she had also been foster mother to 23 kids. Come to think of it, that means A LOT more health care experience.Some pro-socialized medicine hecklers tried to shout down GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann as she pointed to the crappy care pregnant moms are getting in the U.K.
Watch her snappy retort. Video via Eyeblast (hat tip: Stephen Gutowski):
She is on the Left's Hit List - watch them try their best to take her down like they tried with Sarah Palin. Keep her in your prayers.
Posted in Health, Obama Nation | Permalink
Comments
I remember when she was a freshman senator and the press was making fun of her trying to talk to Pres. Bush and how persistent she was. I wish I were in her district so I could vote for her, but she is in the Twin Cities area. I will keep her in my prayers. We need more like her!
Posted by: Nancy Larson | August 28, 2009 5:12 PM
That's awesome! Our country definitely has problems with maternity care (we've got one of the worst infant mortality rates in the western world), but socialized medicine is NOT the answer.
Most European countries have better outcomes not because they're nationalized, but because the average, healthy pregnant woman sees a midwife rather than an OB, and is subjected to far fewer unnecessary interventions.
My liberal SIL was trying to use the maternity argument for why we need to copy Europe's system, but she won't acknowledge that countries like Norway and the Netherlands actually deliver up to a third of their babies AT HOME! She refuses to see "The Business of Being Born" because she knows that it presents evidence and solutions which actually support a free market, patients having the right to choose their own care, and negates many of the excuses made for a massive government takeover.
After personally having one hospital birth and one home birth (and now on the verge of my second home birth), I can tell you that the solutions are to be found in giving women MORE choices and power over their birth experience, not less!
Excessive government regulation and fear of lawsuits has caused most of the problems we now face in American maternity are, and addressing these two issues alone would solve most of them!
Posted by: Rachel | August 28, 2009 6:26 PM
Rachel - do you have a reference for the infant mortality statistics? I have heard before that the US has the highest rate, but I've also heard that countries count mortality very differently (ie; the US includes stillbirths and other nations don't include a child's death in its statistics until so many minutes, hours or days have elapsed) and that one can't make direct comparisons based upon numbers. Have you heard that? I would like to know more about this and I appreciate any guidance you can provide. Thanks!
Posted by: Anne | August 28, 2009 11:47 PM
We love our Michelle!!!!
Posted by: Paula in MN | August 29, 2009 11:46 AM
Anne: I recently heard of how the US and other countries report IMR (Infant Mortality Rates), too. The following is from Wikipedia:
"While the United States reports every case of infant mortality, it has been suggested that some other developed countries do not. A 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report claims that "First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless.[5] And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country."[6] However, all of the countries named adopted the WHO definition in the late 1980s or early 1990s.[7]"
I encourage everyone to read the entire entry on Infant Mortality from Wikipedia. It does seem that the US may report more deaths than other developed countries. I've had wonderful birth experiences in the hospital and have had a lot of choice. I want to keep it that way!
Posted by: Susanne | August 29, 2009 2:53 PM
If a country does not count a baby as "alive" if it is less than a certain weight, less than a certain length, or born before a certain week, even if the baby shows signs of life, does that mean they don't try to save that child's life? I have heard this mentioned before as one of the reasons that the US counts those babies as live births -- because we try to make sure they survive.
In Florida, little Amillia Taylor was born at 21 weeks and six days (she was conceived via IVF, so they know for certain), and weighed only 10 ounces. She was hospitalized for four months, and weighed only four pounds when she went home. Amillia will be three in October. (BTW, even in Florida the only reason the doctors fought to save Amillia was because her mother lied and claimed to be farther along than she was. The doctors thought they were delivering a 23 week old baby.)
Posted by: Michelle Potter | August 29, 2009 3:16 PM
I know I've read a discussion of the differences between how infants are considered. I just found this link, which explains some of the differences: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-doctor-is-in-infant-mortality-comparisons-a-statistical-miscarriage/. Standards vary by region, and to see what some of them are, I found this document (http://www.eurocat.ulster.ac.uk/pdf/Report-8-Appendix-7.pdf") from a WHO-affiliated European organisation, which is a little confusing, but shows what some of the guidelines are for catagorising an infant as a "live birth" in the case that the child should not live.
Seeing this clip of Rep. Michele Bachmann (one L, two N's) is also interesting for me because I used to live in the district she has now (mid-Minnesota, around St. Cloud and all) and she mentions the hospital in Stillwater. Stillwater is more well-known for its state prison rather than its hospital, but the point here is that even *little* hospitals in the US have a higher standard of care than those in Europe. Mark Steyn made a point of this one of the last times he subbed for Rush Limbaugh. I also lived in Germany for years, and while Germany's is a system of public healthcare plus private insurance (if you're lucky enough to afford it), many of these smaller hospitals are closing because the government can't "afford" to keep them running.
Posted by: Katja | August 29, 2009 3:33 PM
Anne, you're correct that the statistical comparisons can be a bit sticky. For instance, some countries count in-utero or preterm deaths in their infant mortality rates, and others do not.
The comparisons of hospital vs. homebirth outcomes can get mixed up as well. Some studies have included ALL out-of-hospital births (including unplanned emergency ones on the side of the road) as "home births", while other studies muddle the fact that since high-risk women are most likely to go to a hospital, comparing them to low-risk women at home isn't a fair comparison.
The best information comes from studies of specific interventions. For instance, the use of pitocin automatically doubles the chances of fetal distress and subsequent C-section. Therefore, the fact that some hospitals have up to a 90% pitocin rate is clearly alarming (do they really expect us to believe that 90% of women are incapable of delivering their babies without pitocin? Hardly!).
Since midwives (especially homebirth ones) are far less inclined to induce or use pitocin to speed up labor, their fetal distress and C-section rates are much lower. But then again, midwives care for low-risk women who are less likely to need pitocin in the first place.
As for resources, there is SO much information out there, all I can do is point you in the right direction. I recommend starting with "The Thinking Woman's Guide to A Better Birth" by Henci Goer, and "Ina May's Guide to Childbirth" by Ina May Gaskin. Here are some more recources:
http://www.midwife.org/display.cfm?id=441&print=2
http://www.motherfriendly.org/downloads.php
http://www.milbank.org/reports/0809MaternityCare/0809MaternityCare.html
http://www.thefarm.org/charities/mid.html
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/10869
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/94102.php
Posted by: Rachel | August 29, 2009 4:13 PM
