NEW: deep dive into the grim & highly unequal impacts of a US abortion ban ft.com/content/ebf64d…

We begin with a damning chart:

US women die from pregnancy-related causes at far higher rates than their peers, and black US women die at rates often seen in developing countries
That statistic is an indictment of US maternal health care, and a clear example of how structural & implicit racism can cost lives.

What do I mean by that?
Structural: the average black woman starts out with elevated health risks linked to a history of disadvantage.

Implicit: 2019 study found pregnant women of colour were disproportionately likely to be ignored or have their requests refused by medical staff …tive-health-journal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.11…
The result is that the act of carrying a child to birth in the US is three times as lethal for black women as for white women.

And this has very significant implications when we start thinking about restricting access to abortion.
Such has been the success of anti-abortion propaganda over the years, one might be forgiven for thinking that abortion is a more dangerous procedure than giving birth.

But one would be very wrong.
There were 861 pregnancy-related deaths in the US in 2020, for a rate of 24 per 100,000 births.

Over the past six years, there have been an average of 4 abortion-related deaths, for a rate of 0.41 per 100,000 legal abortions.

Abortion is roughly 60x safer than pregnancy & birth
So when you restrict abortion, you’re pushing women down a much more dangerous path, increasing their risk of serious harm.

As we’ve seen, this jump in risk is especially pronounced among black women, but this isn’t the only way in which they would bear the brunt of a repeal.
Black women are also the most likely to get an abortion, as are women in poverty.

So a ban disproportionately pushes these groups down that more dangerous path. And they have the fewest resources to find an alternative such as seeking treatment in another state.
It’s a grim one-two punch.

Enact a policy that disproportionately hits black women, and preside over a system in which the act of being denied an abortion is also more dangerous for black women.
The result, as demonstrated by @ajeanstevenson, is that a US abortion ban would increase the lifetime risk of a black woman dying from pregnancy-related causes by 33%, to 1 in 1,000 read.dukeupress.edu/demography/art…

Both the level and rate of increase are far higher than any other group.
And we’ve not even got onto the non-health impacts of a repeal yet.

The negative socio-economic impacts of forcing women into unwanted births are well-established, but this study, by @Dianagfoster & team, is particularly insightful jamanetwork.com/journals/jamap…
The study compared two groups of US women — those who were denied an abortion due to being just over the gestational limit and had an unintended birth, and those who received an abortion due to being just under the limit, but then had a planned birth in the next couple of years.
The findings were clear:

Women who had unplanned births driven by denial of abortion were more likely to fall into poverty, be left as a solo-parent, and struggle to bond with their child, compared to women who received an abortion and then had a planned birth at a later date.
All in all, the outlook is bleak.

As is almost invariably the case, when something bad happens in the US, it happens disproportionately to black people and those on low incomes.

The repeal of Roe vs Wade is no exception, though the harms will be felt by every woman.
Here’s my full column this week, on the US’s most shameful statistic ft.com/content/ebf64d…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with John Burn-Murdoch

John Burn-Murdoch Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jburnmurdoch

Apr 28
Some professional news:

Starting today, I’m going to be writing a weekly data-driven column for @FT.

I’m equal parts terrified and thrilled, but hopefully this first one — a deep dive into the Brits forced to crowdfund private healthcare — is a good taste of what’s to come
My goal for the column is to find vitally important topics — whether in the UK or anywhere else — that are under-discussed or poorly-understood, and to use data and charts to increase the breadth and depth of understanding of the issues.
I’ll be looking at everything from healthcare, social attitudes, energy & climate change, to politics, policy and even an occasional bit of sports.
Read 5 tweets
Apr 28
NEW: for the last few weeks I’ve been digging into how the huge pressures on the NHS — both immediate and longer-term — are increasingly forcing Britons to go private.

The result is this, the first edition of what will be my weekly data-driven @FT column: ft.com/content/dbf166…
This was by far the most striking finding:

Hundreds of Britons are now using crowdfunding websites like GoFundMe to pay for private medical expenses.

Yes that’s the *UK*, not the US.

This is one of the most shocking charts I’ve made, even in the context of the last two years. Image
To be clear, many middle class Brits pay to go private to get treated faster, or in a less strained setting — the number going abroad for private treatment has been rising for years — but crowdfunding means hundreds on lower incomes are now going private out of desperation. Image
Read 16 tweets
Apr 27
For those wondering about y-axis:

A volume can rise 100%, 200%, 1000%, but can only ever fall 100%

Showing that on linear scale is therefore misleading coz you give more than 10x as much space to something that grows 10x, as to something that shrinks 10x

Log scale fixes that.
Log scales remain massively under-used, and the persistent use of linear scales in these situations means a lot of people misunderstand important numbers/patterns/trends.

Thankfully after the last two years, log scale literacy is much higher than it once was 😀
And for the "but most people still don't understand log scales!" holdouts:

I do not care.

The goal is that they understand the chart, not the scale.

If they see a line sloping up to +100%, and a line sloping down at the same angle to -50% (equal relative changes), job done 👍
Read 8 tweets
Apr 20
Literally no one:

US politicians: "don't worry the homeless can't use the bins as houses"
I spent a few months in San Francisco five years ago, and the treatment of homeless people as a nuisance (at best) or a hazard (at worst) was one of the most shocking things I've seen.

Completely broken society.
Britain needs to do far, far more to reduce homelessness and help those who are homeless, but at least we tend to treat the homeless as human beings.
Read 4 tweets
Apr 20
PSA: please dont share the egregiously misleading stat that "100 companies account for 70% of GHG emissions"

By that definition, driving cars & flying planes & burning gas doesn’t produce any emissions because they’ve already been attributed to the firms that drilled the oil/gas Image
Clickbait headlines and press releases like this are irritatingly common, and are *always* nonsense once you spend even 30 seconds looking beneath the surface.

Here was @FullFact’s take (the source of my screenshot) fullfact.org/news/are-100-c…
Fossil fuel companies have done (and continue to do) enormous damage to the environment. So have many governments and big corporations.

But to pretend that if consumer behaviour transformed and we all stopped driving and flying and using gas, emissions wouldn’t fall, is absurd.
Read 5 tweets
Apr 20
This super @PopovichN chart is imo the single most important message to give people about diet and climate change.

You can cut your dietary carbon footprint almost as much by replacing beef & lamb with other meat, as by going totally veggie.

Eating green needn’t mean no meat.
Why is it important?

Because a lot of people baulk at cutting out all meat.

And if we actually care about changing behaviours rather than feeling morally superior, a [slightly] smaller shift that people will make is more important than a bigger shift that people won’t.
When we implicitly present a false binary of "veggie/vegan or meat eater", we make it incredibly easy for the latter to decide "well I’m sticking as I am then".

We effectively prevent huge numbers of people from reducing their dietary emissions by taking smaller steps.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(