Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.

UCare generously supports MinnPost’s Second Opinion coverage; learn why.

Yes, childbirth is more dangerous for women than the abortion pill

American women are dying during pregnancy and childbirth at double the rate they were 20 years ago.

If Minnesota’s Republican legislators were really thinking about the health and safety of women of childbearing age, they wouldn’t be focusing, as they did Wednesday, on laws that make it more difficult for women to receive the abortion pill.

They would, instead, be doing everything they can to make sure all of Minnesota’s women have full access to safe and affordable medical care during pregnancy and childbirth.

For, despite what his political opponents might think, Rep. John Persell, DFL-Bemidjii, was correct when he stated, “One of the most dangerous things a woman can do is go through childbirth. That’s way more dangerous than the [abortion] drugs you’re trying to protect them from.”

Maternal death rate doubles

In 2010, as I reported at the time, Amnesty International released a damning report about pregnancy and childbirth care in the United States. That report noted that American women are dying during pregnancy and childbirth at double the rate they were 20 years ago (from 6.6 per 100,000 live births in 1987 to 13.3 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2006).

In other words, two to three women are dying daily in the United States from pregnancy-related complications. And the number may be even higher, for no federal agency requires hospitals or other institutions to report maternal deaths.

A look at the numbers

Now, compare those statistics to the ones Minnesota’s Republicans cited in support of the new abortion-pill legislation: Between September 2000, when the abortion drug mifepristone was approved for use in the United States, and April 2011, an estimated 14 women died and 612 women were hospitalized for mifepristone-related complications.

Eight of those 14 women died as a result of toxic infections, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration [PDF]. But the cause of death in the other six cases is more problematic, as additional factors were involved, including drug overdoses. The FDA even lists one of the cases as a suspected homicide.

Yet, even if we accept that all 14 of those deaths were directly related to mifepristone, that’s still 14 deaths out of the 1.52 million U.S. women who took the drug during that period. The maternal death rate for medical abortion, therefore, is less than 1 in 100,000 — or, as Rep. Persell stated, much safer than childbirth.

To be fair, Minnesota has done a better job than most states at reducing maternal deaths. Our maternal death rate, as cited in the Amnesty International report, was 3.7 deaths per 100,000 live births, one of the lowest in the country — but still much higher than the rate of maternal death associated with medical abortion.

Making all women safe

Of course, no women should die after taking mifepristone. Women need to understand the risks associated with the drug so they can quickly recognize signs of infection and uncontrolled bleeding. They also need to have access to good follow-up medical care.

But no women should be dying during pregnancy and childbirth, either. And that’s a much, much more serious health problem for American women. In fact, as the Amnesty International report also pointed out, women in the U.S. are now at greater risk of dying from pregnancy-related causes than women in 40 other countries — five times greater than Greek women, for example, and four times greater than German women.

‘Systemic failures’

According to Amnesty International, pregnant women and new mothers are dying because of “systemic failures” in our current health system: non-existent or inadequate health care coverage, financial and physical barriers to accessing care (including a lack of physicians in rural areas), and an overuse of risky interventions, such as inducing labor and delivering via cesarean section.

In Minnesota, about 14 percent of women receive delayed or no prenatal care. And for women of color, that percentage doubles to almost 28 percent.

Now there’s an area where we could use some more legislative efforts — if we really want to improve the health and safety of women, that is.

Comments (7)

  1. Submitted by Ross Williams on 04/20/2012 - 09:58 am.


    No one takes the arguments about health concerns seriously. This is about moral opposition to abortion.

    Of course, like all theater, its more compelling if we suspend our disbelief and pretend the actors are real, rather than repeating lines from a script written to carry the story along. As participants in that theater, you need to act as if this is a rational debate over public policy. But it isn’t. Its just theater with an eye on the next election and hits on the web page. The actual impact on women’s health has nothing to do with it.

    • Submitted by Tim Walker on 04/20/2012 - 11:12 am.

      Ross is right, of course

      But we still need to try to inject facts into the debate, regardless of the short-term futility of doing so.

      Because, one hopes that evidence-based discussions will eventually change the nature of the debate.

      Although it’s very hard, one MUST be optimistic about this. Don’t give up hope.

  2. Submitted by Herbert Davis on 04/20/2012 - 12:13 pm.

    Your correct about

    …the debate is contrived, however, hoping that evidence based discussions will influence folks who spout “faith based” ideas is like hoping that the enemy of science and reason will do a 180 and become supportive of science…either we educate the young to crtically think or we let the “faithful” have their way with them!

  3. Submitted by Rosalind Kohls on 04/20/2012 - 04:46 pm.

    questions about the numbers

    Are the numbers of women who died from “pregnancy-related causes” about the same as the numbers of women who died “in child birth?” Are the numbers of women who died from “medical abortions” about the same as women who died from “drug-induced abortions?” If they aren’t the same, maybe apples and oranges are being compared here.
    Child birth is a natural process like breathing and digestion. A miscarriage or drug-induced abortion is not natural. A miscarriage means that something is wrong. Women who have a miscarriage usually hightail it to the emergency room or get medical treatment immediately. A drug-induced abortion is the equivalent of a miscarriage. It is a miscarriage that is artificially induced. Women who get a drug-induced abortion need medical attention from a professional.

  4. Submitted by Eric Paul Jacobsen on 04/20/2012 - 10:36 pm.

    News We Need to Know

    Thank you, Susan Perry, for this report. So much of what passes for news today is fluff. But that 2010 Amnesty International report about maternal deaths, which I did not notice at the time, is important news that we need to know. How can people way we US-Americans have the “best healthcare system in the world” when we fall so far behind most other industrialized nations in preventing death by childbirth? I have saved this article for future reference.

  5. Submitted by mark wallek on 04/22/2012 - 10:37 am.

    Health care improvements

    I would imagine that this has just a little something to do with the capitalization of our health care juggarnaught, and the tiered care that is the result. Clearly, those with the cash can get exactly what they need. Those without don’t really matter, and they get what’s left. Thank goodness that entities like Fairview can provide waterford crystal to the secrataries and make up for that by squeezing the “health care” they provide their nursing staff (garbage, to quote one employee). The imposition of moral postures has always been a hallmark of American hypocracy, so no suprise that someone who believes abortion is “wrong” would seek to impose that belief on others. It’s the christian/american way. Bottom line today: Who is making money? They are our modern day heros.

  6. Submitted by Michele Sykes on 04/23/2012 - 12:43 am.

    Prostate Cancer Death Rate

    I’m curious what’s happened to prostate cancer death rates in that same time frame …

Leave a Reply