Specifically, I'm wanting to compare rates of IUFDs/stillbirths, speed and effectiveness of care following IUFDs/stillbirths, and maternal complications/deaths - all in states (or countries) that offer access to abortion care vs locations where that's restricted.

Hypothesis is that if someone needs an abortion and can't get one, they're more likely to have a IUFD/stillbirth, and since poor abortion access correlates with poor women's health in general, that they're more susceptible to sepsis or death as a result of delayed or insufficient care following the IUFD/stillbirth.

This is for a presentation that's ready to go as is, but with an election happening RIGHT NOW I'd really like to drive these points home.

Any pointers for sources of info on things like this would be much appreciated - thank you, all!

top 4 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Sundial@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Posted less than an hour ago :).

[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Well how's that for timing. Fuck yeah I'm using this! Thank you!

[–] Sundial@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Enjoy. I realized your original post was regarding women's health and not infant so here's something else.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/texas-abortion-ban-deaths-pregnant-women-sb8-analysis-rcna171631

[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

I'll take all the ammo I can get. I feel like the focus is usually on the fetus, so I'm trying to move the spotlight more onto the (absolutely horrific) maternal impact... but tbh most of the folks voting against abortion rights don't actually give a fuck about the mother, so some focus on 'pro life actually kills more babies!!' would probably be a more effective attention grabber for the voters who actually need to be swayed.