The COVID-19 pandemic contributed to the higher rate in 2020 and 2021:
An increasing number of U.S. women are dying during pregnancy or soon after giving birth, according to the latest data on the maternal mortality rate.
In 2021, there were 32.9 deaths per 100,000 live births, compared with 23.8 per 100,000 in 2020 and 20.1 in 2019, the National Center for Health Statistics reports March 16. The U.S. rate greatly exceeds those of other high-income countries. The total number of U.S. maternal deaths rose from 861 in 2020 to 1,205 in 2021.
There remains a wide disparity in the maternal mortality rate for Black women, at 69.9 deaths per 100,000 live births, compared with white women, at 26.6 per 100,000. Many social determinants of health underlie this gap, including differences in the quality of care that Black women receive before, during and after pregnancy.
The NCHS report doesn't discuss the reasons behind the increase for 2021. But COVID-19 contributed to a quarter of maternal deaths in 2020 and 2021, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported in October. The pandemic also contributed to the mortality disparity between Black and white women, the GAO found, worsening existing structural inequities that lead to such issues as barriers to getting health care (SN: 4/10/20).
The U.S. maternal mortality rate has risen overall since 2018. The highest rate is among non-Hispanic Black women compared with Hispanic women and non-Hispanic white women.
The maternal deaths captured by the NCHS report are those that occur during pregnancy or within 42 days of the end of the pregnancy, "from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management." These causes include hemorrhaging, infections and high blood pressure disorders such as eclampsia.
The report excludes deaths after 42 days and up to the first year after birth. But 30 percent of pregnancy-related deaths occur during this period, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in September, from an analysis of the years 2017 to 2019.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 18 2023, @03:22PM (13 children)
If you compare this result to the result of most European countries, it is outright scary. Most European countries are below 10 deaths per 100 000 births and some, like the Nordic countries, are less than 5 deaths per 100 000. When it comes to maternity-related mortality rates, USA is on par with countries like Malaysia, Lebanon, Syria and Mexico — and China.
And it is also scary that the trend is upward where the majority of all countries see a downward trend or stagnation, the latter mostly for countries with already very low mortality rates. I know it can be a contentious discussion but the United States does already have the honour of being one of the countries with the highest healthcare costs (actually has the highest, to the best of my knowledge), and yet it has poor outcomes in almost all categories like lifespan and maternity mortality.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Saturday March 18 2023, @05:11PM (2 children)
The US is not far off the work ethic that has mothers out working in the rice paddy when they go into labor, deliver, swaddle the newborn and finish the day's work in the field.
The difference in the US is that you are expected to drop everything and race to the hospital (with police escort if you are in the movies) and have your delivery done there, where your insurance can be billed for everything that happens.
Cynically: complications in labor and delivery drive bottom line results. For our first born mom spent two weeks in ICU, her OB's closing statement: "at least we had a good outcome.". Yeah, tens of thousands in additional billing, good outcome for who?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday March 20 2023, @06:23PM (1 child)
Really? You believe that Europeans don't give birth in hospitals? These deaths all come from lack of prenatal care, which the poor simply don't get in the US. Medicaid is a joke that most doctors refuse. In Europe, they consider health care to be a human right, as anyone with any empathy whatever does. "Can't afford the doctor? Fuck 'em, let 'em die" is the American way!
Our nation is in deep shit, but it's illegal to say that on TV.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday March 20 2023, @07:09PM
We had insurance, prenatal care from "the BEST" OB office available in Miami, and they still f-ed up their scripts and we ended up with 10 days between visits when the schedule was 7, would have (likely) caught the issue at day 7 with minimal problems, mom likely would have died if we waited until our appointment on day 10, we presented on the morning of day 9: mom was blind (due to elevated blood pressure pinching the optic nerves...) "Why didn't you tell us about these symptoms and to call when we saw them?" "Oh, it's 'so rare!!!' we don't want to un-necessarily scare moms to-be" - rates I read were like 1/80 overall, more like 1/40 in our age bracket. You are right: without pre-natal care the risk for these complications turning into deaths are much higher.
I wasn't trying to imply that Europeans (Australians, Koreans (South at least), Thai, most Indians, etc.) don't give birth in Hospitals. Was trying to imply that only U.S. hospitals are set up as for-profit institutions which manage their "product" (aka patients) to maximize profits.
>Fuck 'em, let 'em die" is the American way!
Not just for medicine, also for worker safety, environmental pollution, food and housing security, mental health, gun safety, etc.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by epitaxial on Sunday March 19 2023, @02:58AM
Having access to healthcare that won't bankrupt you is helpful.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday March 20 2023, @06:17PM (8 children)
In most European countries you can't be forced into bankruptcy for an appendectomy. My country was once the best at everything, but no longer is the best at much of anything. I blame cocaine in the board rooms and congressional offices, because cocaine kills empathy and grows greed and selfishness.
In 1965 an hour's work at minimum wage bought ten McDonald's hamburgers. Today it will buy two. In 1975 when I was discharged from the Air Force I saw my first panhandler. Now they're all over.
Why aren't my fellow Americans as ashamed of what my country has become since Reagan imported all that coke as I am?
Our nation is in deep shit, but it's illegal to say that on TV.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday March 20 2023, @07:16PM (7 children)
>Why aren't my fellow Americans as ashamed of what my country has become since Reagan imported all that coke as I am?
Wasn't that Ollie North? I'm sorry, I can't remember...
And I'd call the coke a side effect of the underlying problem: putting psychopaths in charge because they can get higher profits.
I feel like post WWII U.S. society took a step toward providing a decent life "for those boys who risked their lives in service of our country." And, I agree, once Carter lost in 1980, it's been on greased skids to income inequality hell ever since.
There's a weird side effect of the cocaine, it takes down a lot of rich kids, ruins their lives before they get to the seats of power. The ones who can handle the coke and stay functional enough to pull off a decent interview on CNN, they're promoted to the C-level. The poor? that's what crack and meth are for, like diamonds, they keep the price of powder-coke high to separate the classes, although - as I recall - it was $25-30K per kilo back in the late 80s in Miami (when I was in college, with a coke dealer down the hall of the dorm), and as I understand it it's basically the same today, adjusted for inflation, somewhere in the neighborhood of $50K/k.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday March 24 2023, @02:09PM (6 children)
Yes, Ollie was in the chain of command under Reagan, and didn't personally move any drugs.
And I'd call the coke a side effect of the underlying problem: putting psychopaths in charge because they can get higher profits.
Indeed. Why were the very rich not psychopaths before Reagan? Greed and selfishness and loss of empathy are all effects of cocaine.
Our nation is in deep shit, but it's illegal to say that on TV.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday March 24 2023, @03:18PM (4 children)
>Why were the very rich not psychopaths before Reagan?
Technology. They had tighter control of the press, more effective image management consultants, less information leakage and better damage control when it did leak.
Sure, the Rockefellers put up a nice skating rink, but the Chicago Mob also was big into local charity...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday March 24 2023, @07:18PM (3 children)
Nope. They can't whitewash what you can see with your own eyes. You can't hide the minimum wage or the tax tables. They didn't have to. Back then, people made their own home made eggnog without fear of food poisoning. You could safely eat a rare hamburger or chicken. Our food and drug regulators aren't doing their jobs, but instead are doing the lobbyists' bidding.
On the other hand they couldn't whitewash burning rivers and streams, or the fact that you had to roll the windows up driving past Monsanto because the air made your lungs hurt if you didn't, no matter how hot outside it was. You couldn't whitewash the very visible pollution, or the sonic booms from military jets.
But I saw no homeless beggars when I was a teenager, but I did see that the federal minimum wage was $1.50 and a McDonald's hamburger was 15¢ as I can now see that the federal minimum is $7.50 and the burger is $2.49. No whitewashing needed or possible, with or without technology.
If it affects you, you know it and they can't whitewash it.
Technology just allowed people stupid enough to believe a proven liar to spout moronic conspiracy theories to more folks than just their cat.
Our nation is in deep shit, but it's illegal to say that on TV.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday March 24 2023, @08:08PM (2 children)
I thought you were talking about the Robber Barons of the pre-cocaine wave past. Plenty of evil bastards in charge 1920 and before.
I still believe the post war humane treatment of the middle class was due to the returning soldiers getting political power, both in the voting booth and veterans in office. We don't really have many combat veterans anymore (thankfully) but that also erases the political power they used to wield from Truman to Regan.
>you had to roll the windows up driving past Monsanto because the air made your lungs hurt if you didn't, no matter how hot outside it was.
This is still the case in Bayport industrial park, Houston. I would drive my son to school in the mornings down NASA road 1 to the bay, many miles south of Bayport with thousands of suburban homes between, and as we passed over the bayou bridges a different chemical smell would settle in each, chlorine here, ammonia there, lightweight oils in another. In Bayport proper, mucus membranes would sting....
>I saw no homeless beggars when I was a teenager
Neither did I. I lived in a smaller town, the police would corral the poor and homeless away from the "nice side of town" where we lived, and the news would rarely mention them (like once every five years rare.). Like the disabled in my schools, I eventually learned they were there, but the establishment "protected us children" from such harsh realities. My parents made no special effort to expose me to those realities either.
I went to University in Miami and still saw no homeless or beggars within 10 miles of campus, but they were easier to find in Miami if you went looking for them outside the Coral Gables bubble.
>Technology just allowed people stupid enough to believe a proven liar to spout moronic conspiracy theories to more folks than just their cat.
It is a double edged sword. Those that used to forcibly bury their heads in the sand are now faced with images and stories that they have learned to ignore or deny, so they are harder to reach than ever, unless you are feeding them what they want to hear. On the other hand, a fair number of open minded people are much better informed than they used to be.
>the federal minimum wage was $1.50 and a McDonald's hamburger was 15¢... I can now see that the federal minimum is $7.50 and the burger is $2.49.
To be fair, a 1963 McDonald's burger was 6 minutes of minimum wage, today it is 20 minutes, but today's burger probably has 4x the calories and even 4x the nutritional value of the burger from 60 years ago, not that we need it, but that's how it is.
Similarly, automobiles have inflated faster than wages, and that upsets me more because the features that are now legally mandated do little for the safety of getting from point a to point b. I was happy with cars once they had seat belts, headrests, collapsible steering columns, disc brakes and digitally controlled fuel injection (resulting in decent emissions levels). The rest of this crap (airbags included) can go away as far as I am concerned. But, it's legally mandated, honestly does drive costs and therefore prices up and longevity down, and studies of effectiveness all seem highly biased.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday March 27 2023, @07:37PM (1 child)
I thought you were talking about the Robber Barons of the pre-cocaine wave past. Plenty of evil bastards in charge 1920 and before.
Cocaine was first made in 1856. It was an ingredient in Coca-Cola until it was outlawed in 1922. You can bet those robber barons were as much coke heads as Musk and Zuckerberg.
As to the burgers, the dime and buck fifty make the math dirt simple. The minimum wage would have to be $24.90 for 1965's buying power. That $2.49 burger is identical to the 15¢ burger, unless they found a cheaper supply of beef.
Our nation is in deep shit, but it's illegal to say that on TV.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday March 27 2023, @08:22PM
>It was an ingredient in Coca-Cola until it was outlawed in 1922. You can bet those robber barons were as much coke heads as Musk and Zuckerberg.
If they were, they hid it better (a strong possibility.)
My grandmother's family doctor (1920s) didn't hide his drug habits well at all.
>That $2.49 burger is identical to the 15¢ burger, unless they found a cheaper supply of beef.
I haven't eaten anything but fries or sundaes from McDs since I got that nasty order of McNuggets in the 1990s. However, I do remember early 1970s McDonald's burgers as being even smaller than the ones in the early 1990s, and nowhere close to what you got for a few cents more from Burger King or Wendy's.
I agree, the formerly dismal buying power of minimum wage has continued to shrink in real terms, but some of the bottom end inflation we have experienced is due to not only price increases for the same products, but also making the bottom end products higher quality, or at least bigger.
Yes: a $4 coffee is insane, but you never got foam art in your $0.25 cup with artificial creamer.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Friday March 24 2023, @03:32PM
>Greed and selfishness and loss of empathy are all effects of cocaine.
I don't disagree on this point. One company I worked for actually did drug screening on new hires and periodic testing on director level and above, complete with the "stay away from the poppy seed bagels" warnings... now, when a test came back positive nobody was fired, but they were pulled in for some counseling...
Rather than banning MJ because it makes the workers lazy and the soldiers insubordinate, it may be time to test upper management for cocaine and cocaine derivatives. Anyone in charge of the livelihoods of more than 1000 people subject to random annual drug testing, and make the results public. Especially in the financial sector, same thing except persons overseeing the retirement funds of 1000 or more people. These guys [imdb.com] are clearly presenting a biased argument, but they put a lot of weight to your statement: we shouldn't be trusting coke heads with our financial stability.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Touché) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Saturday March 18 2023, @04:00PM (24 children)
Thank God Roe v. Wade was overturned. Because as history teaches us, THAT is gonna improve health problems in pregnant mothers dramatically.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Saturday March 18 2023, @05:13PM
Bans of basically unstoppable common human activities just drive those activities underground. Underground health care is rarely as good as mainstream.
Transparency is always the answer.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 18 2023, @05:25PM (22 children)
I agree. The USA is much better off being ruled by nine likely very biased people in D.C. F the Constitution, F Congress, they're just there for show.
Moron.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday March 18 2023, @06:06PM (2 children)
Where is the "missed the /s" or Whoosh mod?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 18 2023, @07:42PM
I considered it, but decided that only the morons will need the giant hint. The final word should clear it up for all but the most dense.
Excellent comments here, btw.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Sunday March 19 2023, @11:08AM
Poe's Law arrived at the supreme court.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Saturday March 18 2023, @06:36PM (18 children)
Well... yes. That's basically the situation now. You have 9 very unelected dictators for life sitting in these benches who can at will overturn any law any elected lawmaker passes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 18 2023, @07:51PM (12 children)
Theoretically only if they determine the law isn't constitutional. Messy business at best.
I'm not sure that the Founding Fathers considered the ramifications of political parties in their otherwise pretty brilliant creation. Pity.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 18 2023, @08:22PM (8 children)
> Theoretically only if they determine the law isn't constitutional. Messy business at best.
Ah bullshit. Vote 6-4, overrule precedent, inform us the previous SC decision was "egregiously wrong". Move into the next one.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 18 2023, @09:03PM (2 children)
All they ruled was that abortion wasn't a Constitutional right, which is exactly right. It's not in the Constitution, which means it's a State's Rights issue.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 18 2023, @09:11PM (1 child)
Exactly correct, but it doesn't fit the infant murderers' narrative. Not sure why they can't use birth control. I'll gladly pay for it for them, especially if it's permanent. Don't need more of those depraved scum. Oh the irony of the liberals rejecting power being given back to the people. Somethings very wrong in their "brains". I'm concluding they're insatiable, will always find something to complain about, even when it will backfire on them someday.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 18 2023, @10:53PM
> power being given back to the people
So tell us about all this power being given back to the people. Are they even asking the people? Not a chance after Kansas voted the wrong way. Oops!
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 18 2023, @09:06PM (4 children)
Overruling an erroneous and illegal precedent, giving the power back to the people in accordance with the Constitution, does't fit your narrative this time, so you call "bullshit"? You're beyond moron- you're in moron's second basement. You want to subvert the US Constitution without a proper Congressional Amendment. I call you traitor. You're such a moron I pity you, but you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 18 2023, @10:54PM (2 children)
I find your comment egregiously wrong. Case closed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 18 2023, @11:57PM (1 child)
Wow, brilliant response. Bravo!
/s
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2023, @01:24PM
Good enough for the finest legal minds on the Supreme Court.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday March 20 2023, @08:59PM
Ah yea! Nothin says "don't tread on me" like handing all of your private medical information over to the federal government!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Sunday March 19 2023, @05:33AM (2 children)
They did, and warned us that political parties were the greatest enemy of democracy.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday March 20 2023, @06:32PM (1 child)
That may be correct. I personally consider anyone who votes for a party rather than the individual candidates to be stupid lemmings; that ballot is a vote to hire someone. You want to hire someone on the basis of being in your club rather than fitness for the job? That's how Trump, probably the least qualified president in US history got elected. And it almost cost us our democracy.
Our nation is in deep shit, but it's illegal to say that on TV.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday March 24 2023, @03:23PM
The best counter to straight party ticket voting: vote by mail + the internet. For the time it takes to travel to the polls and back, you can research the candidates in the races and make much more informed decisions vs. REP/DEM/LPF and some names you might have seen on a sign while driving in. Although my research pretty clearly labeled all LPF (the Libertarian Party of Florida) candidates I looked up as Proud Boys in thin disguises and just seeing an LPF on a candidate should be a very polarizing piece of information in itself. In comparison, there's a lot more diversity within the REP and DEM candidates, and I voted for some of each of those in the recent election.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday March 20 2023, @06:28PM (4 children)
All the Republicans I know personally want term limits for legislators. I say they all have term limits, if they do a lousy job they're out when their limited term is up, and can be re-elected if they do good work.
I want term limits for Supreme Court judges. Say, eight or ten years and out, like the democratically elected president.
Our nation is in deep shit, but it's illegal to say that on TV.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday March 20 2023, @07:25PM (3 children)
The framers of the system specifically wanted long terms for Supreme Court Justices, but I don't think they envisioned the kind of lifespans we're experiencing today, nor the corrupting influences of all that time in the halls of power.
I'm in favor of both term limits, and age limits (sorry Bernie, the very old shouldn't be passing legislation that they'll never see the effects of), but I'd like to see them implemented as a kind of points system:
- Up to the current median life expectancy, elections are unaffected.
- If you are above the current median life expectancy, whatever your percentile rank is, say: older than 60% of living U.S. citizens expected age of death, use that to "trim" your election results. If you're the oldest person in the country, you'd need to win the election by a 75-25 or higher margin of the popular vote. If you're older than 75%, then you'd only need to win by 87.5-12.5.
This also should help keep the super-old out of office when life-extension gets more unevenly distributed than it already is.
Similar thing for term limits, two non-incumbents running against each other are unaffected. For each term served, an incumbent needs to win by additional margin.
https://old.reddit.com/r/DownWithIncumbency/ [reddit.com]
I think there's a quip attributed to Ben Franklin along the lines of: "House Guests and Fish have this in common: they both start to stink after three days." Similar applies to politicians, the longer they are in office, the less we should be trusting them to serve the interests of those who elected them.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Tuesday March 21 2023, @09:57AM
Politicians are a lot like diapers. Both tend to end up being full of shit and need to be replaced.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday March 24 2023, @02:05PM (1 child)
(sorry Bernie, the very old shouldn't be passing legislation that they'll never see the effects of)
He's eighty one. My Uncle Joe, Mom's brother, made it to 103. Mom made it to 92. If Bernie only lives as long as my mom, he has another decade of American law to live through. For Uncle Joe, twenty years. Lots of people don't even live for twenty years; teens die from suicide, gun shots, and car wrecks all the time.
How about John Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln? Lincoln was only 55, Kennedy was a kid, barely old enough to hold office. Neither one lived to see much of the legislation they signed into law's effects, and the kid almost destroyed civilization with the Bay of Pigs invasion. So I don't think you have a very powerful argument in favor of age limits.
I've heard some say there should be age limits for driving, but that's what the DMV is for, to test a person to see if they're capable of driving safely. Mom never had a ticket or a wreck in her life until she was 90 when someone on her bowling team backed into her. That was her only accident. She was the most careful and attentive driver I've ever ridden with. But some would have taken her license away two decades before she died, despite being a great, safe driver.
Each and every one of us has our own age limit. There is no universality to age of death, only its inevitability.
Our nation is in deep shit, but it's illegal to say that on TV.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday March 24 2023, @03:15PM
>there should be age limits for driving, but that's what the DMV is for
So, yes, but that's a capability test, and any capability test for legislators would invariably be biased - like the poll tests of old.
And, while Bernie is 81, and may well live for 20 years more, will he really be experiencing the effects of his legislative decisions? Trump's deregulation of rail safety requirements came to roost fairly quickly, one White Noise [imdb.com] inspired toxic cloud after only 4-5 years. Many legislative decisions are a more slow shaping of society that takes decades to really have their effects, particularly those which allow industry to slowly accumulate toxins in the environment.
Also, Bernie wouldn't likely have a problem with his age, so much as his incumbency. Pre-pandemic, Bernie was 78 - exactly at median US life expectancy, so no penalty there. Now, life expectancy has dropped to 76 while he has aged 3 additional years, at his next re-election I would be asking his age bias to require him to win by a few points, instead of 50.001% he might need more like 52% of the popular vote (would need more data about the percentiles of life expectancy other than median...) Not much to ask of a candidate with so much political experience, that he convince the electorate just a bit more than a younger competitor, or that Bernie steps down and advises a younger candidate how to run for his voters.
Both the incumbency penalty and the age penalty are really more intended to get our elections off this 50.0000001% focus and encourage candidates to unify larger chunks of the population, put forth platforms that a large majority of voters will get behind, not just barely enough to win while spending their extra political capital in service of their lobbyist backers.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Barenflimski on Saturday March 18 2023, @07:06PM (1 child)
Healthcare in the United States is fragmented and expensive. Just trying to get a price is difficult. Finding a reasonable price at a doctor that has time for you is near impossible.
It is hard for any Doctor that wants to make even a middle of the road living to treat the large percentage of people that don't have insurance or money or time. The gap between the bottom rung of folks in the United States and even the middle class is so large, that it is basically two separate economies.
So many of the issues in the United States stem from the classes that exist. When you have such a large gap between the top and bottom, the folks at the bottom 50% have trouble affording anything.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 18 2023, @09:00PM
I see a much bigger spread between middle and upper class, but it's all a matter of definitions, where you draw the lines, etc.
I might be considered "middle class", maybe lower-middle, and healthcare cost is almost out of reach for me. Let's say, anything needing specialist, significant treatment, hospitalization, etc., the co-pay / co-insurance ("out-of-pocket") costs would drain me.
Full health coverage for all is what's needed. The healthcare world is much too used to charging huge money, no matter what. They need to go on a radical and strict money diet, and learn to be efficient and frugal.
I'm getting a bill for $480 from a healthcare business. It does not specify who, what, where, when, nor why. I can surmise who and when, and the supposed "doctor" did literally nothing. In fact, refused to do a diagnostic procedure, and now I have to pay $480? Which leads me to sue them, because "doctor's" refusal might have jeopardized my health and even life.
Lovely system we have in the US, huh.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 18 2023, @08:24PM (4 children)
Friend, if you do not want to die from maternal complications simply do not have a baby, and the time-honored way to do this is to abstain from sexual intercourse. Or buttsex. Ooops, not that last bit.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Opportunist on Saturday March 18 2023, @10:07PM (2 children)
Yeah, that worked so well. Telling people to suppress the one instinct that is powerful enough that people kill and die for it.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 18 2023, @10:56PM (1 child)
Buttsex?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Opportunist on Sunday March 19 2023, @11:11AM
No thanks. I don't like it for the same reason I'm not a fan of Marmite. It's brown and smells kinda funky.
(Score: 4, Funny) by krishnoid on Saturday March 18 2023, @10:15PM
No, no, God's ok with that [youtu.be]. Or at least God needs to address it during the next legislative session.