by Bill Beckman
Both the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times carried reports on March 26th regarding a study presented in the latest issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. What got their attention was a study about the long-term impact of premature birth. The Sun-Times summarized key findings as “children born early have higher death rates in childhood and are more likely to be childless in adulthood.” The Tribune summary was even more ominous, stating “Infants born prematurely are much more likely to die during childhood and, if they survive, much less likely to have children of their own in adulthood.”
The death rate for the earliest preemies (22-27 weeks) was 5.3 times higher than average for 1-6 year old boys and 7 times higher for 7-13 year old boys. Again for boys who were the earliest preemies, within the timeframe of the study, only 14% have had children compared to 50% of boys born at full term.
The most premature girls had a 9.7 times higher than average death rate from 1-6 years of age, but no increased risk from 7-13 years old. For girls who were the earliest preemies, within the timeframe of the study, only 25% have had children compared to 68% of girls born at full term.
Even so, both articles stated, “Most preemies grow up to have good health and normal reproduction.” Another area of analysis was educational achievement. Fewer preemies had completed high school and more full term children had taken graduate education.
The data used for the study was obtained from “Norway’s extensive registry of births and medical care” using statistics for over 1.16 million singleton births from 1967 to 1988 and following them through 2002. Therefore, by the end of the study’s timeframe, the study group ranged in age from 14-35 years old. For educational achievement, the study analyzed only those born from 1967 to 1976.
The study raises a number of questions. Given the disparities between female deaths in the 1-6 age range compared to the 7-13 age range, and compared to boys deaths in both categories, can the results be considered statistically sound or merely anomalies? Given that a significant portion of the study group has not reached typical childbearing age, how reliable are the differences found in reproductive outcomes? Given that in vitro fertilization was not achieved until 1978 and only single births were studied here, is it reliable to assume that the outcomes identified by this study can be applied to the explosion of preemies generated by wider use of in vitro fertilization, leading to many preemies from multiple births?
Of course, a variety of experts were quoted on the potential implications of the study. Dr. Geeta Swamy of Duke University Medical Center, and lead author of the study, observed, “Are we improving their survival at the expense of significant problems down the road?” Might that be a hint that Dr. Swamy would consider abortion, or even infanticide, a better choice?
The Tribune article noted that “one in eight U.S. infants is now born prematurely” while “researchers are unsure why the rate is so high, but contributing factors include the growing incidence of assisted reproduction, which often produces twins or triplets, which are more likely to be born prematurely.” Another statistic raised by Dr. Wanda Barfield of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was “In the U.S. premature birth rates among black mothers are higher than among white mothers.”
The unmentioned factor that is ignored in regard to premature birth is its correlation to abortion. Since black mothers have an abortion rate four times that of white mothers, they will certainly have more premature births in later pregnancies. Since abortion became more prevalent after the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, premature births have risen because more mothers have abortion in their medical background.
The Sun-Times article quotes Dr. Alan Fleischman of the March of Dimes stating, “In the United States, there is an epidemic of preterm birth, and prevention is absolutely critical.” How will prevention be even remotely possible when a major contributing cause (abortion) is totally ignored as being a factor? Of course, the March of Dimes views “selective reduction” (aborting “excess fetuses” produced by in vitro fertilization) as prevention! How long will it be before the March of Dimes joins Princeton professor Peter Singer in advocating infanticide as prevention for the epidemic of preterm babies?
