I think it's important to note the slippery slope on which we stand when the accused killer is charged with 2 murders, not one. This will lead to further eroding of our abortion rights.

The note on leading causes of death is notable.

However, I might point out that there is indubitably a measure of masked autocorrelation in this conclusion. Specifically i am saying that, given that successful progression into pregnancy is a sign of relatively solid (if not good) health, and the competing factors that might lead to mortality are decreased. A pregant woman is unlikely to die of age related deseases; unlikely to die of, say, cancer, since the disease would have progressed to a point whereby pregancy would have been impossible to achieve or aborted by natural process.

Not that violence against the pregant should be ignored, but there are some factors here to include in our thoughts on the matter.

According to that article. Medical complications are first, followed by traffic accidents followed by homicide. And one could conclude that homicide is an aggregate number - e.g. women who are the victims of homicide irrespective of their pregnancy. The implication in this article is that all these women are murdered by their partners or the babies' fathers. Which may or may not be true. After all the #1 cause of death of women in the workplace is murder too. Where's the overlap and where's the segregation in those numbers.

The article also does not enumerate what the numbers are. Which is key. Like the populations of countries of the world: China #1, India #2, USA #3. But there's huge gap between #2 and #3.

Based on a previous Broadsheet story, I thought this was a good thing.

The most relevant statistic to me would seem to be a comparison of the murder rates for pregant women versus demographically similar women who are not pregant. Otherwise it's hard to make much of this information because there are too many potentially confounding variables.

Since they make women hide behind veils and don't allow flirting, and fathers determine who marries whom, and they're tribal and they don't like to marry outside the tribe -- they mostly end up marrying cousins.

Right now they're giving birth to children with serious birth defects at an alarming rate.

Just wait a few generations and they'll be going extinct.

And I'm only half kidding.

They're working with a shrinking gene pool, and their religion forbids all of the kinds of behaviors that brings new genes into the family line.

http://www.glennsacks.com/new_report_on_maternal.htm

New Report on Maternal Homicide Crisis:

Myth-Making and Manbashing

By Glenn Sacks

"Pregnant women murdered at an alarming rate." "Killings of new, expectant mothers mount." "Many new or expectant mothers die violent deaths." "Violence trails expectant mothers." "Pregnant mothers often die of murder."

These headlines top a highly-publicized new series of articles by Donna St. George of the Washington Post. The series, which appeared in many major newspapers and media outlets this week, details an alleged epidemic of maternal homicide by male intimates.

The series powerfully depicts the tragedies of murdered expectant or new mothers. The mother-to-be killed the day her mother ordered the cake for her baby shower. The pregnant 14 year-old murdered by her 14 year-old ex-boyfriend. The bank manager killed because she wouldn’t convert to her husband’s religion before their twins were born. However, despite the emotion, alarm bells and blaring headlines, the series fails to build the case that maternal homicide is an epidemic, is on the rise, or is even a significant social problem.

According to the Post’s numbers, there are about 100 documented murders of pregnant women in the United States each year. Yet according to the Centers for Disease Control, nearly four million women give birth each year. One out of 40,000 is not an epidemic. The Post speculates that the true number could be significantly higher but also notes that 30% of these killings are not related to childbearing, but instead involve drug dealing, robberies, errant gunfire, or other causes. And some pregnant women are killed by other women, as in the recent Missouri murder of Bobbie Jo Stinnett by a woman who cut her live baby from her womb.

St. George and others point to a Journal of the American Medical Association article which states that in Maryland a “pregnant or recently pregnant woman is more likely to be a victim of homicide than to die of any other cause." This sounds alarming until one considers that there are an average of eight murders of pregnant women each year in Maryland--alongside 75,000 live births.

St. George also cites a study by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health which allegedly showed murder to be the biggest cause of death for pregnant women and new mothers. When this study was released the Boston Globe summarized its findings as follows:

“Murder is the leading cause of death for Massachusetts mothers in the 21-month period from when they become pregnant until their babies reach their first birthday, according to a state review that shows domestic violence today is more dangerous than medical complications from childbirth.”

However, when public health specialist Ned Holstein of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine examined the report, he found that murder was well down the list of alleged causes of maternal death. According to the study's own data, the leading causes of death of pregnant or recently-pregnant women over a 10-year period were Medical conditions (152), Motor vehicle accidents (21), Domestic violence homicides (20), other homicides (10), and Miscellaneous (29). The epidemic of domestic violence-related homicides sweeping Massachusetts consists of an average of two deaths per year.

“The risk of murder by an intimate is extremely small, not an epidemic,“ says Holstein, a physician who also heads Fathers and Families of Massachusetts. “Although every death is tragic, murder of pregnant women simply does not rank as a significant public health problem.”

St. George’s article series expresses commendable concern about battery of pregnant women but errs in claiming a link between domestic violence and pregnancy. According to longtime domestic violence researcher Richard J. Gelles, co-author of Behind Closed Doors, “to be pregnant alone doesn't put a woman at risk.”

“Women between the ages of 20 and 34 suffer the highest rate of domestic violence, and that is also the most likely age to be pregnant,” he says. “Age is driving the risk, not pregnancy.”

Unfortunately, alarmist claims of pregnant women being victimized by male partners are not new. For example, in 1993 Time magazine and many major newspapers reported that, according to the March of Dimes, domestic violence was the leading cause of birth defects. This claim was later found to be completely fictional, and was retracted by Time and others.

Similarly, the claim that “22 to 35 percent of women who visit medical emergency rooms are there for injuries related to domestic violence” has been echoed countless times by major media outlets and in politicians’ sound bytes. However, according to Emergency Room data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and the Justice Department, only about 1% of women's injuries are inflicted by male intimates.

St. George uses anecdote and emotion in place of facts and research in order to find a mythical crisis of maternal homicide. It is another example of how legitimate concern for battered women often devolves into an alarmist and anti-male view of domestic violence and gender relations.

This column was first published in the Lexington Herald-Leader (1/3/05).

Glenn Sacks serves on the advisory board of Stop Abuse for Everyone, an international domestic violence organization. Glenn Sacks is a men's and fathers' issues columnist and a nationally-syndicated radio talk show host. His columns have appeared in dozens of America's largest newspapers.

Glenn can be reached via his website at www.GlennSacks.com