Racial Gap in Infant Mortality Baffles Health Experts

Stl Today, October 16, 2011

Amanda Ralph is the kind of woman whose babies are prone to die. She is young, poor and dropped out of school after the ninth grade.

But there is also an undeniable link between Ralph’s race–she is black–and whether her baby will survive: Nationally, black babies are more than twice as likely as white babies to die before the age of 1. In Pittsburgh, the rate is five times.

So, seven months into her first pregnancy, Ralph, 20, is lying on a couch at home as a nurse from a federally financed program listens to the heartbeat of her fetus.

The unusual attention Ralph is receiving is one of myriad efforts being made nationwide to reduce the tens of thousands of deaths each year of infants before age 1. {snip}

{snip}

The infant mortality rate in the United States has long been near the bottom of the world’s industrialized countries. The nation’s current mark–6.7 deaths per 1,000 live births–places the U.S. 46th in the world, according to a ranking by the CIA. African-Americans fare far worse: Their rate of 13.3 deaths per 1,000 is almost double the national average and higher than Sri Lanka’s.

Precisely why the black infant mortality rate is so high is a mystery that has eluded researchers even as the racial disparity continues to grow in cities such as Pittsburgh, Los Angeles and Boston.

{snip}

Recent studies have shown that poverty, little education, low access to prenatal care, smoking and even low birth weight do not alone explain the racial gap in infant mortality, and that even black women with graduate degrees are more likely to lose a child in its first year than are white women who did not finish high school. Research is now focusing on stress as a factor and whether black women have shorter birth canals.

“It is truly one of the most challenging issues, because it is multifactorial,” said Dr. Garth Graham, a deputy assistant secretary in the Office of Minority Health at the Department of Health and Human Services. “And nationally, the disparity has remained despite our best efforts.”

{snip}

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Anonymous

    One factor is killing their own children. Infant mortality numbrs are actually small. So if a few blacks kill their children it shows up as high percentages.

    Between murder by mamma’s boyfriends, various forms of neglect, “visiting” with a friend in the apartment house for 6 hours while the kids are alone, and the harsh punishment blacks delight in dishing out to even tiny babies, it is no wonder the mortality rate is so high.

  • olewhitelady

    Well, well–an article that doesn’t just vow and declare that poverty is the absolute cause of some black people’s ill! Of course, it does mention stress–which we’re no doubt supposed to assume is due to racism. And just what would shorter birth canals have to do with increased infant mortality? Apparently, the writer doesn’t know, since it’s not explained. Moreover, wouldn’t medical science already know whether black women have shorter birth canals? Anyway, it seems to me that such a phenomenon would cause less birth trauma, thus less babies’ deaths.

    The article states that smoking alone cannot explain the difference. I wonder if drinking, using crack, acquiring STD’s, being beaten up by baby daddy, and beating up and/or murdering baby have anything to do with it?

  • chuck

    the whole approach is completely wrong…sterilization should be strongly encouraged for women like this one while in high school. then there will less infant mortality because a lot less babies will be born.

  • anonymous

    Because the only reliable birth control that 3rd world citizens, or those whose ancestry is 3rd-world, know, is after-the-fact. Hurricanes, earthquakes, drought, etc are all that keep them from over-populating any real estate they stand on.

  • Ciccio

    In the previous article describing correlation of the drop in birth rate and the economy you failed to mention that the black and Hispanic fertility rate is still higher than the white. The gap in infant mortality rate is mother nature’s answer. As white infant mortality dropped, so did their birth rate, a lesson the non-white people have still to learn.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, it’s the infant mortality gap now. Like the intelligence/IQ gap, totally baffling.

  • Question Diversity

    But there is also an undeniable link between Ralph’s race—she is black—and whether her baby will survive:

    There is also an undeniable link between her race and her poverty, early motherhood and early dropout time.

  • the last pure strain

    Oh, no! More “dangerous discoveries” on the way. The Africanism “my people” and their handlers know what’s on the way from the libratory. That’s why you no longer hear about Equality and now it’s all “celebrate diversity and welcome differences.” They know that genome science is about to explain more than they want known, so they will force institutions to “institutionalize a systemic inclusion of all genomes.”

    In other words, even though the genes say we really are differently abled and differently inclined, you must “include” them because we ARE different.

    More “increasing the intensity at guarding the change” that has done so much to destroy structural racism and White privilege. And made us so miserable.

    It’s bad, either way. The Race Realist can win the conversation, but the Diversity now owns so much of our culture, media, government, religion, academia, jurisprudence, that they won’t lose one inch just because we can all say “told ya so!”

    It’s over. Admit it. It’s bad, you know.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzC_rGX-XyM

    And they will redefine whatever genes we have that keep us elevated above them as “the racist gene.” They are about to use our own science against us in the most vicious and inhumane was imaginable.

    “Two parents who each contain the racist gene must not be allowed to insult global dignity by passing on the undiluted gene. No more pure White babies. Sustain diversity! Mixed babies for all parents. Mixed families or no families. Science has finally told us what we’ve known all along. Racism is in the blood! Dilute the blood and Eracism!”

  • Anonymous

    Have they bothered to check the black tendency to smash their babies against walls, cook them in the microwave or sodomize them?

    Infant mortality among blacks is no mystery to those who actually pay attention to their behaviors.

  • Anonymous

    Every possible cause? How about drug and alcohol use by the parents? Or use of chemicals in the house or living in higher pollution areas?

  • sbuffalonative

    It’s been reported that many American blacks have some White genes. If these mortality rates are high for American black women, maybe there’s a connection between having White and black genes. Maybe problems appear in later generations. If so, I would term this affect gene confusion.

  • HH

    Our academic, government, and medical/scientific “elites” possess a breathtaking ability to routinely employ something akin to the polar opposite of the Occam’s Razor principle. According to them everything BUT the most apparent and simple explanation for a given phenomenon must be thoroughly exhausted before one can even consider the blindingly obvious! Actually, not even that is totally true, as more often than not, they NEVER concede to the obvious reality – certainly not when race is the topic of discussion.

    We live in an world turned upside down, that is for sure.

  • Madison Grant

    Sigh. This is the fourth time amren has printed an article by clueless leftists wondering why blacks have higher infant mortality rates than whites.

    The answer was pointed out in 1991 but these bozos can’t handle the truth.

    http://tinyurl.com/3djdwfm

  • Jim

    Let’s find any reason but the truth, you can’t take care of a baby when you never get up from the TV except to eat and defecate.

  • Jason Robertson

    Just a thought – how “black” are the mothers and the ancestry on both sides? Could this be a case of the health strains from genetic incompatibilities from earlier miscegenation?

    Dr Isaac Taylor (The Origin of the Aryans, ch.4) reported that certain half-breed communities tend towards sterility in later generations, with maladaptation to climate as a factor, citing Anglo-Saxons x blacks in the West Indies and Dutch x Malays.

    There has never been a thoroughly objective and comprehensive study of this issue, though Ruggles Gates and Kenneth Dyer produced books from contrary viewpoints on race crossing.

    Jack Bresler (editor of “Genetics and Society” (Menlo Park, 1973) correlated fetal loss with national diversity in ancestry, and explained it as relatively greater imbalance between loci as a result of the combination of greater numbers of Mendelian gene pools. What applies to crossing within Caucasian peoples is probably greater with outcrossing between other human subspecies. The original genetic distance between west Africans and other races is probably significant (e.g. dental malocclusion). Frequent pregnancy may be “nature’s way” of compensation for feeble offspring (cf. the Rushton thesis).

    N.E. Morton et al in “Genetics of Interracial Crosses in Hawaii” (NY 1967) claimed that “first and later generation hybrids…may indeed have increased fertility, compared with the parental races”. This is a generalisation about mankind in general from a specific study which also states that “neonatal death…increases with minor recombination and major hybridity of child”.

    This question is medically important, but careful and extensive investigation is socially – and mathematically – of some complexity.

  • The Bobster

    http://www.vdare.com/posts/black-infant-mortality

    A table accompanying the article shows that the infant mortality rate among Hispanics is slightly lower than among whites, much less among blacks. That poor Hispanics have much, much lower infant mortality than poor blacks is not a new development. I noticed that back in the early 1990s. But there is no reference in this 2011 article to Hispanics. You would think that this would be a key avenue of research because Hispanics have, evidently, found cheap ways to have healthy babies.

  • Anonymous

    It’s called using drugs while pregant.

  • Anonymous

    If they want to have a true experiment, they need controls. Remove the child form the environment after birth and study it. My guess- normal. But, as one educated person already said, it is the extreme lack of care and VERY poor environment these children are subject to. These ‘adults’ typically treat their children, in my observed experience, like scum – not their precious child. dragging them around by one arm – in mid air, ignoring their cries/ screams/ sadness, to tend to their own petty wants.

    ‘Mamma’ has her hair and nails done, meanwhile the kids look like they just crawled out of a gutter.

    As china has failed to do, the US should have birth quotas – AND limit these based on IQ – if you are at the level of an imbecile, guess what, no reproduction for you.

    the US is turning into a country of parentless imbeciles – look at our government- it’s clear to see.

    Ironically- starting with the #1 man. Pathetic.

    -And no, being a book smart lawyer does not necessarily require intelligence.

  • Anon

    Considering what a black welfare recipient eats, part of it is probably prenatal malnutrition plus black mothers eating garbage/abusing drugs and alcohol while nursing.

    The other part is more ominous. There’s ‘failure to thrive,’ an unfortunate phenomenon that has been documented from orphanages. If a baby is never held or given attention, but receives only food or changing, that child tends to die. It seems to be Nature’s way of getting rid of unwanted children. Young black mothers are often neglectful, irresponsible, and selfish, wanting only to watch TV all day and not be burdened with the demands of new motherhood.

    The study above isn’t going to discover anything until they ask if black mothers neglect their children, which is too racially sensitive a topic for research, much less publication in a journal or a newspaper.

  • Auntie Em

    I have a great deal of faith in natural law and keep wondering why we spend so much time attempting to thwart it rather than live within its wise boundaries.

    What happened to Darwinism? Why is Science and Culture so determined to throw money, time and energy into that which is least likely to enrich it?

    If a woman isn’t giving birth to thriving children Mother Nature is trying to tell her something.

  • Anonymous

    “the infant mortality rate among Hispanics is slightly lower than among whites, much less among blacks. That poor Hispanics have much, much lower infant mortality than poor blacks is not a new development.”

    That has been known for a long time. In fact, hispanic babies have a lower infant mortality rate than White babies whose parents have college degrees.

    I’ve always thought it is just plain genetic. American hispanics are not descendants of the pampered rich. They are the poorest and most despised. Slaves of the Aztecs and peons of the Spanish, accustomed to poor food and conditions for thousands of years.

    The survivors were the healthiest and toughest.

    I agree with Last Pure Strain. One of the early feminazis said that “suburbs are Christian breeding grounds.” Noel Ignatieff Harvard professor openly advocates the aboliton of the White race. He is head of an entire department at Harvard that does nothing but advocate the extermination of Whites.

  • Howard W. Campbell

    Whites had higher infant mortality rates in 1961 that blacks do now. Guess there was less poverty and discrimination when JFK moved into the White House. Granted some of that decrease with whites are children who live life in wheelchairs and with serious problems that would have been fatal 50 years ago.

    In 1961, men and women smoked a lot more; nobody used seat belts (my “car seat” hooked over the front seat of the family station wagon.) and people did a lot of things that would be considered reckless now. Even if you had 1000 healthy white 25 y.o. women who did everything correctly, it is probable that there is going to be some infant mortality in that group.

  • James

    Oh great. Another study; wasting millions of my tax money to find out why people, who will probably grow up and steal more of my tax money, are dying prematurely.

    And this doesn’t even take into account those who will rob, rape and murder those of my race.

  • Alexandra

    What Jason Robertson points out is interesting. I’ve also heard that biracial babies are more likely to be miscarried.

  • Lauren

    It’s a pity the Researchers didn’t read ‘Race, Evolution, and Behavior’ (Rushton). They would not have had to ‘wonder’ so much, about high mortality rates among babies of African descent.

    According to Rushton, high Infant Mortality is one part of the Evolutionary Strategy applying to Africans (the Strategist, presumably, being Mother Nature). Basically, the African strategy is to produce scads of offspring, who mature quickly, but who are not designed for prudence/longevity…

    Evolutionary strategies for Whites and Asians are more heavily weighted toward parental nurture, intelligence, cooperation…

    Anyway, I just wonder if the Researchers ‘controlled for’ things like putting babies in Microwaves, baking them in Ovens, and putting them in the Clothes Dryer.