The U.S. Infant Mortality Myth: How Flawed Stats Fuel the Push for Socialized Medicine in America

One of the common arguments used to criticize the appointment of RFK Jr. or to advocate for socialized medicine in the U.S. is the claim that the United States has the highest infant mortality rate among developed countries.

This talking point is frequently repeated as a justification for implementing a government-run healthcare system. But let’s be clear: socialized medicine doesn’t guarantee better outcomes.

In fact, many developing nations with fully socialized systems still have significantly higher infant mortality rates than the U.S.

When you dig into the data, it becomes clear that the claim of “highest infant mortality” is misleading—if not outright dishonest.

The U.S. does appear to rank poorly in international comparisons, but that’s largely due to how infant deaths are defined and reported.

When adjusted for gestational age and birth weight, U.S. neonatal care is actually among the best in the world.

Babies born extremely premature here have higher survival rates than in many of the countries we’re unfavorably compared to.

One major factor is the definition of a live birth. In the U.S., any baby born with signs of life—no matter how premature or low in birth weight—is counted as a live birth.

That means even babies born at 22 weeks or under 500 grams are included in infant mortality statistics if they pass away.

In countries like Japan or parts of Europe, these same babies might be recorded as stillbirths and excluded from mortality statistics altogether.

So the U.S. isn’t losing more babies—it’s counting more of them.

The U.S. also has one of the most comprehensive and transparent reporting systems in the world.

Some other countries underreport or classify early infant deaths differently, especially in rural areas or among immigrant populations, leading to deceptively low mortality rates on paper.

In many developed countries, pregnancies diagnosed with serious congenital or genetic conditions—such as Down syndrome, spina bifida, or heart defects—are often terminated before birth.

Because these infants are never born alive, they are not counted in infant mortality statistics, which artificially lowers the reported infant mortality rates in those countries.

This creates the impression that their healthcare systems are more effective, even if their neonatal care is not superior to that of the U.S.

In contrast, the U.S. has a higher birth rate of medically fragile infants due to more restrictive abortion laws in some states and stronger cultural or religious opposition to abortion.

As a result, more high-risk babies are born alive, contributing to a higher infant mortality rate.

Following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade and returned the authority to regulate abortion to the states, infant mortality rates in the U.S. have risen sharply—especially among infants born with congenital anomalies.

A recent study in JAMA Pediatrics linked this increase to abortion restrictions forcing more high-risk pregnancies to term, echoing similar patterns seen in Texas after its early-pregnancy abortion ban took effect.

However, while liberals may cite these statistics as proof that abortion bans kill babies, the opposite is actually true.

One hundred percent of aborted babies die, whereas only a percentage of babies born prematurely or with congenital health problems do.

So while abortion restrictions may contribute to a higher infant mortality rate, they also result in the birth of babies who go on to survive, grow up, and live healthy lives.

The U.S. has a relatively high rate of preterm deliveries, which naturally carry more risk and contribute to infant mortality.

This isn’t necessarily an indictment of the healthcare system but is more often linked to demographics, lifestyle, and socioeconomic factors.

One often-overlooked factor is accidents: the U.S. is more dependent on cars than most developed countries, and car crashes remain a leading cause of death in young children.

Certain groups, particularly Black Americans, experience disproportionately higher rates of infant mortality.

Public health officials frequently attribute this to vague terms like “systemic issues” or “structural racism,” but those explanations often obscure more concrete and measurable realities.

Behavioral and lifestyle factors—such as higher rates of obesity, diabetes, drug use, poor diet, lower educational attainment, single-parent households, and exposure to violence or poverty—play a significant role in shaping health outcomes.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in 2022, non-Hispanic Black Americans had the highest infant mortality rate of any racial or ethnic group in the country—2.4 times higher than that of non-Hispanic whites.

Black infants were 3.6 times more likely to die from causes related to low birth weight and 3.2 times more likely to die from sudden infant death syndrome or complications arising from maternal health conditions.

One contributing factor is that Black mothers were more than twice as likely to receive late or no prenatal care compared to white mothers.

These aren’t issues of race—they’re issues of family structure, community stability, and personal responsibility.

Ignoring those factors in favor of vague ideological language does a disservice to the people who actually need help.

Bottom line: The claim that the U.S. has the “highest infant mortality rate” among developed nations is a statistical artifact—not a reflection of medical capability or quality of care.

It results from broader definitions of live birth, more transparent reporting, fewer terminations of high-risk pregnancies, and poor general health in certain communities—not from a lack of socialized medicine.

The post The U.S. Infant Mortality Myth: How Flawed Stats Fuel the Push for Socialized Medicine in America appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.