Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2009

RSS |

Twitter

Coma Man Was Conscious
for 23 Years

'I was witness to my own suffering,' says Belgian

7 hours, 14 minutes ago
Team Discovers
Mini-Monsters
of the Deep

Thousands of bizarre creatures discovered in blackest black

7 hours, 32 minutes ago
Suicide Rate Rising

Data shows uptick in suicides during recession

5 hours, 55 minutes ago
TALK SHOW ROUNDUP

McConnell:
Dems Proceed
at 2010 Peril

Senators hit the Sunday talk shows after health vote

Nov 22, 09 11:15 AM CST
NFL Adds Concussion Rules

Teams must now keep independent neurologists on hand

2 hours, 55 minutes ago
College Threatens to Fail Students for Obesity

Twenty-five seniors must prove they've lost weight to graduate

Nov 21, 09 11:25 AM CST
Climate Skeptics:
Hacked Emails
Prove We're Right

Scientist talks about adding a 'trick' to graph

Nov 21, 09 10:37 AM CST
Eyes on 2010

Lincoln
Swings to
Center of
Health Debate

Dems come calling as GOP eyes her seat in 2010

Nov 22, 09 1:03 PM CST
Pain-Relieving
Morphine May
Spread Cancer

But drug to counter harmful effect exists

3 hours, 0 minutes ago
Fla. Man to Smoke
115,000th Joint

Feat earns him world record for cannabis consumption

Nov 20, 09 10:32 AM CST
Hadron Collider
Restarts Briefly

After 14 months of repairs, proton beams circulate

Nov 20, 09 6:06 PM CST
Peru Gang Accused
of Killing to Harvest Fat

Cosmetics firms said to pay $60K/gallon; experts skeptical

Nov 19, 09 10:00 PM CST
cheers

Alcohol Good
for Men's Hearts

Daily drinking reduces disease risk by more than a third, says study

Nov 19, 09 10:59 AM CST

|NEXT STORY »

10% of Babies Are Premature, Taxing World's Health System

Of 13 million preemies, 1 million die before surviving 1 month

By M. Morris| Posted Oct 4, 09 5:29 PM CDT|

(Newser) – Nearly 10% of babies born each year worldwide arrive prematurely, and the stress of caring for them "is exacting a huge toll emotionally, physically and financially on families, medical systems and economies," the March of Dimes said today. Some 13 million babies are preemies, and more than 1 million of them live less than a month. The problem overwhelmingly affects Africa, where 12% of births are early, followed by North America and Asia.

"We need to know more about the underlying causes of premature birth in order to develop effective prevention strategies," says a March of Dimes exec. Driving up North America's numbers is the fact that the rates of premature birth in the US have soared, thanks in part to increased use of technologies that result in multiple births, HealthDay News reports.

Berselia Hernandez Chavarri, a 7-day-old premature baby girl, lies in an incubator as her mother Sonia Chavarri looks on in Trujillo, Peru, April 26, 2009. (AP Photo/Karel Navarro)

Berselia Hernandez Chavarri, 1 week old, lies in an incubator as her mother, Sonia Chavarri, touches her hand at a hospital in Trujillo, Peru, April 26, 2009. Berselia weighed 15.87 ounces at birth. (AP Photo/Karel Navarro)

Mohammed Khamis, a newborn septuplet, is seen inside an incubator at a hospital in Alexandria, Egypt, Aug. 18, 2008. (AP Photo/Nasser Nasser)

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

11.23.09

Books Are Bad for You

11.20.09

The Health-Care Wars Have Just Begun

43 comments

VIEWING:

Cat-Lover
Oct 4, 09 5:42 PM CDT

Heck, my sister's baby was three years premature and she and her teen boyfriend had hell to pay not counting on hospital bills for the kid and the boy. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Wraith
Oct 4, 09 6:18 PM CDT

Well I found a perfect video with Republicans saying how they actually feel about health care, it is a must see and goes right along with the topic of rising cost being a burden...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tnhVwgrPBg

IN RESPONSE:

dontlikeyou
Oct 4, 09 10:54 PM CDT

I suppose the underlying leftist theme of the article is that we should abort more babies. God help us.

-4

IN RESPONSE:

proud_prude
Oct 5, 09 1:39 AM CDT

Thank you for another valuable, concise posting, Wraith. I'm eager to check out your link. My feeling is that when one removes the numbers of preemies resulting from assisted reproduction / multiple births, even in the US the majority of premature births occur when the pregnancy is unplanned, and in many cases the mother does not want (another) child. Around the world, this would be far more likely to happen in societies where birth control (oral contraceptives, condoms, vasectomy) is frowned upon or prohibited. The many Catholic countries in Latin America come to mind, as well as populations of Mormons and other fundamentalist Christians worldwide. There is no single attitude toward contraception within Islam, but the more conservative Islamic leaders have openly campaigned against the use of condoms or other birth control methods, thus making population planning in many countries ineffective. It's way past time for the Pope to re-examine his church's teachings in light of the imperatives faced by a planet heading toward a population of 10 billion by mid-century. As it has with regard to preemptive war, capital punishment, and global warming, the world's largest Christian denomination must set an example for humanity.

IN RESPONSE:

Ezizabef
Oct 5, 09 2:12 AM CDT

your sisters baby was three years premature?

IN RESPONSE:

Thinker
Oct 5, 09 6:53 AM CDT

Proud-Prude, you don't change a church because you don't agree with something, you stop being a member. When people see that the Catholic church is really a vehicle by which to control people and get rich, they will stop wasting their time with it and evolve. Churches are not democracies.

IN RESPONSE:

RockyPneumonia
Oct 5, 09 8:28 AM CDT

Well, dontlikeyou, we'll just add that to the long list of things you "suppose" that don't really actually, y'know, exist.

| 0 minutes ago

polytricks
Oct 4, 09 5:42 PM CDT

Odd headline. The brief reports on the health but the title talks about "Taxing World's Health System" - I'm assuming financially. Reply

-4

IN RESPONSE:

Jayster999
Oct 4, 09 6:26 PM CDT

Taxing as in putting a strain on.

| 0 minutes ago

Spudsy
Oct 4, 09 6:15 PM CDT

The click thru is a pretty depressing article. Sounds like Americans are going to have start getting pregnant before age 35 if these numbers are to drop. Can't do much about the assisted fertilization. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

armywife
Oct 4, 09 6:33 PM CDT

actually, there is something we could do about the multiple births caused by fertility treatments and other assisted fertilization. right now, insurance for fertility assistance is set up in such a way that nearly forces the woman to opt to have as many embryos created and implanted as possible - which increases the risk of multiple births. a simple change in the insurance coverage would make it easier for the woman to opt have only 1 or 2 embryos implanted instead, with more future attempts covered if that implantation fails.

IN RESPONSE:

Toon
Oct 4, 09 6:44 PM CDT

I agree, the first steps are higher wages for the middle and working classes and universal health care so young families can afford to have kids and one parent can afford to stay home with them.

| 0 minutes ago

Jayster999
Oct 4, 09 6:25 PM CDT

Don't worry about the disparity folks, as the banksters, liberal fascists and Neo-cons continue to destroy our nation, our heath care system will plunge in quality and we'll have more preemies too. Why elevate the rest of the world through our example when we can slide down into the muck with them? Reply

-4

IN RESPONSE:

armywife
Oct 4, 09 6:34 PM CDT

i get it now, jay - you live in Opposite World! now all your comments make so much more sense!

IN RESPONSE:

Jayster999
Oct 4, 09 6:39 PM CDT

Correct, armyknife, my thinking is opposite to the apathy, moral decay and creeping socialism that is quickly destroying our country.

-6

IN RESPONSE:

Reader64481089
Oct 4, 09 6:44 PM CDT

You know Army, Jay is an equal opportunity hater. Jay hates the Left, the Right, and the Middle. What he doesn't know about fills volumes, what he does know wouldn't dampen a thimbles bottom so he tends to adlib and when that isn't feasible he just types the same old tired crap over and over trolling his way to Asgard or wherever poor little trolls inhabit, perhaps inhibit might be a better choice of wording. Yes Jay hates many things but he seems most of his hate is reserved for America herself, how sad......for Jay

IN RESPONSE:

Jayster999
Oct 4, 09 6:56 PM CDT

I love this country in a way that you will never come close to. I served honorably in the armed forces. I participate in electing people of the best quality that I can for office. I write to my representatives and my local newspaper. I donate time and money to worthy causes. Most importantly, I try to educate people about the necessity of preserving the constitution. Liberals know little of personal sacrifice and nothing of the principles which promote freedom and prosperity. You are what the soviets termed "useful idiots."

-2

IN RESPONSE:

Hip
Oct 4, 09 7:46 PM CDT

Jaysterupsidedown666, worry less about the constitution and more about fixing a broken health care system. Worry more about the people that are dying or losing their life savings because of hospital bills. Worry more about having polite discussions without swearing and less about educating people. Worry less about the evil government and more about the evil insurance companies that are coming after YOU!

IN RESPONSE:

Wraith
Oct 4, 09 7:46 PM CDT

Jay, you have not even paid your preschool bill or rather your mommy hasn't paid it yet so don't come to a pi$$ing contest when you clearly are unarmed and ill equipped. Paid a price? Hell, little boy you can't touch the laces on Readers boots son, he served at a time this country was more torn than it is today and got a lot less to show for it other than some punk spitting on the troops and calling them baby killers when he returned. When you finish growing your peach fuzz you come back and act like a man little boy but you have years to go before you reach that level of maturity if indeed someone doesn't put an end to your foolishness before then.

IN RESPONSE:

Jayster999
Oct 4, 09 7:58 PM CDT

Glad you know ReaderX's life history. Maybe you two are butt buddies or whatever, I really don't care. If ReaderX honorably served his/her country that's great, either way, I doubt you ever did you sniveling punkass atheist commie.

-2

IN RESPONSE:

armywife
Oct 4, 09 8:07 PM CDT

jay, i'll be sure to tell my liberal husband, who is a major in the US Army and has served two tours in Iraq, missing the first year of our daughter's life, and 1 tour in Kosovo, that he in fact "knows nothing about sacrifice or promoting the principles of freedom and prosperity" simply because he has the gall to vote democrat. i'm sure you know best. but in all seriousness, thank you for your service. i may disagree with you on pretty much everything, but i do believe that you do love your country. i hope you'll be able to realize that liberals love america too, that disagreeing with you doesnt de facto make us traitors.

IN RESPONSE:

Jayster999
Oct 4, 09 8:18 PM CDT

armyknife: Kudo's to your husband for his service. There are plenty of democrats who serve in the military and do so with distinction. What confuses me is how they take an oath to defend the constitution and then elect leaders who have utter disdain for it--our current president for example.

-2

IN RESPONSE:

armywife
Oct 4, 09 9:43 PM CDT

yeah, i asked myself that same question about the conservative service members who voted for Bush not once but twice. i am aware that you and many others think that many liberal ideas are unconstitutional, just as i and many liberals feel that many conservative ideas are unconstitutional. personally, i think part of the problem is that the two sides have different priorities, and put more emphasis on different aspects of the constitution. i place a high value on equal rights for citizens and the separation of church and state. other people place a higher value on their notion of america being a christian nation or on the right to bear arms, or what have you. i think we all are defending the idea of america that we hold dear, and the different aspects of the constitution that embodies that "dream america". your ideal america might not be my ideal, and vice versa. but i think we owe each other some basic respect and the benefit of the doubt regarding our patriotism. i think america is big enough to encompass everyone's dream. personally.

IN RESPONSE:

dontlikeyou
Oct 4, 09 10:55 PM CDT

//// jayster999 -- I love this country in a way that you will never come close to. I served honorably in the armed forces. I participate in electing people of the best quality that I can for office. I write to my representatives and my local newspaper. I donate time and money to worthy causes. Most importantly, I try to educate people about the necessity of preserving the constitution. Liberals know little of personal sacrifice and nothing of the principles which promote freedom and prosperity. You are what the soviets termed "useful idiots."///// ------ Right there with you Jayster.

-2

IN RESPONSE:

proud_prude
Oct 5, 09 1:01 AM CDT

It is absurd and pathetic that Jester's first comment was "flagged", but the later one in which he really gets into the foulest kind of name calling so far has not been "de-emphasized" by the newser editors. It once again perfectly illustrates how arbitrary and nonsensical newser's policies are. I hope everyone here takes note of this thread's exchange between armywife and Jester (I just can't force myself to give this troll-lite even sufficient respect to use his chosen username -- the nasty name he called one who tried to come to his defense and establish common ground rules that out.) Anyone who believes that it is possible to communicate civilly with Jester in defense of a view he disagrees with need look no further than the vitriol and inanities he spews on this thread. Everyone should note that by this time in the "discussion" the point of the article is lost completely. I started out intending to add some comments, now my train of thought is blown completely. I'll have to go back to the beginning and read the article all over again.

IN RESPONSE:

RockyPneumonia
Oct 5, 09 8:31 AM CDT

Yes, Jay, you love this country -- just not enough to have bothered to learn anything about the values it was founded on.

IN RESPONSE:

RockyPneumonia
Oct 5, 09 8:33 AM CDT

armywife, please convey to your husband my thanks for his service.

| 0 minutes ago

armywife
Oct 4, 09 6:40 PM CDT

http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2009/05/28/more-assisted-reproduction-but-fewer-multiple.html Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Wraith
Oct 4, 09 7:54 PM CDT

Well I am sure that Abstinence program the Republicans were so eager to put through will cure all those problems, I mean it was after all the first piece of legislation that they did more than say NO to and we all know how well Abstinence has proven effective /sarcasm

IN RESPONSE:

UrUndertaker
Oct 4, 09 8:03 PM CDT

jiblitz, you are a total moron. I went so far as to have the browser search for the term 40% and 40 wasn't mentioned in this article what so ever. What was mentioned was the number of Premie children born here in the US, we are #2 in the world right below Africa. Another great point for the American Medical industry you are so hell bent never to see change. Not only did you not understand the entire article you come spamming b/s that has NOTHING to do with the conversation at all. Grow a set boy

IN RESPONSE:

armywife
Oct 4, 09 8:09 PM CDT

jib, i dont even know what your comment means or what it has to do with..anything....

IN RESPONSE:

Jayster999
Oct 4, 09 8:22 PM CDT

armyknife: I think jiblitz is referring to the fact that due to the immorality which is epidemic in our culture, we are left with millions of children which are born without fathers and become a permanent drain on the American taxpayer.

IN RESPONSE:

Toon
Oct 4, 09 9:17 PM CDT

jiblitz, 67% of children live with two married parents, which means that the the combined total of kids from divorced, widowed or never married parents and kids not living with parents combined equals 33% (that's less than 40 in case you don't know.) It seems that your fixation on that problem has magnified it in your mind. Facts can make the world seem a little better, can't they. Aren't you relieved to learn there are fewer children of unwed mothers than you thought?

IN RESPONSE:

proud_prude
Oct 5, 09 1:08 AM CDT

It would be interesting to know how the numbers compare between single mothers who give birth to preemies, as opposed to those who are married or with a life partner. It wouldn't surprise me if the unwed mothers have less preemies. Those babies are usually wanted, I would imagine, and often those mothers are not stressed out by trying to be working moms during their pregnancies. I'm just thinking out loud here. For sure, the Octo-moms are rare -- most of those who get involved with assisted reproduction and multiple implantation of fetuses are couples with reproductive "issues."

-1

IN RESPONSE:

armywife
Oct 4, 09 9:36 PM CDT

jibs and jay, the word "taxing" in the headline does not refer to taxes, but instead is using the word "taxing" in the sense of "putting a strain on", as i think another poster pointed out already. i know you, and others, think that low taxes would fix everything, but taxes in that sense are not the point of this article, which is that all the premature births puts a strain on our weak health insurance system, that when people like the Octomom and Kate and Jon have umpteen babies, other insured americans end up picking up a lot of their health care bill (or all of it in some cases i imagine) much like we do for fat people and smokers too. people are making choices that affect all of us, and it begs the question "where does your personal liberty end and mine begin?" i think that's a conversation that should be ongoing in america, and constantly reevaluated.

IN RESPONSE:

dontlikeyou
Oct 4, 09 10:58 PM CDT

@armywife.... I understand that you, as a liberal, have a hard time with reality. Do try though, as it is a very important place to be in.

-2

IN RESPONSE:

proud_prude
Oct 5, 09 1:11 AM CDT

dontlkeyou -- if you had the slightest inkling of the way the real world works, you would not be using that asinine, puerile avatar. Ta for now.

IN RESPONSE:

armywife
Oct 5, 09 3:42 AM CDT

tell you what, dontlikeyou - you live in your "reality" and i'll live in mine. deal?

| 0 minutes ago

riffran
Oct 5, 09 1:33 AM CDT

the preemie problem is only going to worsen, as technology increases, and the age of gestational viability gets lower and lower.... Reply

IN RESPONSE:

armywife
Oct 5, 09 3:46 AM CDT

i wonder how much maternal age matters. with women having babies later and later in life, surely that leads to some premature births as well, as generally older mothers have more complications and so forth. the bottom line is that there are many factors that contribute to premature births, and while it's great that so many of those preemies live, it would better to find a way to help the mother's body gestate those babies longer so that they dont suffer from the complications that most preemies have. can we all agree on that, at least?

IN RESPONSE:

riffran
Oct 5, 09 5:33 AM CDT

NO ARGUEMENT HERE..Armywife...I think you are 100% spot on...

| 0 minutes ago

Reader83542580
Oct 6, 09 7:17 PM CDT

I was just wondering if I am the only one who read the article identified below as a"related Newser story." The headline reads, "C-Sections propel jump in preemies." In the actual LA Times article, the sub-header reads, "The number of premature deliveries grew by more than a third between 1996 and 2004, researchers find. Cesarean sections -- some of them elective -- accounted for the vast majority of the increase." (This is only talking about US babies.) To anyone who has been paying attention to the US maternity system lately, this isn't a surprise. All you have to do is read any pregnancy message board and you will be shocked at how many women are being told that they "need" to plan a c-section, and at the ridiculous reasons that are given. Many of these women later learn that what the c-section they were led to believe was a medical necessity was actual labeled "elective" in their medical records. The US currently has a c-section rate that is TRIPLE what the World Health Organization recommends as ideal (that is, any less and women are going without proper medical treatment, any more and women are being operated on without good cause). Some of the craziness involved in this mess: * There is an unreasonable fear of "large babies" in the medical community which leads doctors to recommend c-sections. The fear is that a large baby will suffer shoulder dystocia during birth. What the doctors don't tell you is that shoulder dystocia cannot be reliably predicted, even if the baby is large. In order to prevent shoulder dystocia by routinely sectioning mothers of large babies, something like 3,000 sections would have to be done on babies who COULD HAVE been born vaginally just to prevent ONE case. Furthermore, mothers are rarely told that ultrasound estimates of fetal weight can be off in either direction by up to 20%! A baby who is estimated to be 8 pounds just before birth could easily be born at only 6.5 pounds. * Despite evidence that vaginal birth after c-section (VBAC) is as safe as, and possibly safer than repeat c-section, many doctors are returning to the rule of "once a c-section, always a c-section." Some hospitals are even banning VBAC, citing prohibitive costs associated with being prepared should the VBAC result in an emergency. (Since repeat c-sections are planned in advance, appropriate personnel can plan to be on hand in the MORE LIKELY event of the c-section turning into an emergency.) Surprisingly few people call them on the fact that the whole reason giving birth in a hospital is supposed to be "safer" is because they are better equipped to handle emergencies! Because of these ridiculous restrictions, many moms who would prefer to VBAC are being coerced into planning repeat c-sections instead. (One small town hospital in Arizona even stated in communication with a potential VBAC mom that should she come into the hospital in labor, they would attempt to secure a court order FORCING her to have a c-section against... Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Reader83542580
Oct 6, 09 7:18 PM CDT

Wow, Newser doesn't believe in line breaks? Any way, continued ...FORCING her to have a c-section against her will.) * Some births, such as twin births and breech births, are now considered de facto c-sections despite a lack of medical evidence that c-sections always produce better outcomes in such situations. * Other crazy reasons are given to attempt to convince pregnant women into completely forgoing labor and planning a c-section in advance. Women have reported their OBs giving reasons for c-sections such as being too short (5'2"), having too small of a pelvis, and other non-medical nonsense. Most of the women who have had c-sections they did not need, did not do so because they "wanted" a c-section. Instead they made a choice based on advice from a doctor who, unwittingly or not, misrepresented the chances of having a healthy baby and a normal birth. So how does that lead to prematurity? It's a combination of factors. One is that when calculating due dates, all women are presumed to have a 28 day menstrual cycle, even though that is just an average. A woman whose cycle is longer may not be as far along in her pregnancy as her doctor things, while a woman whose cycle is shorter may be farther along. Even due dates determined by ultrasound may be off if your baby is larger or smaller than "average." Combine this lack of accuracy at precisely determining a baby's age in utero with a doctor who considers 40 weeks to be a "point of no return" (though a normal, healthy baby will usually be born any time between 38 and 42 weeks) or with a c-section planned at 38 weeks to preempt labor, and it's not hard to see how some babies end up being born a week or two before they are fully developed and before they would have sent out that mysterious signal that starts natural labor. (About 72% of US preemies are "late pre-term" according to that LA Times article, meaning babies born between 34 and 36 weeks. That might not sound as scary as the very early preemies, but the risks are just as real, including "a threefold increase in death during the first year of life.) Reply

| 0 minutes ago

View all 43 comments »

Africa • Asia • United States • public health • birth rate • preemies • North America • March of Dimes • premature birth • premature baby • preterm birth rate

from our news partners

Sexual Hijinks Abound in Adam Lambert AMA Performance
(2 hours, 38 minutes ago)
Steve Perry Talks About 'Believin'' on 'Glee,' 'Sopranos'
(3 hours, 0 minutes ago)
Rihanna, Gaga Show Lots of Skin at AMAs
(3 hours, 52 minutes ago)
Jennifer Lopez Falls During AMAs
(4 hours, 27 minutes ago)

Budget cuts, office closures, and staff reductions may mean that...
(4 minutes ago)
Not news: Transit police officer forces passenger's head into a...
(10 minutes ago)
The coolest CG portraits you'll see today [Cool]
(18 minutes ago)
Authorities decry assault on 12-year-old California boy as a result...
(23 minutes ago)

Kull Getting a Sorbo Free Reboot
(1 hour, 45 minutes ago)
Victoria Beckham Says No To Madagascar 3
(10 hours, 40 minutes ago)
Mel Gibson Denies Role in Mad Max: Fury Road
(Nov 22, 09 11:52 PM CST)
New Moon's Chris Weitz Gets A New Project
(Nov 22, 09 11:24 PM CST)

Associated Press

Skate Canada Results
(Nov 21, 09 10:20 PM CST)
FINA/ARENA World Cup Results
(Nov 11, 09 3:28 PM CST)
New York City Marathon Results
(Nov 1, 09 12:59 PM CST)
New York City Marathon Winners
(Nov 1, 09 11:25 AM CST)

What is Newser?

Face it: there's too much news. At Newser, we choose the most important stories from hundreds of US and international sources and reduce them to a headline, picture, and two paragraphs. And we do it 24/7—you can come back morning, noon, night (and in between) for something new that matters. Read less, know more.

Learn more »

10% of Babies Are Premature, Taxing World's Health System

Of 13 million preemies, 1 million die before surviving 1 month

C-Sections Propel Jump
in Preemies

Risks, costs skyrocket for premature infants, new research notes

MORE ABOUT:
public health • childbirth • premature birth • premature baby • preterm birth rate • cesarean section

Lifelong Issues Plague Preemies

Fewer graduate high school, have children

MORE ABOUT:
pregnancy • preemies • American Medical Association • American Academy of Pediatrics • March of Dimes • premature birth • multiple births • preterm birth rate • Duke University Medical Center.

Africa • Asia • United States • public health • birth rate • preemies • North America • March of Dimes • premature birth • premature baby • preterm birth rate

MOST POPULAR STORIES

[ By Views ]

[ By Comments ]

from our news partners

Associated Press

About

Help

Tools

Site Maps

What is Newser?

10% of Babies Are Premature, Taxing World's Health System

Of 13 million preemies, 1 million die before surviving 1 month

Related Newser Stories

C-Sections Propel Jump in Preemies

Risks, costs skyrocket for premature infants, new research notes

MORE ABOUT: public health • childbirth • premature birth • premature baby • preterm birth rate • cesarean section

Lifelong Issues Plague Preemies

Fewer graduate high school, have children

MORE ABOUT: pregnancy • preemies • American Medical Association • American Academy of Pediatrics • March of Dimes • premature birth • multiple births • preterm birth rate • Duke University Medical Center.

Africa • Asia • United States • public health • birth rate • preemies • North America • March of Dimes • premature birth • premature baby • preterm birth rate

MOST POPULAR STORIES

[ By Views ]

[ By Comments ]

from our news partners

Associated Press

About

Help

Tools

Site Maps

What is Newser?

C-Sections Propel Jump
in Preemies

MORE ABOUT:
public health • childbirth • premature birth • premature baby • preterm birth rate • cesarean section

MORE ABOUT:
pregnancy • preemies • American Medical Association • American Academy of Pediatrics • March of Dimes • premature birth • multiple births • preterm birth rate • Duke University Medical Center.