UNICEF numbers called into question: Are allegedly higher maternal mortality figures true?

The estimated 585,000 women in the developing world who allegedly die in pregnancy and childbirth each year1 may exist more in the minds of population control enthusiasts at the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) than in reality.

According to UNICEF, “new estimates” show that “almost 600,000 women die in pregnancy and childbirth each year,” essentially all in the nations of the Third World. Actually, the precise figure advanced by UNICEF was “585,000,” but, as most good overpopulation propagandists are wont to do, figures are invariably rounded upward, and thus, shortly after introducing the “585,000” number, the preferred statistic bandied about was invariably “almost 600,000.”

UNICEF said the new “data show a 20 per cent increase over previous [UNICEF and WHO] estimates” of some “500,000” maternal deaths yearly, again almost all in the developing world. The new data is the product of a “two year” study in which the World Health Organization and UNICEF collaborated with Johns Hopkins University. New methods and models were utilized to generate the data, which is allegedly more accurate than the previous statistics which were widely cited just a few months ago.

In addition to the “nearly 600,000” maternal deaths, there is a huge amount of attendant morbidity: UNICEF alleges that “for every woman who dies, 30 more suffer serious pregnancy-related injuries.”

But just two years previously United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) claimed that “for every woman who dies, ten fall ill as a result of pregnancy and childbirth.”2 UNICEF itself claimed that for “each of these [maternal] deaths, 15–20 women suffered some form of lifelong disability.”3

Taking UNICEF’s statistic of “585,000 maternal deaths,” and multiplying by 30, yields 17,550,000, the number alleged injured in childbirth and pregnancy. Adding on the aforesaid “585,000” deaths produces a yearly toll of some 18,000,000 women who allegedly die or are severely injured and disabled each year in pregnancy and childbirth.

So huge is this yearly number, that UNICEF’s London press release, stated that “[o]ne in every four women in the developing world dies or is disabled through pregnancy and childbirth.” Similarly UNICEF’s Paris release claimed, “…one quarter of all adult women in the developing world are affected by injuries related to pregnancy and childbirth.”

Further, according to UNICEF, one of the “most common causes of death during pregnancy and childbirth each year” is “unsafe abortion” which, the report says, results in “75,000 maternal deaths yearly.” These abortion deaths constituted the second largest cause of maternal death. The report detailed the various methods commonly used in those botched “unsafe abortions”: drugs, violent massage, or by inserting a sharp object — a straightened coat hanger, a knitting needle, or a sharpened stick — — through the vagina into the uterus.

Examining the UNICEF-WHO abortion death statistics first, one is struck by the rather crude attempt to make much of the alleged toll of “75,000 abortion deaths” which those organizations now allege take place annually in the developing world, when, just a few years ago, the two claimed that in the Third World the number of abortion deaths totaled to “200,000 women” yearly.4

In other words, the abortion death toll now alleged is little more than a third of that previously advanced by UNICEF-WHO. Despite this very large decease of some 125,000 abortion deaths from the previous totals, UNICEF would have us believe that the reduction was more than offset by an increase of some 210,000 deaths in pregnancy and/or childbirth, raising the old mortality figure from 500,000 to a new high of 585,000. Is this plausible?

Let’s examine UNICEF’s claims regarding the total death and morbidity allegedly being experienced yearly, which was shown (above) to be some 18,000,000. UNICEF alleges that this yearly death and morbidity figure, over a reproductive lifetime, cumulatively totals to some 300,000,000 affected women, which equates to “one quarter of all adult women in the developing world.”5

The “one-in-four” figure is an estimate based upon the numbers of women experiencing a “serious maternal complication” annually. That figure, in turn, is based upon another estimate from a yet to be published study of the Harvard School of Public Health. UNICEF’s “study” “relies heavily on Harvard’s estimate that “each year in developing countries, 15 million women suffer serious maternal complications.”6 (Note that UNICEF has inflated Harvard’s figure by 20 percent.)

Despite the huge number of “300 million” which UNICEF says “is a reasonable estimate for the total number of women… who have encountered a severe maternal complication at some point in their lives,” the only morbidity cited in the UNICEF press release is an alleged total of “somewhere between 500,000 and l million [cases] of fistula.”

Even taking the high number of l million — which is a cumulative total over a 35 — year period — there’s still a large leap to be made to get to a figure 200 times that. It would appear that the vast majority of the 300 million cases involve conditions which were long ago treated and which no longer represent a serious threat.

UNICEF’s methodology would be akin to taking every case of severe infection in the United States — pneumonia, tuberculosis, influenza, sexually transmitted diseases, etc. — lumping them all together and claiming they, collectively, represent an accurate picture of American health. It may be true that there are numerous instances of serious infections in the United States, but it also true the majority of people overcome these situations. Does citing such a statistic really reflect the true slate of American health?

A front-page story about the UNICEF report ran in the 11 June New York Times. It contained a very revealing quotation from Harvard University professor Lincoln Chen, which calls into question the importance of UNICEF’s “study.” According to Dr. Chen, professor of international health and head of the Center for Population and Development Studies at Harvard, “the difference between 500,000 maternal deaths, the previously accepted figure, and 585,000 may fall within a margin of error, since all such numbers were ‘insecure.’”7

In other words, despite all of UNICEF’s fanfare, the result may actually be nothing more than what has been claimed before.

UNICEF’s questionable methodology and assumptions, coupled with its widely conflicting abortion and morbidity statistics, further compromised by the “margin of error” involved, leads one to the strong suspicion that the UNICEF “study” is nothing more than a propaganda vehicle designed to put a facade of scholarship on a population control agenda.