US scores poorly on world motherhood rankings: charity

In a recent survey done by a campaign groups list, the United Nations were listed as 28th on a list of high maternity rates, and were bettered by smaller and poorer nations.

Norway topped the latest Save the Children "Mothers Index", followed by a string of other developed nations, while Afghanistan came in at the bottom of the table, below several African states.

But the US showing put it behind countries such as the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania; and eastern and central European states such as Croatia and Slovenia.

Even debt-plagued Greece came in four places higher at 24.

One of the reasons owing to this low ranking is the high maternity mortality rate,
which at one in 4,800 is one of the highest in the developed world," said the report.

"A woman in the Unites States is more than five times as likely as a woman in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Greece or Italy to die from pregnancy-related causes in her lifetime and her risk of maternal death is nearly 10-fold that of a woman in Ireland," the report said.

It also scored poorly on under-five mortality, its rate of eight per 1,000 births putting it on a par with Slovakia and Montenegro.


Only 61 percent of children were enrolled in preschool, which on this indicator made it the seventh-lowest country in the developed world, it said.

And it added: "The United States has the least generous maternity leave policy -- both in terms of duration and percent of wages paid -- of any wealthy nation."

I believe that the reason for such a disparity between these nations are due to the quality of life in each country. The high maternity rate in the smaller,poorer countries could be due to the fact that the poor standard of living does not make it seem necessary for their citizens to make earning money their foremost concern. However, a developed nation has a high standard of living. Thus, it would require a higher income in order to survive comfortably in such times. It is then families,and even mothers have to work in order to contribute towards the family's income. This would then put the mothers under pressure-to keep the family out of debt,for example. Contributing factors,like work enviroments and the relatively meagre amounts of maternity leave policy, would increase the pressure felt by the mothers.

Stress has both psychological and physical effects. It is thus my hypothesis that stress has contributed to high maternal mortality rates in the United Nations. Mothers need time to collect and prepare themselves for the stress they would experience from their jobs; yet, they do not have ample time to rest. This, coupled with the new responsibility of having to raise an infant, would considerably increase the amount of stress-thus possibly contributing to a shorter life span.

However, although less advanced nations have high motherhood rankings, they face a shortage of skilled birth attendants and challenges in accessing birth control. This could mean that women in countries at the bottom of the list face the most pregnancies and the most risky birth situations, resulting in newborn and maternal deaths.

In lieu of these results, the United States may choose to lengthen maternity leave for young,or new mothers. This, i believe, would then contribute to a higher maternal mortality rate, thus possibly propelling the United States to a more favourable position in such surveys in the future.

Belgium's Muslims lash out at ban on Islamic veil

In what was deemed as a shocking move by Belgium law-makers, Muslims were denied the right to don their religious garments. The reason behind this controversial move was that it would make crimes less easier to commit by criminals who could choose to execute such acts whilst ‘disguised’ in the religious attire.
Muslims in Belgium hit out at a looming public ban on the full-face Islamic veil, saying claims it was being introduced for security reasons were simply an excuse to crack down.
"I think they're trying to wind us up," Souad Barlabi, a young woman wearing a simple veil, said outside the Grand Mosque in Brussels around the time of Friday prayers.
"We feel under attack," she said, a day after Belgian lawmakers had voted for a nationwide ban on clothes or veils that do not allow the wearer to be fully identified, including the full-face niqab and burqa.
There were two abstentions, but significantly, no one voted against it in the house -- a rare sign of unity amid a power-sharing dispute between Belgium's linguistic communities which seems certain to lead to early elections.
The law, which will not come into effect for at least a few weeks, will be imposed in streets, public gardens and sports grounds or buildings "meant for public use or to provide services" to the public.
People who ignore it could face a fine of 15-25 euros (20-34 dollars) and/or a jail sentence of up to seven days.
All governing parties and the opposition agreed on the move -- most for security reasons linked to the fact that people cannot be recognised while wearing the clothing.
Fears have been voiced about the possibilities of certain ‘symbols’ having to be affixed to the religious garments-much like how Hitler ‘branded’ the Jewish masses with the sign of the yellow star.
Bruno Tuybens, a Flemish Socialist, was one of the two deputies who abstained from Thursday's vote.
"This law disturbs me," he said. "I believe in freedom of expression and I don't think it should be restricted unless it's in very exceptional circumstances.
"There is no link at all between crime and wearing the burqa or niqab."
Human rights group Amnesty International urged the upper house of parliament to review the measures, as they raised concerns about whether Belgium was in breach of international rights laws.
"A complete ban on the covering of the face would violate the rights to freedom of expression and religion of those women who wear the burqa or the niqab," said John Dalhuisen, Amnesty's expert on discrimination in Europe.
"The Belgian move to ban full face veils, the first in Europe, sets a dangerous precedent," he warned.
Human Rights Watch has also criticised the ban, arguing that it is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
"At a time when Muslims in Europe feel more vulnerable than ever, the last thing needed is a ban like this," Judith Sunderland, a senior researcher with the group, said.
"Treating pious Muslim women like criminals won't help integrate them."

While it is one thing for a country to be concerned for it’s own welfare, it is completely another thing to be racially and religiously insensitive. In my opinion, it could have been possible for Belgium to have installed ‘fingerprint sensors’, devices designed to recognize one’s fingerprint, next to buildings, and have made it mandatory for Muslims to ‘identify’ themselves before entering any public areas. Although costly,it would seem to be a better, more sensitive approach to tackling this issue.
Upon reading the news article, I was accosted by a sense of disbelief. Up to now, I had never read of a country being this politically, racially and religiously callous. This move also seemed rather counter-intuitive to me-it aimed to expel dangers from within the country; yet it’s insensitivity in doing so resulted in summoning foreign threats surrounding the country.
I sincerely hope this issue can be resolved as quickly and as peacefully as possible. With all the chaos and crimes being committed in these times, it would be a tragedy if peace were forsaken in favor of war, over something that could have been resolved without any bloodshed.