U.S. ranks 26th in quality of life for mothers & children

Sad. Because we can and should do better.

Save the Children's Eighth Annual Mothers’ Index has been released, ranking the living conditions and wellbeing of mothers and their children in 140 countries around the world (41 developed nations and 99 developing nations).

The rankings are determined by common markers of maternal and child health and wellbeing, including maternal and infant mortality mortality, healthcare access, births attended by skilled health personnel, child weight, access to clean water, political status, economic status, and educational opportunity.

The top 10 best places for mothers and children are (in order from first to 10th): Sweden, Iceland, Norway, New Zealand, Australia, Denmark, Finland, Belgium, Spain and Germany. The worst ranking nations at the bottom of the list include Djibouti, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Chad, Yemen, Sierra Leone and Niger.

The United States falls somewhere between the best and the worst, at number 26. A bit pitiful, considering we're the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth. All the more reason to do something NOW about a complete overhaul of our broken privatized health insurance "system."

To view and download the 2007 Mothers' Index, click here.  

What if SIPP slips?

The June 4 Washington Post reports that a Bush administration proposal to cut funding for the Census Bureau's "Survey on Income and Program Participation" (SIPP) will reduce the amount of information in generates over the next four years - which some members of Congress and nonprofit leaders say is a bad thing.

According to the Post report, "[SIPP] is one of the most important surveys the government conducts - the only large-scale measurement of the impact of Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches, unemployment and other safety-net programs for the poor."

The Post quotes a statement released by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), which says "We'll have the statistical equivalent of a Katrina on our hands if the Office of Management and Budget refuses to request funding for the SIPP. We need the SIPP to determine...how to best make use of taxpayer dollars in tight fiscal times."

According to a Census Bureau official quoted by the post... Cut SIPP and cut policymakers' ability to see if and how federal programs are working well - or failing - at the state level. Do taxpayers really want to keep funding federal programs, when we don't have any way of knowing if they're impacting people in our own communities?

Maybe the Heritage Foundation gets it right this time? The Post quotes their senior research fellow Ralph Rector's proposal that the census should "continue to fully fund the SIPP while working on a cheapter, more efficient alternative survey."According to Rector, "The worst outcome is if the money is insufficient for the SIPP and they don't continue" working on an alternative.

Let your members of Congress know that you want them to make some noise on thils. And feel free to contact the office of E.R. Anderson, deputy undersecretary for economic affairs at the Commerce Department, letting them know that voting mothers are paying attention! Anderson's office can be reached at 202.482.3727. The office of her boss, secretary for economic affairs Cynthia Glassman, can be reached at 202.482.3727.