Red States are hazardous to your children's health
There is another area where red states seriously lag which the likes of Steve Sailer won't tell you: children's health and well-being. Not that it comes as a surprise, since right-wingers are more concerned with sexually abusing their kids rather than properly nurturing and raising them.
Children's Health: Is Living in a Red State Risky?
Living in a state that voted for George W. Bush in 2004 can be hazardous to a child's health. That's the conclusion of Michael Petit, head of the Every Child Matters Education Fund, which just released a report tying politics to health. "In red states, children are at significantly more risk" than in blue states, or those that voted Democratic that year, says Petit, who published his findings yesterday on the foundation's website. The report garnered plaudits from child advocates, but some health policy analysts described it as simplistic.
Using federal health statistics, Petit ranked all 50 states by their rates of death before the teen years, lack of adequate prenatal care, low birth weight, lack of insurance, and seven other measures. He combined all measures into an overall child health ranking. "A child in the bottom 10 states is twice as likely to die by age 14 as are children in the top 10," Petit says. All 10 bottom states voted Republican in 2004, with Mississippi on the very lowest rung. Blue states, in contrast, take nine of the top 10 slots, peaking with New Hampshire. Iowa was the only red state to crack the top 10.
Why the connection? Petit thinks he has the answer. "In red states, children have been hit hardest by an antitax, antigovernment ideology," he says. And that ideology translates into less money available to spend on child health. For example, Rhode Island, a blue state, spends $160 per capita on child welfare programs, tops in the nation. Mississippi spends $20.