Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1923-03-01


than I should. .belieye that no more
important question will come before us
during this session. hope. l know.
that everyone will vote conscientiously
according to what he believes is for
the best interests OF the state and the
rood mothers Of the children born and
TO be born in this State. (Applause) I
The SPEAKER: The Chair recos-
nizcs the representative from Fort
Kent, Mrs. Pinkham.
CAT this point, Mr.. Baker OF Steu-
ben assumed the Chair.)
Mrs. PINKHAM Of Fort Kent: Mr..
Speaker, will first cndcavor to an
swer and clear up some of the argu-
ments brought up by the opponents OF
this bill. One Of the opponents stat
ed that we would have less by accept
ing the Sheppard owner act than by
accepting the minority report. AS q
matter of fact by accepting the Shep-
pard- Towner act We would have about
$4,000 q year. whereas the minority
report would give US only about S1s,-
600 year.
The section added by the committee
was not for the reason that v~e were
afraid that the sanctity Of the home
was going to be invaded, hut 1t wss at
the request Of certain people who want
cd that section Of the Federal act re-
pcalcd.
Again. the work that the Children's
bureau did IN Montana was the survey
CT a homesteading county. and did not
extend over all those years in which
statistics were quoted. but covered only
q small section of the state; and IL
there was any explanation OF the In
crease IN the death rate which could
be attributed to the influence OF the
Children's Bureau, it would be In the
fact that more deaths than births were
registered: that the increase was more
apparent than real. OF course there
was some increase due to influence.
1t has been stated that most of the
physicians in Maine are opposed TO
this act have letter from very
prominent physician in Maine-i have
not asked him whether Icould read
it or not-so l will not give his
name He says as follows:
"Out of the one thousand physicians
in Maine. probably well under one
hundred have ever seen the act. The
rest have no first-hand Information
regarding it whatever. The Journal
of the American Medical Association
opposed this legislation in the be-
ginning. Mainly because the work is
in charge of the Child. Children's
Bureau instead of the Public Health
Service. This position prejudiccd
medical men who were finally siam
pcdod by the mistaken statement
from one of their most public spirit
ed uhysicians that the purpose of the
biz was to take child birth out OF
the hands of the practic!ng physi-
clans and put it in charge OF the
, State Health Department, thereby
depriving them of an important part
of their practice.
ION the other hand. OF the ply
scians who took the trouble to look
up for themselves the actual pro-
visions of the law, a ma ority eX-
pressed themselves in favor of ac-
eepting at least such funds as could
be obtained under the Act without
additional appropriation on the part
OF the State. The Public Relations
Committee of the Maine Medical AS
! sociation, for instance. which prob
ably gave the matter more thought
than any other group. took this posi-
ton with but one dissenting vote.
The matter. was brought up by the
opponents of the Act in the annual
meeting of the Association last June,
with the purpose of obtaining an ex-
preston of this approval. The
opponents were lGboring under the
delusion that acceptance of the mon
cy would give Federal authorities
rights to operate in the State OF
Maine, which they do not now have.
| whereas rejecting the money would
deprive them of such rights. Specifi-
| cally mentioned was the right to
| investigate the causes of the abnorm-
al infant death rate in the state.
f, Fortunately. the legal advisors of
| the Maine Medical Association had
been consulted on this point and
when their statement that the Fed
cral Government already possesses
such privileges just az it possesses
the privilege of making the census
and that neither accepting or reject
ing this Act would effect their con-
stitutional right orthose of the citi-
zens of Maine, the subject was
dropped.
From these experiences. l have
reason to believe that if the purpose
of the act had not been misrepresent-
cd to the physicians no such feeling
as exists would have developed"
Anybody who was present at the
hearing on this act probably got the
impression that all sorts Of horrible
things were contemplated by it. 1
expected to have to defend the our
poses of the act as well as to show
the necessity for 1t. However. il
you are inclined to accept either
report of the committee it will not
be necessary to plead for funds with
which to combat the high death-rate
of mothers and babies in this State.
a death rate SO high that the motto
of our State might very literally be
used in describing 1t. For we INST
only lead in infant mortality rate ct
VI 10 N a Dtsfr
but our maternal mortality rate is
highest in the ten states which have
had accurate returns for the past six
years. and among those states are
many with conditions similar to our
own. The other New England states.
New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan
and Minnesota. 1 could stand here
probably an hour and read off statist7
les but most of the time I am afraid
I should be alone. So l shall say
that have spent many hours study
ing the vital statistics of our State
they are all down in the library
where you can all study them II you
sre so inclined. but ] warn you ,hst
If YOU have any Imagination at all
you will not find the reading pleas
ant. l have no intention of draw
ing any narrowing pictures, but
briefly in 1920 the infant mortality
rate was 10S per thousand live births,
the total was 1898 in addition to $50
still-births. In the same year. 124
mothers died from causes directly
attributable to childbirth, or one out
of every 146. The astounding thing
is that these rates are not decrease
ing. rather they appear to be in-
creasing.
1 hold no brief for the sacredness
k,,t
being subject to the same sources
of error they are useful for compara