English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

<p>Between 2010 and 2014 in the US State of Texas pregnancy related death rates of women doubled. In August 2016 the New Scientist reported that the likeliest reason was the recent closure of clinics for women in the state.  However, Carrie Williams, a spokeswoman for the Department of State Health Services told Dallas News that the department considered the issue "a complex problem."  Given that an obvious and likely cause could be identified (the rise of deaths occurred in the immediate aftermath of a two-thirds cut in the most relevant health funding) why was the language of complexity used?</p> <p>As this story drew in more media attention US public health officials continued to issue banal statements calling for yet another review of the evidence before recommending any action. It would appear that they thought they were doing their job if they merely pointed out that they were aware of the statistics and did not want the trend to worsen or continue. What stopped them saying: “The most plausible reason for the rise in pregnancy related deaths of women in recent years in Texas is the state health funding cuts in the areas directly related to the health care of these women”?</p

Policymakers should not act like scientists