It’s true that only 4% of babies are born on their due dates, and that plenty of first babies are born late, but plenty of others are born early. When computer scientist Allen Downey from the Olin College of Engineering in the US looked in detail at the data from a survey conducted in 2002 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, he found that first babies are less likely to be born on the due date than subsequent children. His analysis showed they’re more likely to be late than subsequent babies, but they are also more likely than second or third babies to be born early.

He did find that first babies are on average born slightly later than other babies, but by just 16 hours, or a little more than that if you only include babies born at full-term. But since we’re looking at all babies, I think it’s fairer to include the premature babies too.

Sixteen hours isn’t much, so the assumption that first babies are usually several days or even a week late isn’t correct. It does happen sometimes, and everyone will have anecdotes about babies induced two weeks after they were due because they’ve still not arrived. But of course, data is not the plural of anecdote, so when you’re seeking trends, individual stories tell us little.

There’s also the question of whether we should even expect every pregnancy to last the same number of weeks. In one study, researchers measured hormone levels every day from the urine samples of women who were trying to conceive. This allowed them to determine exactly when ovulation and implantation of the fertilised egg had occurred, and to calculate an accurate length of pregnancy. They found it could vary by as

Sorry for not posting, been moving into and getting back into the grove of college

hha yes very groovy. good birthday both you this week or maybe last week i don't know. I don't understand Levi but i am surely it is important conversation i leave alone.

just wanted to syaing hi. hi.

Thank you for your kind words.

You are welcome

Thank you for your kind words.

Levi: I find your explanation to be...intuitively obvious. However, you did seem to cut off your text at a midway point. Do you care to elaborate further?

Women’s basic rights are now under threat from Trumps stupid gag rule.... -_-

The Trump administration is mounting a ferocious attack on abortion rights with plans for a domestic gag rule on abortion counselling and provision, warn experts in The BMJ today.

Under this rule, clinics or programs that receive federal family planning funds “would be prohibited from providing abortions, referring women to places that do, or even counselling women that abortion is an option,” explain Dr Natalie Gladstein and colleagues at the University of Michigan.

Such funds currently go towards comprehensive healthcare services like contraception, cancer screening, and sexual transmitted disease (STD) treatment and are accessed by over 4 million Americans a year.

They point out that this rule is opposed by the US medical community, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the American College of Physicians (ACP).

And it is well documented that when this law is in effect “there are more unplanned pregnancies, more unsafe abortions, and more maternal deaths,” they warn.

They point to a 2017 poll showing only 18% of Americans feel that abortion should be illegal in all or most instances, meaning the majority of Americans support a woman’s right to safe, legal abortion.

The proposed rule therefore “imposes the conservative religious beliefs of a minority on the entire American population, directly contradicting the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion on which our nation was founded,” they argue.

This rule also represents a gross interference in the patient-physician relationship, by preventing healthcare providers from giving their patients comprehensive, medically accurate information, they write.

It is also unclear whether the policy is actually legal under legislation that requires government to support “a broad range of acceptable and effective family planning services.”

The authors acknowledge that plans to block the policy in federal court may not necessarily be bad for Republican politicians “since it could be used to energize their voters in the November elections.” But they argue that the result of this proposed rule, should it be allowed to go into effect, is people will not get the health care they need.

“Everyone, regardless of their race, income, or where they live, deserves the best medical care and information available,” they write. “Under this rule, they won’t get it.”

This partisan policy “is not based in medical fact or established law and will lead to poorer quality healthcare and less access to health care. This is an attempt to take away women’s basic rights. Period.” they conclude.

I come with good new friends, I have won us a clan war

That's great to hear that you've won us a clan war! But if I may ask, who exactly are the good new friends that you come with?

you will find out eventually, patience is key....