Right, they were. That’s not what I’m talking about. When are most births happening, in any generation, has been a fairly fixed window (25-34), but there has been a lot of movement by generation within that window. I’m not deliberating over how long women can give birth

No, the same ages are not being compared. Mortality within age range, where the makeup of births by age is unknown within that range, is reported. One gen could have 90% of births at age 25, but another gen could have 90% at age 34 (extreme example), but it would be the “same” group

It’s a huge range given the context it’s in. It would be reasonable to splice it finer, or at least tell the audience it’s age-adjusted, because outcomes differ significantly across that range and the report may just be presenting a compositional effect

Yes, I’ve seen that too, but if the report’s authors are in fact using the age-adjusted rather than raw statistics, they certainly don’t say so. Not sure how reporting criteria not changing over 10 years is relevant to the cross-generation comparisons—report even says the comparisons may be bunk.

Agree, but my point is that the report tries to define a problem—that it’s more dangerous to be pregnant at the *same age* than it was in the past—but does not in fact compare people at the same age to each other. It’s already known that mothers are older now and pregnancy more dangerous as a result

That being said, maternal mortality spiked--across all ages--during the pandemic. Clearly not a non-issue! But any problem, if it really is a problem, needs to be captured with apples-to-apples comparisons.

Should really be age-adjusted. 25-34 is a huge range (it's most of the fertility window), and we know that a much higher % of Millennial women give birth at the high end than past gens. So is it an age or healthcare effect? Along w/changing reporting standards, it's difficult to draw any conclusions