200 teenage girls die in childbirth every day

Globally childbirth is one of the leading causes of death among teenage girls, according to a UN report calling for greater action against adolescent pregnancy.

Every day, 20,000 girls below the age of 18 give birth in developing countries, according to a report released today by the UN Population Fund (UNFPA). Nine out of ten of these occur within a marriage or union, and of the 7.3 million adolescent mothers giving birth each year, 2 million are under the age of fifteen. Every day, 200 adolescent mothers die in childbirth, making childbirth one of the leading causes of death among teenage girls.

95 per cent of adolescent pregnancies are in developing countries, but in every region of the world, impoverished, poorly educated and rural girls are more likely to get pregnant than their wealthier, higher educated counterparts. UNFPA describes teenage pregnancy as both "a cause and a consequence of rights violations."

The report finds that the highest rates of girls giving birth under the age of 18 occur in Niger (51 per cent), Chad (48 per cent) and Mali (46 per cent). In Bangladesh, Chad, Guinea, Mali, Mozambique and Niger, one girl in 10 has a child before the age of 15.

UNFPA argues that rather than trying to change the behaviour of girls – which implies that if a girl becomes pregnant it is her fault – countries should address the underlying causes of teenage pregnancy, like gender inequality, child marriage, sexual violence, poverty, poor education and negative attitudes towards teenage girls. Many programmes on teenage pregnancy focus on girls aged 15-19, but those under 14 are the most vulnerable and are more likely to die of complications during childbirth.

Girls who become pregnant during their adolescence are also less likely to finish their education, and more likely to live in poverty. On top of this, around 3.2 million unsafe abortions are carried out among teenagers every year.

“The topic reflects UNFPA's recently renewed emphasis on empowering adolescent girls and will inform discussions under way in the United Nations and among Member States about the role of adolescents and youth in the sustainable development agenda that will follow the Millennium Development Goals in 2015,” says Babatunde Osotimehin, executive director of the UN Population Fund. “There are 580 million adolescent girls in the world today. Investing in them now – to empower them, including in ways that help them prevent pregnancy – can unleash their full potential in the future.”
 

A woman and her child wait at a health centre in Juba, South Sudan. Photo: Getty.

Sophie McBain is a freelance writer based in Cairo. She was previously an assistant editor at the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Donald Trump's inauguration signals the start of a new and more unstable era

A century in which the world's hegemonic power was a rational actor is about to give way to a more terrifying reality. 

For close to a century, the United States of America has been the world’s paramount superpower, one motivated by, for good and for bad, a rational and predictable series of motivations around its interests and a commitment to a rules-based global order, albeit one caveated by an awareness of the limits of enforcing that against other world powers.

We are now entering a period in which the world’s paramount superpower is neither led by a rational or predictable actor, has no commitment to a rules-based order, and to an extent it has any guiding principle, they are those set forward in Donald Trump’s inaugural: “we will follow two simple rules: hire American and buy American”, “from this day forth, it’s going to be America first, only America first”.

That means that the jousting between Trump and China will only intensify now that he is in office.  The possibility not only of a trade war, but of a hot war, between the two should not be ruled out.

We also have another signal – if it were needed – that he intends to turn a blind eye to the actions of autocrats around the world.

What does that mean for Brexit? It confirms that those who greeted the news that an US-UK trade deal is a “priority” for the incoming administration, including Theresa May, who described Britain as “front of the queue” for a deal with Trump’s America, should prepare themselves for disappointment.

For Europe in general, it confirms what should already been apparent: the nations of Europe are going to have be much, much more self-reliant in terms of their own security. That increases Britain’s leverage as far as the Brexit talks are concerned, in that Britain’s outsized defence spending will allow it acquire goodwill and trade favours in exchange for its role protecting the European Union’s Eastern border.

That might allow May a better deal out of Brexit than she might have got under Hillary Clinton. But there’s a reason why Trump has increased Britain’s heft as far as security and defence are concerned: it’s because his presidency ushers in an era in which we are all much, much less secure. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.