Baby-Friendly States: Massachusetts Among Best and Worst
The expense of having a baby can get very expensive, very quickly. Medical bills are a major consideration. In the U.S., giving birth can cost $18,000 to $27,000, Forbes reports. But birthing expenses differ by state and living costs. They can also vary due to pregnancy complications. However, cost isn’t the only factor. Some states offer better healthcare and child-friendly environments.
WalletHub, a financial advisory website, created a ranking of the best and worst states for giving birth. They assessed the best locations in the U.S. for having a baby by comparing all 50 states and the District of Columbia using 31 key metrics. These criteria included costs, healthcare access, and family-friendliness. They considered factors like hospital delivery fees, yearly infant care expenses, and the number of pediatricians per person in their analysis.
Massachusetts ranks as the best state to have a baby.
According to the study, Massachusetts is the top state for having a baby. It achieved a score of 69.31 out of 100. Massachusetts also excelled in several areas, with a low infant mortality rate and strong ratings for healthcare, baby-friendliness, and family-friendliness. However, the state didn’t perform as strongly in the category of average infant care expenses. In fact, it had one of the highest costs in this area.
After Massachusetts, the second spot is claimed by Minnesota. Vermont secures the third rank. Moving down the list, Rhode Island occupies the fourth position. Lastly, completing the top five is North Dakota.
What about the worst states to have a baby?
Towards the lower end of the ranking, West Virginia is placed at number 47, with Louisiana behind at number 48. South Carolina follows at number 49, and Alabama is ranked at number 50. Lastly, Mississippi holds the final position in the ranking. Interestingly, Mississippi has the best score for average annual infant care costs. However, it has the highest infant mortality rate and the fewest midwives and OB-Gyn’s per capita, according to the study.
See how other states performed by checking out the complete study here.
6 Baby Names You Probably Should Avoid
Messiah
In 2013, a child support magistrate in East Tennessee ruled that a 7-month-old boy named Messiah must have his name changed to Martin. “The word ‘Messiah’ is a title, and it’s a title that has only been earned by one person, and that one person is Jesus Christ,” said Magistrate Lu Ann Ballew.
Adolf Hitler
In 2009, New Jersey parents Heath and Deborah Campbell were taken into state custody after authorities got involved in a cake incident. A bakery refused to decorate a cake with the words “Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler.” The Campbell’s gave their three children Nazi-inspired names including Adolf Hitler . Though the state said that their names were not the reason, it’s been reported that the parents didn’t believe them.
Allah
In 2018, Elizabeth Handy and Bilal Walk of Georgia sued their home state after officials refused to let them name their daughter ZalyKha Graceful Lorraina Allah. The issue was Allah, the two-year-old girl’s last name. Georgia law requires that children bear the last name of at least one of their parents. The parents won the case, with the help of lawyers from the ACLU.
1069
In 1976, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled that short-order cook and high school teacher Michael Herbert Dengler could not change his name to “1069.”
Santa Claus
In December 1999, Robert William Handley of Ohio filed a petition to change his name to Santa Robert Claus. Judge Lawrence Belskis denied his petition saying that “the public has a proprietary interest, a proprietary right in the identity of Santa Claus, both in the name and the persona.”
III
A 1984 ruling from the California Courts of Appeal denied a request from Thomas Boyd Ritchie III to change his name to the Roman numeral “III,” pronounced “Three.” The court said that, “a change to a roman numeral did not constitute a name change within the meaning of the law and that the new ‘name’ used by appellant was inherently confusing.”
