This is a very unfair title. They're unhappy about the news, not necessarily unhappy about the death rate. If it's restated more honestly, it's much easier to guess: who is unhappy that it's widely known that X is less of a problem than before? Anyone who wants to solve X.
I'd say that applies more to unions than it does in this case. It's possible the reductions in funding or a lack of funding increases could very well reverse the trend. But when it comes to funding and politics studies like this will always be used to 'prove' that the problem is 'solved' and that we no longer need to worry about it; therefore we can eliminate funding to the cause with no consequences. [ Of course, none of the politicians actually bothers to fund studies into whether or not the funding is needed to keep the trend from reversing. ]
The title suggests that that people are unhappy with a falling maternal death rate.
Yet, the column just talks about womens' health advocates who are concerned that publicizing these numbers (without additional studies) may result in funding cuts.
One can make a case that the advocates were wrong to ask for a delay. One can also make a case that it is wrong to cut funding from a program that is working or that funding cuts shouldn't happen until additional studies are completed.
Yet, none of this suggests that the women's health advocates were unhappy about the falling death rate
The question is what other problem goes unsolved, if they dishonestly leave policymakers to assume this problem remains more severe than it actually is now.
That is an excellent point. The article should certainly have mentioned it. When resources are limited, questions of how to allocate them rarely come down only to "do this or don't?"; instead they are "do this or do that?".
