Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Birth Rate Reaches Record Low [why have the women given up?]
HHS | June 2003 | Centers for Disease Control

Posted on 07/09/2003 5:36:49 PM PDT by ex-snook

U.S. Birth Rate Reaches Record Low
Births to Teens Continue 12-Year Decline; Cesarean Deliveries Reach All-Time High

For Immediate Release
Wednesday, June 25, 2003

The U.S. birth rate fell to the lowest level since national data have been available, reports the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) birth statistics released today by HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson.  Secretary Thompson also noted that the rate of teen births fell to a new record low, continuing a decline that began in 1991.

The birth rate was 13.9 per 1,000 persons in 2002, a decline of 1 percent from the rate of 14.1 per 1,000 in 2001 and down 17 percent from the recent peak in 1990 (16.7 per 1,000), according to a new CDC report, “Births: Preliminary Data for 2002.”  The current low birth rate primarily reflects the smaller proportion of women of childbearing age in the U.S. population, as baby boomers age and Americans are living longer.

There has also been a recent downturn in the birth rate for women in the peak childbearing ages.  Birth rates for women in their 20s and early 30s were generally down while births to older mothers (35-44) were still on the rise.  Rates were stable for women over 45.

Birth rates among teenagers were down in 2002, continuing a decline that began in 1991. The birth rate fell to 43 births per 1,000 females 15-19 years of age in 2002, a 5-percent decline from 2001 and a 28-percent decline from 1990. The decline in the birth rate for younger teens, 15-17 years of age, is even more substantial, dropping 38 percent from 1990 to 2002 compared with a drop of 18 percent for teens 18-19 years.

“The reduction in teen pregnancy has clearly been one of the most important public health success stories of the past decade,” Secretary Thompson said. “The fact that this decline in teen births is continuing represents a significant accomplishment.”

More than one fourth of all children born in 2002 were delivered by cesarean; the total cesarean delivery rate of 26.1 percent was the highest level ever reported in the United States. The number of cesarean births to women with no previous cesarean birth jumped 7 percent and the rate of vaginal births after previous cesarean delivery dropped 23 percent.  The cesarean delivery rate declined during the late 1980s through the mid-1990s but has been on the rise since 1996.

Among other significant findings:

bullet graphicIn 2002, there were 4,019,280 births in the United States, down slightly from 2001 (4,025,933).

bullet graphicThe percent of low birthweight babies (infants born weighing less than 2,500 grams) increased to 7.8 percent, up from 7.7 percent in 2001 and the highest level in more than 30 years.  In addition, the percent of preterm births (infants born at less than 37 weeks of gestation) increased slightly over 2001, from 11.9 percent to 12 percent.

bullet graphicMore than one-third of all births were to unmarried women.  The birth rate for unmarried women was down slightly in 2002 to 43.6 per 1,000 unmarried women, reflecting the growing number of unmarried women in the population

bullet graphicAccess to prenatal care continued a slow and steady increase.  In 2002, 83.8 percent of women began receiving prenatal care in the first trimester of pregnancy, up from 83.4 percent in 2001 and 75.8 percent in 1990.

Data on births are based on information reported on birth certificates filed in State vital statistics offices and reported to CDC through the National Vital Statistics System.  The report is available on CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics Web site.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: abortion; birthrate; catholiclist; cdc; children; hhs; motherhood; populationcontrol; socialsecurity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 281-299 next last
To: LizardQueen
I disagree. It is selfish, in a lot of aspects. Chiefly, material.

Childrearing = sacrifice. Time, resources, your self. Deciding that you won't bring children into the world because you "can't do it right" (me Me ME!) is fickle as can be--you choose to consume all the resources you can muster and maintain for yourSELF and not replenishing the earth, returning something to it.

That's the definition of selfish. A woman inclined to think that way, probably has never endured real hardship or missed a meal, except to make a pair of slacks fit right.

I do apologize if I sound judgemental; but this is dear to my heart, and the most profound circumstance in my life these days. My son is 9 mos. old next week. We're poor, working class, uneducated, etc. We want a dozen (more--LOL)--and I'll tell you what--if ten of 'em end up in Huntsville, the cream will rise to the top, and the 2 give their kids what we gave to them--

LOVE

--not stuff--and all the cash and career in the world ain't gonna help the childless in their dotage. Guess they'll be shovelling their own independently wealthy gilt bedpans...

I work for a guy like this, completely self-absorbed, 36 years old with a live-in girlfriend of 8 years HE REFUSES TO MARRY, or have children with. He hangs out at Stars games and clubs and when not in his professional mode, his manner of conversation resembles an adolescent. And even though a liberal, he is an atheist and philosophically articulates a very Objectivist material dialectic--i.e., can justify anything he desires, by a morality built from materialism, but is blindsided when in conflict with the desires of another, or a group. He can't attribute the same moral principle to them (obviously--it is unworkable).

I like the guy personally, but look forward to his kind either maturing, finding Jesus, or dying off.

101 posted on 07/09/2003 7:39:02 PM PDT by Churchjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
I'm not fit to be a parent

What a sad thing to read on Freerepublic.

102 posted on 07/09/2003 7:41:22 PM PDT by 7DayRepo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
This Texan is very happy to be living around Mexicans, Antony. We share a LOT of the same values.

And a love of good food!

103 posted on 07/09/2003 7:42:32 PM PDT by Churchjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: xrp
Then yes, the women should drop the men like 3rd period French and find a guy who is willing to have children (like me!). :)

Guy, you're currently using the greatest wife-finding tool on the planet--namely the internet. I met my wife there and my best friend, who's getting married on Saturday, met his fiancee there too. How? Well, I used a Catholic matchmaker web site. It was totally a lark--I had never done anything like that before, but here I am 5 years later with a beautiful wife and two kids. Who'd a thunk it?

IMHO, religious belief is the best core to build a marriage around. I suspect the "secular" matchmaker sites are a minefield....
104 posted on 07/09/2003 7:42:53 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: friendly
American women (except for FR babes) are exquisitely narcissistic and superficial. They are too selfish and self-centered to have children in their lives.

Careful now. We're not all that narcissistic and superficial:)

This female FReeper got to that age where the clock was ticking very loudly. At the time I was not married. I had/have a good job and could have afforded nannycare. No one else would have had to chip in financially. I discussed the issue with a male friend who agreed to be a donor if thats what I really wanted. When I really gave thought to it I decided that it would be very selfish and self-centered to intentionally bring a child into a single-parent household.

105 posted on 07/09/2003 7:44:22 PM PDT by not_apathetic_anymore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xrp
Try a Russian bride:

Blue Sapphires

106 posted on 07/09/2003 7:44:47 PM PDT by 7DayRepo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
Don't worry, it's mainly liberal abortion fanatics that aren't having any children. The conservative folks are having 2, 3, and 4 kids apiece. :)
107 posted on 07/09/2003 7:45:07 PM PDT by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
How much does 1 child cost per year?
108 posted on 07/09/2003 7:45:50 PM PDT by 7DayRepo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: LizardQueen
A lot of men just aren't mature enough to be fathers.
109 posted on 07/09/2003 7:47:02 PM PDT by 7DayRepo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

4,019,280 is not low. 203 would be low.
110 posted on 07/09/2003 7:47:50 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: 7DayRepo
Well, this is me being very superficial...but I am pretty much intent on someone with DARK brown eyes and DARK brown hair. Asian or Latina woman, most likely.
111 posted on 07/09/2003 7:48:04 PM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
Why have women given up? Because they know they'll be raising those kids alone?
112 posted on 07/09/2003 7:48:14 PM PDT by A_perfect_lady (Let them eat cake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: friendly
I Preface my comments by stating that I am basing them on impressions I have after seeing large numbers of (often conflicting) reports regarding our culture.

What I (in my poor capacity to understand such things) understand is that the average, "Middle Class Family" in the '50's paid ~ 3-4% of their Income to Taxes.

Currently, the "average" Middle Class Family must pay ~ 40% of their income to Taxes.

MANY--if not Most--Middle class families need a "Second Earner" JUST to cover the Massively Increased Tax Burden.

This increased financial burden has required that BOTH parents work to support a "Lifestyle" previously supported by one "Earner!"

There is, therefore, NO MYSTERY why our MOST PRODUCTIVE CITIZENS (our "Middle Class") now produce fewer children---a stable, sane, productive, moral, educated youth REQUIRE an "at-home-parent" for their first five years.

Our TAX STRUCTURE is destroying our ability to raise a Family with the constant supervision of AT LEAST one parent.

I think we instinctively know that constant parental supervision is ESSENTIAL for proper "Socialization" of Human Children--at LEAST for the first 6-10 years of Their Lives.

I believe our "Birth Rate" is down because we instinctively understand that we CANNOT PRODUCE "Human Beings" unless we have AT LEAST one Parent supervising & "Civilizing" the SAVAGES we produce as "Children" for the first ~ decade of Their lives!

113 posted on 07/09/2003 7:48:32 PM PDT by Doc On The Bay ( 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LizardQueen
Unfortunately, having kids isn't a guarantee that they will be there for you in your dotage, either. I think it ups your odds, but by no means assures there will be someone to visit.

Having two kids is no guarantee. Having 6 is practically a guarantee, particularly if you instill in them a deep sense of familial piety.

As for myself, I'm planning on cash set aside, good friends, and a Smith & Wesson for when it gets really bad ;)

You're joking about the S&W, but you've accidentally put your finger on the nihilism that underlies a lot of the "modern" attitude. There are plenty of people I know who would say what you just did and NOT joke about it.

Find a good, decent, loving man (not a selfish bozo), settle down, raise some kids. You'll never regret it for a second. Save the S&W to go shooting with your husband after the kids have all flown the coop.
114 posted on 07/09/2003 7:49:21 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: xrp
Why do you say you're being superficial? You're perfectly entitled to select the criteria for your own mate.
115 posted on 07/09/2003 7:51:31 PM PDT by 7DayRepo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Churchjack
And a love of good food!

After I-talian food, Mexican food is my favorite. I've had the real thing in Mexico City, and reasonable facsimiles many times in Texas. That's my favorite part of visiting San Antonio.

Thanks, now I really need a burrito...
116 posted on 07/09/2003 7:51:53 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
..abortion only accounted for the resolution of 25% of pregnancies..

"resolution".Nice euphemism.

117 posted on 07/09/2003 7:53:25 PM PDT by MrNatural (...Head for the roundhouse, Nelly; he'll never corner you there...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
This is happening in most western, industrialized countries.

The cause? It is a result of creeping socialism and the decline of the culture.

Not surprisingly, this trend showed up first in Scandanavia.
118 posted on 07/09/2003 7:54:57 PM PDT by NMC EXP (Choose one: [a] party [b] principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xrp
Well, this is me being very superficial...but I am pretty much intent on someone with DARK brown eyes and DARK brown hair. Asian or Latina woman, most likely.

Hey, if you're a devout Catholic, you've got a real shot...
119 posted on 07/09/2003 7:54:57 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Black Agnes
Uh, you're wrong, this will just give the 'immigration uber alles' folks more ammo.

Under Bush adminstration, it is unlikely that there will be any significant reforms but in the next decade or so, there will be an outcry from the American public to reform immigration due to our decline of the dollar with increased foreign competition (e.g. offsourcing of IT jobs to India, etc.)

In other words, we will no longer be able to absorb as many immigrants in our economy as we were doing for the past 20 years.

120 posted on 07/09/2003 7:55:22 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 281-299 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson