In 2002, there were 4,019,280 births in the United States, down slightly from 2001 (4,025,933).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
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:
In 2002, there were 4,019,280 births in the United States, down slightly from 2001 (4,025,933).
The 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.
More 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
Access 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.
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.
What a sad thing to read on Freerepublic.
And a love of good food!
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.
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!
"resolution".Nice euphemism.
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.
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.