U.S. Birth Rate Reaches Record Low [why have the women given up?]

HHS | June 2003 | Centers for Disease Control

[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:

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.

[Centurion2000]

U.S. Birth Rate Reaches Record Low [why have the women given up?]

Perhaps it's not just the women. Why would modern men in this country get married let alone have kids when the courts are stacked against them ??

Just another observation.

[wimpycat]

You put in your own comments in the title "Why have women given up?" It seems to me that I've seen some articles around here that it's the men who have given up on women--at least given up marrying them. Many male FReepers have no qualms about admitting it...and of course, it's not their fault, but the fault of "women".

Since it's a scientific fact that it takes a man and a woman to make a baby, I think you're being a bit one-sided as to has "given up".

But then, just like the rest of the world blames America for everything, there are some people who, no matter what the problem is, will find some way to pin the blame on "women". Not some women, not certain women, but "women".

[honeygrl]

"It's that my lifestyle won't accommodate a child, and I'm mature enough to recognize my selfishness. "

But it's your duty to the country to breed. :-p

[Henrietta]

"Women (and probably their boyfriends and husbands) would rather have a nice lifestyle than a big family. They'd rather live it up now than live for the future."

REally, I think that a major reason is because women are busy working to pay the high taxes required to support single mothers and their illegitimate brats. After working so hard, you want a nice lifestyle, instead of just more responsibilities. I guarantee that if taxes were lowered, more women would stay home to have kids.

[Xenalyte]

Actually, given my horrendousness as a child, it's my duty not to. My sister did that already, and I have a darling niece who's taken 90% of the "why don't I have a grandchild" heat off me.

[Henrietta]

"It's not that I've given up. It's that my lifestyle won't accommodate a child, and I'm mature enough to recognize my selfishness."

We're not selfish; we just recognize that we don't care to raise kids. We pay for everyone else's though, so does that count? After all, it takes a village, right (at least it takes a village to PAY!)

[honeygrl]

"Women (and probably their boyfriends and husbands) would rather have a nice lifestyle than a big family. "

There are also plenty of us that just can't afford a big family. We could only afford one child.. but we somehow ended up with two due to the word "oops." Oops is a cutie pie though.

[wimpycat]

Mini-baby boom? Tell me about it. Last year, two women in our office had twins (one 'in vitro' and one the regular way), while at the same time another employee at another location had twins--and my co-worker's wife had their 2nd child, while another co-worker had her 3rd--all this happened within about 3 months.

Just in the month of June this year, my co-worker's wife had their 3rd, a part-time girl in our office had her first, and my cousin's step-daughter had her first.

[Xenalyte]

Good and valid points. After paying 40% of my income in taxes, I couldn't afford one if I did want one.

[ex-snook]

"A point often overlooked is how much the tax burden has increased from the 1950's until today, and the effect that has on families to have children and have a parent be at home with them while they grow up. "

That's a good one. One may be working to support the government. Then there is the 'marriage penalty' that never seems to go away as a campaign issue (even though both parties claim they are for it).

[VOA]

France will be scary 20 years from now given this trend.

Actually, it will make things much simpler for the USA.

The next time France's chestnuts are in a fire, there won't be a second spent on debating
if we should save France a third time.

The only thing we'll miss is easy access to the graveyards like at Normandy
and getting to see (from a sidewalk cafe) when a Muslim topples the Eiffel Tower
just to show that Islam finally rules the country.

[Catalonia]

Why would modern men in this country get married let alone have kids when the courts are stacked against them ??

Since men usually marry women who are younger than they are, and since people are getting married later, sometimes in their late 30s or later, a man in his 30s will usually have a far greater net worth than his wife-to-be, and with 60% divorce rates in places like California, he is likely to lose half of all he has worked so hard for. Marriage shouldn't be about money, but losing half your life's work is a lot to ask for. I'm sure it affects some men's decisions (It seems to come up quite often). If you get married young it isn't an issue as you have nothing to risk.

[LizardQueen]

My take on it, from what I see around me:

1) In many areas, it's getting harder and harder to have a decent lifestyle on 1 income. I don't mean 8 SUVs and a McMansion, I mean a modest house, food, clothing, and transportation to get around (1 car if near public transport, 2 cars if not). I see my sister struggle mightily to live on my bro-in-laws salary, and he does ok. But it's all eaten up in taxes, mortgage payments (on a tiny 3 bedroom cape - about 1100 sq ft), property taxes, and insurance costs.

2) Because it's harder to do it on 1 income, many couples wait until they are in better shape. Better shape means their education is finished and career is established. This takes time, and by the time they are there they may be infertile or have split up.

3) Many people of childbearing age today have grown up in families wrecked by divorce. Because of this, they don't trust that it won't happen to them, so they live "defensively" - they don't take financial or personal risks such as having kids when not financially rock solid or well-established in a career, they don't get married until they are dead sure the person is ok (which may take them years), etc.
Living defensively doesn't encourage "personally risky" behavior such as chucking the career in favor of having a large family (which, to the defensive person, they'd be faced with supporting by themselves when the relationship falls apart as they expect it will).

By the way, I am damn sick of this being always being blamed on the women. I personally know several women who want kids but their husbands say "no". If these women leave these guys the odds of them finding someone else to start a family with before their eggs rot out is slim to none, so they've stayed.

Those griping about how bad the women are need to get out there and encourage the men to take some responsibility for their families, to be open to the idea of having kids, and to grow the hell up.

LQ

[GovernmentShrinker]

Not only is the tax burden higher, but what you get for it, especially in terms of schools, has dropped through the floor. I live in a very affluent area, where per student spending in our public school district has just topped $20,000 per year. One of the new expenses tacked onto this budget was the hiring of a new high school principal while continuing disability payments to the last one -- who's been out of work for several months after not completely successful back surgery to repair damage caused by an attacking student. I'm paying plenty for these hopeless schools, but have too much sense to have children before I can be absolutely assured of the financial means to keep them either in private school or homeschooled. Homeschooling means no income for me, and private schools run around $20,000 a year per student in this area, so two kids is $40,000/year, but due to income taxes, that means $60,000/year of income is out the door. It's WAY past time for all states to enact voucher systems that give the full per student spending amount to be used at any school. Then watch the baby boom take off.

[Lorianne]

I disagree.

[Slyfox]

Since 1973, 1 out of every 3 births has ended in abortion. That means that 1 out of every 6 babies conceived has been a girl and has been aborted. That's a lot of women who should be having babies right now but aren't because they were aborted. The 16.6% reduction is now biting us in the ass.

[Lorianne]

Women don't have babies on their own. If you're paying taxes to support "illegitimate brats", you should know that you're subsidizing the obligations of TWO parents, not one.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Same as Rome. The native Roman was replaced by Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians etc. Abortion and birth control became common. Childen were abandoned. Indeed, there was a fountain in Rome where those who wanted merely left their children. The Christian was first commented upon favorably as the women would go daily to the fountain, pick up and care for those left. It is like an entire people suddenly no longer wish to live.

[JusPasenThru]

I must live in a parallel universe. Here in Kentucky they're breeding like flies, and 40 year old grandmas are all around.