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

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.

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.

I'm not going to commit the resources necessary to find out how to convert your "italic" replies to my provocations into whatever. I'd just like to repeat what has been said for those not patient enough to read this entire thread. I'm the one that think immigration is beneficial.

***
I said:
The "Conservatives" on this thread want to destroy all of the traditions that have made America great.

"reason" said:
OK. America had a tradition of overwhelmingly European Immigration.

So if we must have immigration, I agree: Let's restore America's tradition of European immigration.

***
Woo Way:

I'm only briefly going to touch on the words "European" and "had." So there it is. I've touched on it. This is the last time I will use the word "racism" on this board...I hope. Why don't you kick out all the Mexicans? (I'm guessing you're from the Southwest part of our great nation, our nation that depends on them, since you're so mad. I'm sorry if you're not a migrant farm worker. In this case, maybe you should encourage your highly nourished, and therefore already fertile, 13-year-old daughter to get laid. Methinks you may not like the color of her baby.)

***
"Woo Way:"
It seems like everyone here wants to *change* the way our country works. Like everyone thinks America is a *bad* place. So far the only intelligent response of dozens I've gotten is from a person concerned about assimilation, which I support versus multiculturalism. It just needs to be understood that understood that assimilation takes two full generations -- just as it did for the Irish.

"Reason:"
The Irish have assimilated? When was that?

***

My response:

Yes, the Irish have assimilated. In the 19th century during the potato famine, when hundreds of thousands of the poor, the starving, and, the oppressed came to make our nation strong.

You got a problem with the Irish? You think they haven't assimilated? How about those friggin' Krauts? Are you questioning my patriotism? Maybe Boston should secede. Maybe New York. How about all those Scandinavians in Washington and Oregon? How about the Mexicans in Texas? How about the Asians in New York? Oh, you're on shaky ground there, suggesting the Irish aren't a huge part of this country. Jerk or no, you have *no idea* what you are doing now, suggesting the Irish shouldn't have come here!

Actually, my Irish argument for immigration is the poorest. Like when I mentioned "Grapes of Wrath." Remember when the Irish immigrant, trying to get hired as a farmhand, said "Don't worry, I'm a drunken Irishman, not a Catholic one?" And that got him hired?

You're right, there, though. America *has* had mostly a history of European immigration. Now, whether it is a history or a tradition..."Ay, there's the rub."

You may be right. Probably you are. Maybe my position is based on the fact I don't want to be an engineer, but I live in a city that includes a world-wide technical institute and a world-wide medical institute. You might be bewildered by the clash of cultures. But it's all good.

People with opinons like yours are why America will stop being the leader of the world. If you can't get your kids to be engineers or medical professionals...including boys and girls who want to be nurses...then how can our great country survive?

Lately I've read statistics about how foreign medical students are increasingly choosing to go back to their own countries. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care what country the person came from, I'm an American, and I want the most qualified person available.

I guess I'll drop one last foreign name. This guy I know "Tolic," a nickname for "Anatole," Russian, actually tried to get get my good old several-generation American friend Jennifer to marry him so he could stay in the country and continue working at his highly technical engineering job that earned him enormous amounts of money (as a Russian national) tax-free. She seriously considered it. Thank *God* she took my advice and turned him down:

He went back to Russia. *For two months!* (Not the year he thought he would have to go away for in order to re-apply for his worker's visa.) His American company couldn't find a replacement.

You want America to be strong? Me too. When I have children I will teach them how our focus on technological innovation made us strong, how our cultural inclusiveness made us strong. I don't think being an engineer sound particularly attractive, but I don't think the default "business degree" sounds so attractive either, so maybe I'm biased. I will tell my children that Engineering is the most patriotic field to enter.

Meanwhile, the Pakistani/American doctor that saves your life after the SUV rollover, the Chinese/American scientist that participates in making sure our most powerful weapons are likely to work (despite suspicion and persecution from the likes of you), even that sheer Ass Tolic, who I hate, working on some obscure engineering job: What will we do without them?

Sure, we can pump out more babies. You, me, and other intelligent people who can guide our country. We can teach them that much of the rest of the world is poised to take the technological edge. (Though, as you mentioned in a reply, Age, it sounds like my international friends are too could to be true, I cannot guarantee that Ahyikue [the only old foreign friend I can think of who may have divided loyalties] won't take his chemical expertise back to Gabon and send minions to wreak havoc.

Except that he loves America, and it's his father the diplomat that sent him back to Africa every summer to keep in touch with his roots. After college, he crashed at my place for a while refusing to go back -- Lord knows what happened to him after that.)

You're totally right. It's better if it's homegrown. But if you aren't growing it locally, import it! The answer is -- to return to the original article that started this thread -- well, whatever the answer is, it is *not* to encourage your teenage daughter to get pregnant, unless you have the personal resources to support her family indefinitely. *Neither* is it the answer to encourage Americans in general to give birth. I'm the last white boy you want to call racist, but I encourage you-all to consider the statistics on family size in this country. We don't need a bigger "welfare" burden.

Woo? Way!

You got a problem with the Irish? You think they haven't assimilated?

LOL.

Some members of my family are half-Irish, and one of the most beautiful (and most crazy) women I ever courted was half-Irish.

Most of my favorite folk music is Irish: http://www.wfuv.org/wfuv/celtic.html--although Fordham's station has not been playing as much traditional (there's that word again--I do like it) Irish folk music as I remember they did years ago. Shame.

Nonetheless, I let none of the above fog my objectivity--my ability to place myself in the shoes of those Americans who did not like the idea of Irish Immigrants coming here so many generations ago.

Those Americans. were they to come back to life today, might say that indeed, the Irish have hurt the America.

We who were born to the America those Irish in part remade, cannot understand why those earlier Americans were so alarmed.

After all, we're used to the fact that many, perhaps most, Irish in America have been democrats.

You know, like the Kennedys.

But that's not the point.

You leapt upon my questioning your assertion as to whether the Irish have assimilated.

I most certainly hope they will never fully assimilate, because I enjoy their music, culture, traditions--and since we do need some democrats to balance the right-wing fanatics, I'd rather Irish democrats.

How about those friggin' Krauts?

Her other half, was German.

Are you questioning my patriotism? Maybe Boston should secede. Maybe New York.

Hmm.

I'm thinking.

Oh, you're on shaky ground there, suggesting the Irish aren't a huge part of this country. Jerk or no, you have *no idea* what you are doing now, suggesting the Irish shouldn't have come here!

It's not me who's in favor of reducing the number of immigrants from Ireland as compared those from the Third-world.

I simply advocate that America has enough people, and so we should close the door to immigrants of all types.

But, if as you say we must honor American tradition by having immigration, let's reinstate the longest and oldest immigration tradition: European immigration.

With that, I am not being racist or anything--I would merely be following tradition, as you suggest.

But if we must change tradition, I'm in favor of allowing only women immigrants from Nothern-Europe.

Or will we next be forced to have equal opportunity dates? (At least we are still free to choose whom to love. But will that last? Is it racist?)

Population implosion: Many nations aborting future generations, creating underpopulation crisis.

The president of Estonia goes on national TV to urge his countrymen to have more children. Russian President Vladimir Putin warns his parliament about "a serious crisis threatening Russia's survival": the nation's low birth rate. The government of Singapore is trying to reverse that country's birth dearth by sponsoring a massive taxpayer-funded matchmaking service.

In 1968, Paul Ehrlich published The Population Bomb, panicking the world with dire predictions of a population explosion. By the year 2000, he predicted, the world would be so crowded that hundreds of millions would die of starvation. Although Mr. Ehrlich's prophecies have turned out to be almost comically wrong, PBS has produced a documentary taking him seriously, and philanthropists like Ted Turner still donate millions to combat population growth.

But the problem today is not overpopulation; it's underpopulation. For a population to reproduce itself, the fertility rate must average 2.1 children per woman. (The .1 allows for child mortality.) The fertility rate today among major developed nations is only 1.6.

The United States is rare among its peers in keeping its fertility rate at around the replacement level of 2.1, according to the Population Reference Bureau, which provided the fertility data cited here. Europe, though, is shrinking. Germany's rate is 1.3. Despite the stereotype of large Catholic families, France has a fertility rate of 1.9 and Italy has one of the lowest in Europe, 1.3. At this rate, there will be only about half as many Italians in the next generation. There will also be fewer Russians, whose fertility rate is 1.3.

Even nations that were once notorious for booming populations have drastically slowed down in reproducing themselves. In the last 20 years, India's fertility rate has gone from over four children per woman to about three. Mexico has gone from over four to just under three. China has a fertility rate of 1.8.

African nations continue to have very high fertility rates, up to five or six children per woman, but those lands are ravaged by AIDS, which is decimating their population. Muslim nations, on the other hand, tend to have booming population growth-Yemen's fertility rate is 7.2 children per woman.

Demographers predict that the world's population will level off at 9 billion, reports The Wall Street Journal. Then it will start dropping. There may well be nearly 500 million fewer people by 2075.

Isn't this a good thing? Why are so many governments panicking at the drop in their populations?

Although radical environmentalists like Mr. Ehrlich see human beings only as "consumers of the earth's resources," human beings are in fact the most valuable resource of all. Citizens are not just consumers but producers. Having fewer people can wreak havoc on an economy, creating both a labor shortage and a shortage of buyers. A government with a shrinking population faces a smaller military and fewer taxpayers. Dwindling populations have always signaled cultural decline, with less creativity, energy, and vitality on every level of society.

Already Japan- fertility rate 1.3-is facing the problem of having fewer taxpaying young people to support the burgeoning number of retirees, something that will hit the generous welfare states of Europe especially hard.
Already Europe has had to import large numbers of immigrants to bolster the labor force, most of them from the Middle East. Fewer and fewer native Europeans-along with the dwindling influence of Christianity-and more and more Muslims raise the prospect of the Islamification of Western Europe. One reason "old Europe" is not supporting the United States in a war with Iraq is that politicians in France and Germany fear the reaction among their Muslim voters.

Why the population decline? The worldwide collapse of what are, literally, family values. Thanks to contraceptive technology, sex has become separated from childbearing. With women pursuing careers of their own and men getting sex without the responsibilities of marriage, why bother with children? For many women and men, pregnancy has become an unpleasant side effect, something to prevent with contraceptives or easily treat with a trip to the abortion clinic.

The dirty little secret of the population implosion, one seldom mentioned by demographers, is that the world is aborting its future generations. China has shrunk its fertility rate by its cruel policy of forced abortion. (The website of the International Planned Parenthood Federation has only good things to say about China and does not even mention how the government coerces women to have abortions. So much for "choice.")

In the United States, abortion ends between one-third and one-fifth of all pregnancies, and the U.S. abortion rate is relatively low. In Russia, the average woman may have as many as four abortions in her lifetime. There are two abortions for every live birth. That is to say, Russians kill two-thirds of their children before they are born. That, Mr. Putin, is the "serious crisis threatening Russia's survival."

The Myth of Too Many
http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/features/a0023755.html

Entire Population Can Fit in TX
http://www.rense.com/politics6/overpop.htm
UN REPORT TO SHOW FERTILITY RATES WORLDWIDE TO DROP TO BELOW REPLACEMENT--Yes, even the Liberal UN says there is NO Pop. Explosion
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/feb/03020402.html
Saving Black Babies
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/002/11.21.html

Persistent Drop in Fertility Reshapes Europe's Future-The Death of the West..Says the NY TIMES!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/26/international/europe/26FERT.html?ex=1041483600&en=cb0199b7d39cf4eb&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVER

You can’t estimate population growth with a calculator because simple mathematical formulas don’t take into account underlying circumstances such as fertility rates. But we do know that in almost every nation women are having fewer children, with those in about 60 nations already giving birth at a rate far less than the replacement rate.
Want some numbers?

While world population has more than doubled since 1950 to the current 6.3 billion, according to the United Nations, the population will top out between 2050 and 2075.

Demographer and American Enterprise Institute scholar Nicholas Eberstadt says it’s likely to come on the earlier end of that estimate, when the world hits 8 billion by 2050. “I think it’s perfectly plausible that world population could peak by 2050 or even sooner and perhaps at a level below 8 billion,” says Eberstadt, noting the past 35 years of declining fertility rates.

Thus the world in the next half century will have fewer additional people to take care of than it did in the last half century. In percentage terms, while it handled 100 percent more people in the last 50 years, it will only have to deal with 27 percent more in the next 50. Granted, that’s still a lot of people. But it’s a long way from apocalyptic.

Eating one fewer Big Mac a day will help us stay healthier, but it won’t do Africans or Indians any good. Talk about “equitable distribution of food” is just that, talk. What’s needed is a rising tide to raise all boats. Neo-Marxist groups like Greenpeace insist that all we have to do is to evenly divide up the world’s food; but that’s no more likely than dividing up the world’s wealth. (Which they would also love to do.) Just as increasing wealth among the poorest requires increasing wealth generally, so too must we continue to increase the amount of food available for all to help those with the greatest need. This is even more important because lesser-developed countries are acquiring a taste for more meat, which requires far more crops than eating the crops directly would. The question is, are we up to the task of providing all those calories?

Norman Borlaug should know. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize winner and “father of the Green Revolution,” which brought dramatic increases in cereal-grain yields in many developing countries beginning in the late 1960s, due largely to use of genetically improved varieties. In his chapter in the just-released book Global Warming and Other Myths, he claims that “the world has the technology - either available or well-advanced in the research pipeline - to feed a population of 10 billion people.” More specifically, “Even without using advances in plant biotechnology, yields can be increased by 50 to 70 percent in much of the Indian subcontinent, Latin America, the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and by 100 to 150 percent in sub-Saharan Africa.”

There also are tremendous advances in biotechnology that make the scenario even brighter.

Consider a single crop: rice. Swiss researchers have added genes from daffodils to so-called “Golden Rice” to give it Vitamin A, the lack of which causes about 2 million deaths annually. (It’s also the leading cause of preventable blindness in anywhere from 250,000 to 500,000 children.) Then they added a gene from a fungus that creates an enzyme allowing the human digestive system to break down the iron in rice that’s otherwise unavailable to us. Still other researchers are adding genes to rice crops that increase yields by 20 to 40 percent.

Of course, the ability to feed mankind is not our sole worry in terms of whether we can sustain a growing population. Yet time and again, we’ve stubbornly refused to run out of things that were supposed to have been depleted long ago.

Ehrlich in his 1974 book The End of Affluence declared that, “Before 1985 mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion.” He was hardly alone; a group called the Club of Rome issued a much-publicized report in 1972 that had us running out of virtually everything by now but sand and cockroaches.

Yet no minerals - “key” or otherwise - are today in danger of being depleted. Price over the long run (as opposed to temporary gyrations) is a direct indicator of scarcity. But the International Monetary Fund’s price index for metals is now the lowest it has ever been.

Similarly, while the Department of the Interior originally predicted that oil would run out in 1954 and later moved that back to 1964 because of technology breakthroughs improving the discovery and extraction of oil, reserves are more numerous than ever.

Still, there is one vital resource in which we may develop a shortage in the next few decades: us.

That’s because the world’s population won’t just conveniently level off after it peaks; more likely it will drop like a stone.

According to U.N. Population Division Director Joseph Chamie, current population projections assume the earth is moving toward an average fertility level of 1.85 children per woman. Considering that a 2.1 level is needed to sustain a population, the planet’s population would peak at 7.5 billion by 2050 and fall to 5.3 billion by 2150.
And that has interesting political implications, since the decline will not be evenly distributed among nations. The populations of several Soviet-bloc nations already are falling because of declining birth rates and emigration. Japan is expecting its population to peak in 2006 and then drop by 14 percent (almost 20 million people) by 2050. Germany expects a similar decline, while Italy and Hungary may lose 25 percent of their populations and Russia a third. These nations already are becoming giant “leisure worlds,” with Depends outselling Pampers.

Still, there’s one thing that as the population shrinks we simply won’t be able to make up for.

Of all the population prophets, the one whose predictions got the least recognition was also the most accurate. That was the late University of Maryland economist Julian Simon. He saw humanity not as a plague of locusts but rather as what he called “the ultimate resource” in a 1981 book by the same name. “The standard of living has risen along with the size of the world’s population since the beginning of recorded time,” Simon observed in that book. “And with increases in income and population have come less severe shortages, lower costs, and an increased availability of resources.” True, he wrote, “Adding more people will cause [temporary] problems, but at the same time there will be more people to solve these problems.”

To Simon, the cry of a little baby represented not just one more mouth to feed, but perhaps the next Pascal, the next Kepler, the next Michelangelo, the next Bach.

We don’t know how many of these won’t be born. But we’ll grieve their loss just the same Citizens of Europe are urged to go forth and multiply. The Independent (U.K.)

European couples were urged yesterday to start producing more babies to counter an "alarming" rise in the proportion of old people in the continent's population.

As the workforce shrinks and the number of retired people grows, the pressure on the economies of EU countries will increase. By 2050, one person in three will be at least 60 and one in 10 will be over 80. The majority will be women.
Anna Diamantopoulou, EU social affairs commissioner, warned that there will be major economic as well as social implications of the rapidly ageing population. She told a United Nations seminar on ageing that the problems could be overcome, despite the consequences of people living longer lives in retirement.

"The first problem is that we are not replacing our populations, with low birth rates causing a growing distortion in our demographic structures," she said. "The second problem is that we are allowing, even encouraging, people to have shorter working lives, just at a time when they are fit and able to work even longer.

"The policy implications are clear. We need to bring our populations back into balance, and we need to take a much more positive view on immigration if we are to deliver the improved quality of life that greater longevity should bring." She said women account for two-thirds of the EU's over-60s, and on average live six years longer than men.
The commissioner was speaking at the second world assembly on ageing in Madrid. She said the EU was willing to share its experience in facing the challenge of ageing with other nations to strengthen international co-operation in tackling the problems of an increasingly elderly population.

The conference was told that the pace of population ageing is much faster in developing countries, which have a higher proportion of young people, which will give them less time to adjust.

* The halcyon days of youth are a myth; Britons are happiest between the ages of 65 and 74, shows a survey. People experience a general rise in well-being throughout life which peaks after retirement, shows the research by the pharmacist Boots.

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.

For Immediate Release Wednesday, June 25, 2003

For Immediate Release
Wednesday, June 25, 2003