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.

[LizardQueen]

Don't worry about the "I don't want to get married and have kids" crowd. They'll die out eventually and leave nothing like them behind. It's natures way of culling the herd, and getting rid of the weak and useless.

Looks like Nature favors the randy and irresponsible who breed like bunnies without a thought as to if they can take care of them all ;)

LQ

[Antoninus]

TR on family and contraception issues:

On motherhood as the true source of progress, Teddy Roosevelt said:

"A more supreme instance of unselfishness than is afforded by motherhood cannot be imagined."

Before an audience of liberal Christian theologians in 1911, he said:

"If you do not believe in your own stock enough to see the stock kept up, then you are not good Americans, you are not patriots, and ... I for one shall not mourn your extinction; and in such event I shall welcome the advent of a new race that will take your place, because you wil have shown that you are not fit to cumber the ground."

On the centrality of the child-rich family to the very existence of the American nation:

"It is in the life of the family, upon which in the last analysis the whole welfare of the nation rests....The nation is nothing but the aggregate of the families within its borders."

On parenthood:

"No other success in life, not being President, or being wealthy, or going to college, or anything else, comes up to the success of the man and woman who can feel that they have done their duty and that their children and grandchildren rise up to call them blessed."

On out-of-wedlock birth versus practiced sterility:

"After all, such a vice may be compatible with a nation's continuing to live, and while there is life, even a life marred by wrong practices, there is a chance of reform.

In another place, on the same subject:

"...[W]hile there is life, there is hope, whereas nothing can be done with the dead."

On the behavior of 90% of those who practice birth control:

"[It is derived] from viciousness, coldness, shallow-heartedness, self-indulgence, or mere failure to appreciate aright the difference between the all-important and the unimportant."

On the "pitiable" child-rearing record of graduates of women's colleges like Vassar and Smith who bore only 0.86 of a child each during their lifetimes:

"Do these colleges teach 'domestic science'?... There is something radically wrong with the home training and school training that produces such results."

[friendly]

While some childless women certainly are incredibly shallow, many others haven't found the right guy, aren't in a position where bringing a child into the world would be a good decision, or have decided that if they can't do it right they aren't going to do it at all.

Sorry, but keep waiting for the perfect man and you will be 40 years old, find out you have scarred fallopian tubes from 50 "boyfriends", and babies will be an absolute impossibility.

A brilliant summary is seen in the following video clip:

http://www.wam.umd.edu/~rui/BitterFilm.html

[Antoninus]

So I, in all my irresponsibility and ambivalence about children, should go ahead and spawn, even though I know I'm not fit to be a parent?

Stop making excuses and get fit.

[LizardQueen]

But 'today's' man is conditioned to not buy the cow when milk is so readily available.

IMHO, guys who would marry just to get the milk (if it wasn't already available) wouldn't be guys I'd marry anyway. If all he wants from me is milk he can go find a different herd ::grin::.

LQ

[friendly]

Incentives do work at increasing a nation's fertility.

Desparately needed here and NOW in the good ol' USA!

[LizardQueen]

Perfect isn't what the ones I know are looking for. They'd be happy with sane, self-supporting and not drunks or druggies.

I already found mine, but Lord knows it hasn't been an easy road with him. There are times I think I should've waited.

LQ

[ex-snook]

""No other success in life, not being President, or being wealthy, or going to college, or anything else, comes up to the success of the man and woman who can feel that they have done their duty and that their children and grandchildren rise up to call them blessed." "

Old Teddy Roosevelt would never be elected today.

[Antoninus]

Hey we're doing our part too. Married three years and have two kids already. I have my one month old on my lap right now, as a matter of fact! And the 14 month old is playing quietly across the room.

[Xenalyte]

I'll make you a deal. You reform the tax code so I can afford to stay home with a rugrat, and I'll have one.

[sinkspur]

Hope you'll be happy living surrounded by Muslims and Mexicans if you live another 30-40 years 'cause that's who'll be populating the US.

Most Mexicans are Catholics, so that should make both of us happy.

As for Muslims, import enough of them, and you can really start goin' after the gays.

Your statement could have come straight out of Pat Buchanan (who has no children himself.)

[nhoward14]

I hear that. I ain't ready to be anybody's daddy. Uncle I can do, but not Daddy.

[ex-snook]

"guys who would marry just to get the milk (if it wasn't already available) wouldn't be guys I'd marry anyway. "

Don't know if you meant it this way. But a guy who is willing to wait until married might not be that bad a catch. {:-) Hey it probably worked for a lot of grandmas.

[Antoninus]

I'll make you a deal. You reform the tax code so I can afford to stay home with a rugrat, and I'll have one.

That's just another excuse. I live in NJ for heaven's sake with two kids and not a huge paycheck. We do without and use creative budgeting. Hey, in the end, it's up to you. Personally, I'd like my kids to live among other Americans when they grow up. And I guarantee you, when you're 80 years old and alone, your niece won't darken your door too often, especially if she's one of those "selfish" modern women. I have several relatives in that position and it's truly a sad state of affairs--they desperately cling to their siblings' families because otherwise, they have nothing.

A big family is a tremendous blessing.

[lawdude]

Women (ball busting feminazis) have beat the crap out of honorable men for the last 20+ years. This resulted in a generation of men more concerned with their feminine side than touch football! (does anyone really think Marlo Thomas would look at Donohue today?)

A secondary result is that today's woman can't find many real men. They are mostly little wussie sissies and wouldn't make a good catch in a woman's prison.

[norton]

Come to think of it,
I'm only one friend ahead of you,
and the grandchild is only mine by virtue of a step-son.
Step son with a previously married step wife (nice lady).
Er, a soon-to-be stepson & step wife.
(He calls me Gramps. Is that good?)

Family ain't what it used to be but I'm not ready to blame it entirely on today's mistakes.

The post WWII crowd was wallowing in Dr. Spock and their own version of new-wave theories. My own feeling is that the sixties a88-H*** uprising was stage two.

Sorry Mom, Sorry Dad, Etc.

[Nowhere Man]

The feminazis are finished. Bill Clinton destroyed their last shred of credibility (the one thing we can all thank him for) and they are left storming the golf courses and defending infanticide. Equal pay for equal work, and some basic respect as thinking people was all normal women ever wanted, and by and large that has been achieved. Soon most women will throw off the yoke of feminism and demand fullfillment of their natural desires, including to have a safe home with a loving husband and children to cherish.

Exactly, you had major differences between the Victorian feminists and the 1960's/1970's feminists. The Victorian feminists wanted to have the world realize that women have brains and deserve the same pay. Also, they they were pro-choice in the respect of opportunities for them. They wanted a choice where if they wanted to be a doctor, truck driver, radar technician, butcher, baker, and candlestick maker and so on. As long as they are qualified for the position, I have no problems, I look at things this way, the only true energy crisis we have today is brainpower. What the Victorian feminists have achieved is unlocking more brainpower. Now if a woman wanted to stay home after working or even go directly into a family, they respected that choice too. Most if not all of these feminist then were pro-life too when it came to babies.

Now with the 1960's feminists like Bella Abzug, Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, the Hildabeast, etc., they were the ones who were pro-choice when it came to babes and they wanted it all, they wanted to be and act like men. The Victorian feminists for the most part still retained a lot of feminity while exercising their brainpower. In addition the modern feminists also downgraded men too. Myself seeing what happened to my country due to the 1960's, I feel like weeping and then doing my part to take it back. Sure, the 1960's were a triumph of technology with the Moon landing and space travel, but they were a blemish on America's and the world's butt with the idea of moral relativisism and the ignorance of the natural way of things.

I'm glad to see that some things have turned around, but still as we have seen recently, the ghosts of the 1960's still dog us today with the PC movement and the criticism of the war in Iraq plus many other things too. Still as we are seeing in the West, we are losing population and if we get into a war with Red China or the Moslem world, if we cannot field a lot of troops to battle the only alternative we have to fend them off is the H-Bomb.

[honeygrl]

"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. "

They should move to Alabama. Housing is MUCH cheaper there as is the rest of the costs of living. Most of Georgia is cheaper than average too I think. We have a 2 bedroom, 1200sq ft single level apartment for only $595/m. TN wasn't too bad either. We had a 2 bedroom, 1200sq ft townhouse for $440/m and renting a house was much cheaper. We could've bought a decent 3 bedroom house and had payments around $350/m if we had decent credit. Alabama was the cheapest. You could buy a decent 3 bedroom house for $50,000. We lived a bit in the country but it was nice to live out away from the city.

[xrp]

A lot of the smart women in Atlanta that I encounter are not wanting kids because it will interfere with their careers. I'm 30 now and not planning on waiting til women have their biological clocks near exploding so I can be a first time father at 40 or 45. If 35 comes and I'm still single, I'm going to get an Asian bride or something like that...

[Antoninus]

Most Mexicans are Catholics, so that should make both of us happy.

I was merely stating a fact, not rendering an opinion on Mexicans and Muslims as neighbors. Learn to differentiate. Personally, I'm adaptable and trust in Divine Providence so I tend not to worry about such things. Mexicans, for the most part, are wonderful people and make fine neighbors. If they just learn the language and become Americans, I have no problem with letting them come in to fill the gaps our contraceptophile culture has created. On this I agree with Teddy Roosevelt (see above), not Pat B.

Your statement could have come straight out of Pat Buchanan (who has no children himself.)

Whatever. So the mere fact that Pat Buchanan shares an opinion with me, it's automatically wrong? Where did you learn logic? Honestly, I could care less if Buchanan shares this opinion--it is correct. I have two kids myself so judge for yourself if I'm serious about the subject.