prisonplanet--2019-07-27--US Fertility Rates Plunge To All-Time Low CDC Warns

US Fertility Rates Plunge To ‘All-Time Low,’ CDC Warns

Something isn’t right in the “greatest economy ever,” as the general fertility rate continues to drop in the US, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).  Researchers used data from the National Vital Statistics System, discovered that the general fertility rate dropped 2% between 2017 and 2018 among females aged 15 to 44.  Overall fertility dipped to 59.1 per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44. In non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black women, it fell 2% in 2018, while a 3% drop in rates was observed in Hispanic women.  Teen pregnancy rates plunged to record lows, the report revealed. The rate dropped 7% from 2017 to 2018, falling from 18.8 per 1,000 to 17.4 per 1,000. Teen births in non-Hispanic black teenagers declined 4% in 2018, and 8% in non-Hispanic white and Hispanic teenagers.  NCHS stated in a separate report that the total fertility rate continues to dip underneath the level of what is needed to sustain a healthy population.  We have routinely suggested why Millennials are delaying marriage and childbirth. And in our view – this life choice is tied explicitly to economics.  Insurmountable student loans, credit card debt, and auto loans have delayed starting a family for many.  A typical child costs $14k per year, or $234k from 0 to 17, the Department of Agriculture said, money that millennials would instead use to service their debts and or use it on life experiences, like vacations.  So if the economy were so great, millennials would be able to start families, buy homes, and continue living the American dream like generations before them. But in reality, the dream died after the 2008 financial crisis, their standard of living was abruptly thrown into reverse, history will look by at millennials as the “lost generation.”  This article was posted: Saturday, July 27, 2019 at 5:58 am


prisonplanet--2019-12-06--US Fertility Rate Hit Record Low In 2018

The US fertility rate dropped for the fourth straight year in 2018, and has fallen approximately 15% since 2007, according to the National Center for Health Statistics – which reports that there were 59.1 births for every 1,000 women of childbearing age.  In total, 3,791,712 births were recorded across the country last year – extending a steep decline that began during the 2008 Recession, according to the New York Times.  As one user in Reddit’s “Childfree” forum notes: “Babies are expensive, and we’re all broke,” to which another user replied “Also, pregnancy and its effects on the body are gross and not worth it.”  There you go.  While teen pregnancy rates dropped the most at 7.4%, women between 20 – 24 years of age recorded the second steepest decline of any age demographic, while mothers aged 40-44 rose 2% from 2017 – a demographic which has risen almost continuously since 1985 as women choose to have children later in life.  “It’s clear that the traditional age-fertility pattern that held for Baby Boomers and Gen X women is shifting,” said Brookings Institution senior demographer William Frey, who notes that over 50% of women who had children in their late 30s last year had college degrees – eclipsing women in their late 20s.  “The data suggest that people want to establish themselves before having children,” said Johns Hopkins demographer Alison Gemmill. “They also want to make sure they have adequate resources to raise quality children.”  Meanwhile, suicide rates among young Americans are at 20-year highs.  The Times notes that Demographers have been scratching their heads over whether this is a “temporary phenomenon or a new normal, driven by deeper social change.”  Fertility rates tend to drop during difficult economic times, as people put off having babies, and then rise when the economy rebounds. That is what happened during and after the Great Depression of the 1930s. But this time around, the birthrate has not recovered with the economy. A brief uptick in the rate in 2014 did not last. “It is hard for me to believe that the birthrate just keeps going down,” said Kenneth M. Johnson, a demographer at the University of New Hampshire. Mr. Johnson estimated that if the rate had remained steady at its 2007 level, there would have been 5.7 million more births in the country since then. –New York Times  The Times also notes that “Other sweeping social changes have accompanied the delay in childbearing. New data from the Census Bureau show that the median age of first marriage is now 28 for women and nearly 30 for men; in 1970, the median ages were 21 and 23,” according to Frey said. “This is a far cry from the 1950s, or even the 1980s and the 1990s.”  Meanwhile, this poor guy is just trying to reproduce:  This article was posted: Friday, December 6, 2019 at 6:51 am


rt--2019-01-11--The next endangered species US fertility rates drop to 30-year low

The next endangered species? US fertility rates drop to 30-year low

Fertility rates in the US have dropped below what’s necessary to maintain population levels in nearly every state, and the fertility rate for the entire country is the lowest it has been in 30 years, according to a new CDC report.  White women’s fertility rates declined in every single state, dropping below the rate needed to replenish the population, the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention revealed in an analysis of 2017 birth data. White people are aging more rapidly than other populations, and like all races have been hurt by the Great Recession.  The baby drought is the worst the US has seen in three decades, the CDC found, warning that it’s not just whites – the fertility rate for all races combined is now 16 percent lower than what’s needed to sustain current US population levels. Unless the decline reverses, researchers warn there will not be enough healthy young workers to shoulder the burden of the aging American population.  Only in South Dakota and Utah was the birth rate high enough to maintain the population. The prognosis is less grim for black women, with a fertility rate higher than the minimum sustainable rate in 12 states, and Hispanic women, whose fertility exceeded the baseline in 29 states.  American birth rates have declined over the past decade, especially in large metropolitan areas, which saw an 18 percent drop across all races since 2007. Economic insecurity, later marriages, and a sharp drop in teenage pregnancies have all contributed to the decline, which follows similar demographic trends in western Europe.  Many young women feel forced to choose between motherhood and career due to the lack of paid maternity leave and affordable childcare, according to a 2018 survey which analyzed Americans’ reasons for delaying or eschewing reproduction. Others put off starting a family until they could afford a house or pay off student loan debts – goals Americans are finding increasingly impossible to reach.  Indeed, it’s not surprising that the two states with birthrates surpassing the replacement rate –Utah and South Dakota – are also two of the three best economic performers for 2017. Utah’s large Mormon population – Mormons have, on average, one more child per family than the national average – doesn’t hurt, either. Washington, DC had the lowest fertility rate, and despite its status as the nation’s capital, it is also notorious for its poverty.  Like this story? Share it with a friend!


sputnik--2019-01-23--Finland Betting on Russian Mums-to-Be Amid Low Fertility Rates

Hyksin Ltd, a private hospital run by the Helsinki and Uusimaa hospital district (HUS) and the South Karelia social and health care district Eksote plan to open a maternity clinic in Saint Petersburg, hoping to encourage Russian women to give birth in Finland, Finnish national broadcaster Yle reported.  An agreement that is currently being negotiated would make it possible for foreign mothers to have their babies at the South Karelia Central Hospital in Lappeenranta. The distance from Lappeenranta to Russia's "northern capital" is only 220 kilometres. This is half the distance of the Hyvinkää hospital that opened maternity services for expectant Russian mothers in 2013. However, Russian women have found lthe ong-distance commute uncomfortable.  The proposed Saint Petersburg clinic would target private patients planning to have babies in Finland. Currently foreign mothers must be in Finland one month before their due date, so they can attend a maternity clinic. Mothers visiting Finland to give birth pay 10,000 euros ($11,300) for the service.  "They could visit the clinic in Saint Petersburg and then come to Finland when they are ready to deliver", Eksote chief Pentti Itkonen pointed out.  READ MORE: Too Much Hassle! More Finns Postpone Parenthood for Personal Freedom  Finnish officials believe the move will boost interest among Russian mothers to give birth in Finland amid an increasingly fierce competition in the childbirth tourism market.  However, there are other reasons for this move than economic competition. In 2018, Finland's fertility rate fell to an all-time low of 1.49 children per woman. At the same time, the number of births dropped to its lowest level since the great famine of 1866-1868 when the country had a population of no more than 1.75 million (as opposed to 5.5 million today). The drop is hardly an anomaly, as the total fertility rate has now decreased for seven consecutive years.  In a fresh population forecast, Eksote estimated that in the South Karelia district, the number of births will fall to between 500 and 600 a year.  "A decade from now we simply won't have enough mothers of childbearing age", Pentti Itkonen explained.  In 2010, Lappeenranta had 1,240 births, so the maternity ward capacity would suffice to accommodate visiting mothers as well, he added.  "If we delivered one baby a day for a visiting mother, in one year that would be enough to maintain a maternity ward here", Itkonen explained.  By contrast, shutting down the Lappeenranta maternity facility would mean that expectant mothers in the entire region would have to travel to other cities, such as Kotka or Lahti, to give birth.  According to Itkonen, offering cancer treatments to foreign patients is also a viable option.


tass--2019-02-13--Russian labor minister points to latent recovery in shrinking fertility rates in 2018

SOCHI, February 13. /TASS/. Russia's falling fertility rate halved in 2018, Labor Minister Maxim Topilin said on Wednesday at a Sochi forum dubbed: "Healthy Life Forum: Towards 80+."  "If we look at the declining fertility rate, we will see that it was about 11% in 2017 but rose to 4.6% in 2018," the minister noted.  According to Topilin, a report covering 11 months of 2018 has the total fertility rate at 1.597. He added that the Federal State Statistics Service would present the final figure in June. The Demography national project stipulates that the index must reach 1.7 by 2024.  The forum, which is taking place for the first time, is expected to become an annual expert conference aimed at hashing over ways to extend the average life expectancy to 78 years by 2024 and to 80 years by 2030. The event mostly seeks to develop expert initiatives for the implementation of national programs and projects in areas such as demography, healthcare, science, education and the environment. The Russian Health Ministry is sponsoring the forum.  In other media


windowoneurasiablog--2019-10-03--Russian Fertility Rate will Continue to Fall Even if Economy Improves Data Show

Russian Fertility Rate will Continue to Fall Even if Economy Improves, Data Show

Staunton, September 30 – Fertility rates in Russia have again fallen to the levels they were in during the 1990s, Rosstat data show, and the government assumes that when the deceive economy improves, they will go right back up. But a more careful examination of the data suggests that underlying shifts in values make that an almost impossible dream.  But the data show that the confidence the authorities have because of the latter figure will have almost no impact on the overall fertility rate. On the one hand, large families, those with three or four children, are the product not of the current situation but the one over the last 15 years of even more. Families with three children now may have had their first long ago.  And second, and even more significant, there are too few large families to influence the overall picture. Even if there are more large families now than there were ten years ago, their share of the total population is so small that they will not make any important difference in the overall pattern of demographic decline.  But there are other more profound trends that the powers that be don’t talk about even though their own numbers show that point to a continuing decline in the number of children per woman per lifetime. One of these is the divergence between the number of children Russian say the want – 2.15 per family – and the number they expect – 1.9 – and actually have – 1.5  At present, “only 27 percent” of Russians queried about family size say they want three or more children. Seven years ago, that figure was 32 percent, Chernyshov says. And that has little to do with economics: the higher on the income pyramid Russians are, the fewer children they say they want to have and do.  Another factor suppressing fertility rates are changes in attitudes toward marriage, given that those who get married are more likely to have children than those who simply cohabit. At present, surveys show that “only 65 percent of women and 52 percent of men under 40 consider it necessary to register a first marriage.  Moreover, ever more Russians of both sexes are against marriage as such, with seven percent of women and 12 percent of men saying that now as opposed to four percent and eight percent in a survey five years ago. As a result, more are cohabiting and not having children. In 2017, 39 percent of women and 47 percent of men were in that state, nine percent and four percent higher than five years earlier.  Many women in these relationships use abortions to avoid having children and that means that if and when they do try to give birth, they face problems. According to health ministry expert Oleg Apolikhin, 77 percent of Russian women seeking to give birth have significant medical problems that can prevent them from carrying a child to term.  Yet another factor working against a recovery of Russian fertility rates whatever happens to the economy, the Nakanune expert says, is the increasing interval between the time of entry into marriage and the birth of the first child and between the birth of the first child and each succeeding one The first figure has risen from 15 months in the early 2000s to three years as of 2015-2017.  And the second from two years in the early 1990s to four years in the early 2000s to 5.5 years now. These changes and their timing show, Chernyshov continues, that “with regard to the birthrate, in first place stand not social-economic factors” as the government imagines “but purely worldview and spiritual ones” that won’t be profoundly affected by economic change.  Put in the starkest terms, he says, “in the consciousness of half of Russians, a commitment to maximum satisfaction of their sexual requirements without taking any responsibility for them [by having children] has replaced the family at the center of their thinking. And economic difficulties have only an indirect impact on this.”


hitandrun--2019-07-26--US Fertility Falls to Lowest Rate Ever

U.S. Fertility Falls to Lowest Rate Ever

The country's total fertility rate hit a record low last year, prompting yet another round of calls for the government to do something to encourage Americans to have more babies. But this isn't a sign of a crisis that needs fixing—it's a sign that people have more control over their lives.  The total fertility rate (TFR) is the total number of children likely to be born to a woman in her lifetime, assuming her generation's level of fertility remains unchanged. A TFR of about 2.1 children per woman is called replacement-level fertility—that is, the average number of children each woman would need to bear to keep a country's population steady. A sustained TFR below that indicates that the population of a country will eventually begin shrinking.  In 2018, according to the latest vital statistics report from the National Center for Health Statistics, the rate hit 1.728. This was a new low, surpassing the previous record of 1.738, reached back in 1976.  This is part of a larger, global trend toward lower fertility rates. In 1950, no country in the world had a TFR below 2.1 children per woman. Now about half of the world's nations are below replacement. Global TFR was around 5 children per woman in 1960; it's 2.4 now.  As per capita GDP and levels of education rise, the number of children that women choose to have falls. This trend evidently alarms some folks, including the right-wing intellectuals and apparatchiks who have recently gathered under the banner of "national conservatism."  "There are a lot of ways to measure a healthy society," claimed J.D. Vance, author of the bestselling Hillbilly Elegy, at the national conservatives' conference. "But the way that I measure a healthy society—the most important way to measure a healthy society—is whether the American nation is having enough children to replace itself."  John A. Burtka IV, executive director of The American Conservative, wrote a Washington Post op-ed proposing that national conservatives adopt a suite of pro-natalist policies. These "might include paid family leave, increasing the child tax credit, federally funded prenatal and maternal care, reducing or eliminating income tax on families with three or more children, and working toward a society in which a mother or father can support a family on a single income."  Similar aggressive pro-natalist policies in France have apparently managed to raise that country's TFR from its nadir of 1.73 in 1994 all the way up to 1.92 in 2017. That's still below replacement. Evidently, bribing people to have babies goes only so far.  But why should the number of children that parents choose to have be any business of the state's minions? It was only a generation ago that overpopulation alarmist Paul Ehrlich was arguing that a tax penalty of $600 per child should be imposed on families. (This was in 1968, when the U.S. median income stood at $7,700 per household.)  Falling fertility rates are, among other things, an indication that folks are less subject to the vagaries of nature and are now availing themselves of their increasing power to choose the number of children that they wish to have. That's not a crisis. It's a good thing.


prepareforchange--2019-01-14--Globalists call for celebration of plunging human fertility as war against humanity accelerates

Globalists call for “celebration” of plunging human fertility as war against humanity accelerates

You may recall it was barely two weeks ago that the New York Times published an op-ed applauding the extermination of the human race as a way to “save the planet.” Now, The UK Guardian, a globalist-run propaganda rag that despises human freedom, has published a story saying that declining birth rates of human babies is a “cause for celebration.”  “Declining fertility rates around the world should be cause for celebration, not alarm, a leading expert has said,” reports the UK Guardian.  The story cites Sarah Harper, a former director of the Royal Institution, a globalist-run depopulation front group, who explains that, “far from igniting alarm and panic falling total fertility rates were to be embraced, and countries should not worry if their population is not growing.”  Incredibly, Sarah Harper cites the rise of AI (Artificial Intelligence) and illegal immigration as reasons why human fertility doesn’t matter anymore. Apparently, she thinks that Third World illegals and self-aware machines will replace the humans in developing nations. That’s exactly why these globalists want open borders, by the way… to overrun First World nations and populate them with low-education masses that are easy to control (and easy for globalists to exterminate).  Giving birth to human babies to sustain human society, “is really old thinking,” she explains in the UK Guardian article. “All the evidence is, that if families, households, societies, countries have to deal with large numbers of dependants, it takes away resources that could be put into driving society, the economy etc.,” she stated. In other words, Harper is arguing that having human babies is holding back society, and that real “progress” requires shutting down reproductive fertility.  Lucky for her, flu shots cause spontaneous abortions. Glyphosate interferes with human fertility. Social media isolates people from each other so they can’t reproduce, and prescription medications cause early death. It looks like things are right on track for anyone who despises humanity and wants to see the collapse of human civilization.  The paper goes on to parrot the globalist line that claims giving birth to human babies will destroy the planet. This is a frequent argument of the anti-humanists who see the extermination of humankind as their pathway to utopia (not realizing they, too, will be exterminated). As The Guardian writes:  Having fewer children is also undoubtedly positive from an environmental point of view; recent research has found that having one fewer child reduces a parent’s carbon footprint by 58 tonnes of CO2 a year.  Carbon dioxide, of course, is the single most important nutrient for supporting plant life on planet Earth, and higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere would unleash worldwide abundance of rainforests, food crops and ecological diversity. Globalist-run anti-human papers like The Guardian, of course, are all ordered to attack carbon dioxide as a poison in order to vilify botany and accelerate the collapse of the global food web.  As I explained in this hugely important article — The inescapable explanation that connects all world events unfolding now — globalists are now working to achieve the “efficient extermination” of humankind. That’s why The Guardian is celebrating plummeting human fertility while attacking carbon dioxide. The globalist-run media is also currently promoting geoengineering experiments to dim the sun by releasing pollution into the stratosphere. The purpose of this is, of course, to shut down photosynthesis and collapse the world food supply, causing the mass starvation of humankind.  Over the last month or so, I’ve gone public with my warning that an actual eugenics war is being waged against humanity. This war is not merely a war to enslave and control the masses but to exterminate humanity altogether. A cosmic ethnic cleansing is under way, and humanity is scheduled to be “efficiently exterminated” and removed from existence.  The purpose of this agenda is exactly what the globalists say it is: To “save the planet” … but not for humans. The goal is to save the planet from humans.  Inescapably, a core feature of everything happening today is an anti-human agenda to exterminate humankind. Every major trend taking place today is preparing humankind for a mass extermination event, making sure humans cannot fight back, think for themselves or even reproduce. With the food supply poisoned, male biology attacked and nullified, and even the power to think systematically compromised, the human race has been turned into a slave farm of obedient sheeple, ready to be harvested or eliminated for reasons that are further explored below.  You’re already starting to see the globalist-run media celebrating the collapse of human fertility while saying the extermination of humankind might be a “good” thing for the planet. This propaganda effort will only accelerate in 2019 and beyond.  Soon, you’re going to see the same left-wing lunatics who currently claim gender is an artificial construct — a convenient contrivance to vilify sexual reproduction — attacking parents for having any children at all. Even giving birth to a single child will be portrayed as an attack on “the climate,” and in time, the same left-wing violent mobs that attack people for loving their country will start murdering people solely because they have babies.  Babies will be vilified as destroyers of Earth, and parents with babies will be condemned and even physically assaulted in public in exactly the same way that Trump supporters are vilified and assaulted today. Newspapers will argue that parents who have children are “selfish” and “narcissistic” for wanting to raise children who will “steal resources from society” for their very existence. In fact, that’s precisely what Susan Harper is already arguing in The Guardian article cited above.  There is no limit to the insanity of the Left Cult, and it’s now abundantly clear that Leftists have been brainwashed into a kind of suicide pact that celebrates the extermination of humanity in the name of “saving the planet.”  What they haven’t been told, of course, is that the planet isn’t being saved for humans… and that even left-wing humans are also slated for extermination once their usefulness has run its course.  This Nazi propaganda poster argues for the euthanizing of people who have illnesses, saying the money should be invested in society rather than treating the sick:  You are sharing the load  A person with a hereditary disease costs on average RM 50,000 by the time they reach their 60th birthday.  In summary, if we do not defeat the globalists currently running our world, they will do everything in their power to utterly eliminate humankind from the cosmos. From their point of view, babies are the enemy and must be dissuaded or destroyed (via abortions and otherwise). Sexual reproduction is the enemy, and only gay, trans and gender-fluid individuals are allowed to occupy prominent positions in human culture. Vaccine shots will continue to be laced with infertility drugs, just as scientific laboratories have repeatedly confirmed is happening in Africa under the watchful eye of the United Nations, an anti-human organization that now seeks the global enslavement and termination of human beings.  In the end, if awake and aware humans do not stop the globalists who are deliberately destroying our world, our civilization and our species, they will succeed in ending the human race forever. This is their goal, and it explains why everything you witness in media, news, pop culture and left-wing politics is deliberately designed to achieve destruction, collapse, starvation, destitution, disease and death.  This is their plan. And so far they are carrying it out with almost no resistance whatsoever. Will humanity wake up and realize what’s happening before it’s too late?  Stay informed. Read Extinction.news as we roll out that new site, and be prepared to fight for human survival.


fortune--2019-12-30--With Births Down, U.S. Had Slowest Growth Rate in a Century

Why Your Next Dress Could Be Made of Horseradish


thelibertydaily--2019-12-30--Democrat War on Life: With Births Down, U.S. Had Slowest Growth Rate in a Century

Why did this happen?  Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy.


thetorontostar--2019-12-30--With births down, U.S. had slowest growth rate in a century

ORLANDO, Fla. - The past year’s population growth rate in the United States was the slowest in a century due to declining births, increasing deaths and the slowdown of international migration, according to figures released Monday by the U.S. Census Bureau.  The U.S. grew from 2018 to 2019 by almost a half per cent, or about 1.5 million people, with the population standing at 328 million this year, according to population estimates.  That’s the slowest growth rate in the U.S. since 1917 to 1918, when the nation was involved in World War I, said William Frey, a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution.  For the first time in decades, natural increase — the number of births minus the number of deaths — was less than 1 million in the U.S. due to an aging population of Baby Boomers, whose oldest members entered their 70s within the past several years. As the large Boomer population continues to age, this trend is going to continue.  “Some of these things are locked into place. With the aging of the population, as the Baby Boomers move into their 70s and 80s, there are going to be higher numbers of deaths,” Frey said. “That means proportionately fewer women of child bearing age, so even if they have children, it’s still going to be less.”  Four states had a natural decrease, where deaths outnumbered births: West Virginia, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont.  For the first time this decade, Puerto Rico had a population increase. The island, battered by economic stagnation and Hurricane Maria in the past several years, increased by 340 people between 2018 and 2019, with people moving to the island offsetting natural decrease.  International migration to the U.S. decreased to 595,000 people from 2018 to 2019, dropping from as many as 1 million international migrants in 2016, according to the population estimates. Immigration restrictions by the Trump administration combined with a perception that the U.S. has fewer economic opportunities than it did before the recession a decade ago contributed to the decline, Frey said.  “Immigration is a wildcard in that it is something we can do something about,” Frey said. “Immigrants tend to be younger and have children, and they can make a population younger.”  Ten states had population declines in the past year. They included New York, which lost almost 77,000 people; Illinois, which lost almost 51,000 residents; West Virginia, which lost more than 12,000 people; Louisiana, which lost almost 11,000 residents; and Connecticut, which lost 6,200 people. Mississippi, Hawaii, New Jersey, Alaska and Vermont each lost less than 5,000 residents.  Regionally, the South saw the greatest population growth from 2018 to 2019, increasing 0.8% due to natural increase and people moving from others parts of the country. The Northeast had a population decrease for the first time this decade, declining 0.1% due primarily to people moving away.  Monday’s population estimates also offer a preview of which states may gain or lose congressional seats from next year’s apportionment process using figures from the 2020 Census. The process divvies up the 435 U.S. House seats among the 50 states based on population.  Several forecasts predict California, the nation’s most populous state with 39.5 million residents, losing a seat for the first time. Texas, the nation’s second most-populous state with 28.9 million residents, is expected to gain as many as three seats, the most of any state.  According to Frey’s projections on Monday, Florida stands to gain two seats, while Arizona, Colorado, Montana, North Carolina and Oregon each stand to gain a seat. Besides, California, other states that will likely lose a seat are Alabama, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia.


drudgereport--2019-07-26--CDC Fertility rate all-time low

CDC: Fertility rate all-time low...

The general fertility rate in the United States continued to decline last year, according to a new report from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics.  "The 2018 general fertility rate fell to another all-time low for the United States," the researchers wrote in the report, published Wednesday.  The report found that the general fertility rate dropped 2% between 2017 and 2018 among girls and women age 15 to 44 nationwide.  In 2017, the total fertility rate for the United States continued to dip below what's needed for the population to replace itself, according to a separate report published by the National Center for Health Statistics in January.  America's fertility rate and the number of births nationwide have been on the decline in recent years. A report of provisional birth data published by the National Center for Health Statistics in May showed the number of births last year dropping to its lowest level in about three decades.  Now the center's latest report presents selected highlights from that 2018 birth data. For the report, researchers examined birth certificate data from the National Vital Statistics System's Natality Data File, taking a close look at births among white, black and Hispanic women in 2018. America just had its lowest number of births in 32 years, report finds When examined by race, the data showed that fertility rates declined 2% for white and black women, and 3% for Hispanic women, between 2017 and 2018. The data also showed that the teen birth rate, for ages 15 to 19, fell 7% from 2017 to 2018. When examined by race, the data showed that teen births declined by 4% for black teenagers, and 8% for white and Hispanic teens. Also among all births, the percentage delivered at less than full term, or 39 weeks, increased -- with preterm births climbing from 9.93% of births in 2017 to 10.02% in 2018, and early-term births rising from 26% in 2017 to 26.53% in 2018. The percentages of births delivered at full-, late- and post-term declined, according to the data. Full-term births were down from 57.49% of births in 2017 to 57.24% in 2018, the data showed, and post-term births declined from 6.58% to 6.2%. Sign up here to get The Results Are In with Dr. Sanjay Gupta every Tuesday from the CNN Health team. Overall, a rise in preterm births might be linked with a rise in births among women in their late 30s and 40s , since a later maternal age is a risk factor, Dr. Rahul Gupta, chief medical and health officer for March of Dimes , a nonprofit focused on the health of mothers and babies, said in May . He was not involved in the new report. "The continuing shift toward increased maternal age at first birth is something that does increase the risk. However, it does not fully explain the increase in the preterm birth rate. So that's one of the challenges here, I think, for the nation," he said. "There is a lot more work that needs to be done as the preterm birth rate continues to rise."


theonion--2019-08-16--Naked Out-Of-Breath CDC Director Announces Nations Fertility Rate No Longer In Decline

Naked, Out-Of-Breath CDC Director Announces Nation’s Fertility Rate No Longer In Decline

ATLANTA—Wiping the sweat from his brow and drinking from a glass of water, naked, out-of-breath CDC director Robert Redfield announced at a press conference Friday that the nation’s fertility rate was no longer in decline. “I am happy to announce that after a slow, two-decade decline in American birth rates, our efforts have finally reversed the trend,” said a smiling, visibly flushed Redfield while wiping himself down and dabbing at his forehead with a cool, damp cloth. “Combating declining fertility was hard work but very satisfying, and everyone was really fantastic. I estimate that nine months from now there will be a population explosion. And if you give me another 20 minutes, I bet we can increase it even more.” At press time, Redfield had passed out and started napping behind the lectern.


cnsnews--2019-02-20--Myth of Overpopulation Refuses to Die

Myth of ‘Overpopulation’ Refuses to Die

We’ve mentioned in the past on BreakPoint about “zombie abortion arguments.” You know, those arguments that just won’t die? They continue to be repeated long after they should have been “dead and buried.” Like zombies in movies, these arguments continue shuffling along, seemingly impervious to the reality that they are dead.  Abortion isn’t the only issue confused by “zombie arguments.” There’s a whole host of “should-be-dead-by-now” ideas having to do with so-called “overpopulation.” I say “so-called” because virtually every dire prediction Paul Ehrlich made fifty years ago in his book “The Population Bomb” was wrong. Spectacularly wrong, in fact. Yet Ehrlich’s ideas remain an article of faith among many—and I mean that literally.  In “The Walking Dead,” the only sure way to dispatch a zombie is with a headshot. Well, a new book should be the headshot for Ehrlich’s ideas. Unfortunately, many people’s worldviews harden to the point of becoming ideological kevlar helmets.  The book of which I speak is “Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline” by Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson.  To be clear, there’s far more than one “shock” described in “Empty Planet,” but all of them flow from a single reality. Contrary to what people have been taught to believe for decades, “We do not face the challenge of a population bomb but of a population bust—a relentless, generation-after-generation culling of the human herd.”  As the Canadian duo documents, an increasing number of demographers around the world believe that the UN’s estimates, that human population will peak at 11 billion in 2100, are far too high. The more likely outcome, they suggest, is that “the planet’s population will peak at around nine billion sometime between 2040 and 2060, and then start to decline.” According to Bricker and Ibbitson, “Once that decline begins, it will never end.”  Their argument is scarily plausible. They are not exaggerating when they call this decline the “great defining event of the twenty-first century” and “one of the great defining events in human history.”  We talk a lot on BreakPoint about the decline of fertility rates in the industrialized world: Western Europe, Japan and the United States. We have described the dire economic and social consequences of this decline.  What “Empty Planet” makes clear is that this decline isn’t limited to the usual suspects. South Korea is headed down the same road to demographic catastrophe as Japan. Even more ominously, similar trends are emerging in the developing world. By the middle of this century, Brazil, Indonesia, China, and even India will begin to see their populations decline.  The reasons behind the decline are, not surprisingly, mostly cultural. In a brilliant bit of analysis, the authors point out that “as societies become more modern and urban, friends and co-workers replace siblings, parents, and uncles and aunts.” Families may put subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle pressure on young people to get married and have kids, but friends rarely do.  And then, there’s this well-established link between religiosity and fertility, something we’ve talked about before on BreakPoint.  Population decline is going to be a nasty shock, especially in the economic realm. Ideally, there should be about six workers for every retiree. Thanks to increased life expectancy and low birth rates, it is projected to drop to about three by 2050 and about two by 2100. We may live longer but there will be fewer of us, and our societies will be less dynamic, entrepreneurial, and creative.  Despite these realities, the myth of “overpopulation” refuses to die. Efforts to combat fertility and population growth, whether governmental policies or cultural incentives, are terrible ideas that threaten to make victims of us all.  Still, unlike Bricker and Ibbitson, I refuse to give up hope. Faith, especially Christian faith, is still strong in many parts of the world. And while that persists, there’s still a chance to avoid some of the “shocks” they describe in “Empty Planet.”  Otherwise a different, but no less real, zombie apocalypse awaits us.  John Stonestreet is President of The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview and BreakPoint co-host.  : This piece was originally published by BreakPoint.


drudgereport--2019-02-20--Two is enough Egypt tells poor families as population booms

'Two is enough,' Egypt tells poor families as population booms...

SOHAG, Egypt (Reuters) - Nesma Ghanem is hoping for a fourth child even though her doctor says her body can’t handle a pregnancy at the moment. She has three daughters and would like them to have a brother.  “In the future he could support his father and the girls,” said Ghanem, 27, who lives in a village in Sohag, an area with one of Egypt’s highest fertility rates.  The family depends on her husband’s income from a local cafe. “If I have a son people, here in the village can say that he will carry on his father’s name,” she said.  As Egypt’s population heads towards 100 million, the government is trying to change the minds of people like Ghanem. “Two Is Enough” is the government’s first family-planning campaign aiming to challenge traditions of large families in rural Egypt. But Ghanem’s wish to have a son shows how hard that could be.  “The main challenge is that we’re trying to change a way of thinking,” said Randa Fares, coordinator of the campaign at the Social Solidarity Ministry. “To change a way of thinking is difficult.”  Egypt’s population is growing by 2.6 million a year, a high rate for a country where water and jobs are scarce and schools and hospitals overcrowded. President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi says the two biggest threats to Egypt are terrorism and population growth.  “We are faced with scarcity in water resources ... scarcity in jobs, job creation, and we need to really control this population growth so that people can feel the benefits of development,” Minister of Social Solidarity Ghada Wali told Reuters.  Decades ago, Egypt had a family-planning program, supported by the United States. The fertility rate fell from 5.6 children per woman in 1976 to 3.0 in 2008 while the use of contraceptives went up from 18.8 percent to 60.3 percent. Large amounts of contraceptives were made available and advertisements increased demand for birth control.  Support for family planning from the Egyptian government and large sums from donors helped make the program successful, said Duff Gillespie, who directed USAID’s population office from 1986 to 1993.  But Egypt was relying on donor support and when that assistance went away, family planning was neglected. By 2014 the fertility rate had gone up to 3.5. The United States is supporting family planning in Egypt again, providing more than $19 million for a five-year project ending in 2022 and $4 million for a smaller private sector project ending in 2020.  Those amounts are significantly lower than the $371 million the United States spent on family planning in Egypt between 1976 and 2008.  “Two Is Enough” is mainly financed by Egyptian money, with the Social Solidarity Ministry spending 75 million Egyptian pounds ($4.27 million) and the U.N. providing 10 million pounds, according to the ministry.  The two-year campaign targets more than 1.1 million poor families with up to three children. The Social Solidarity Ministry, with local NGOs, has trained volunteers to make home visits and encourage people to have fewer children.  Mothers are invited to seminars with preachers who say that Islam allows family planning, and doctors who answer questions. Billboards and TV ads promote smaller families. The government aims to reduce the current fertility rate of 3.5 to 2.4 by 2030.  At a session teaching volunteers how to speak to mothers and fathers about family planning in a village in Giza, Asmaa Mohammad, a 25-year-old volunteer, told Reuters she would rather have three children than two.  “Since I was a child I knew I wanted three children,” said Mohammad who is unmarried and doesn’t have children yet.  Deeply rooted traditions and lack of education explain why many Egyptians have big families. Al-Azhar, Egypt’s top Sunni Muslim authority, endorses family planning, but not all Egyptians agree.  Some view children as a future source of support. Others who only have girls keep having more until they get a boy who can carry on the family name.  During a visit from a campaign volunteer, Ghanem said her wish to have a boy was not the main reason she wasn’t using contraceptives. She stopped using an IUD after suffering from bleeding.  About one in three Egyptian women stop using contraceptives within a year, often due to misinformation about the side effects or lack of information about alternatives, according to the United Nations Population Fund.  Nearly 13 percent of married women of reproductive age in Egypt want to use contraceptives but are unable to, according to official data from 2014.  Now the government has renovated clinics, added staff and provided more free contraceptives. Under “Two is Enough” the goal is to have 70 new clinics up and running in March.  But when Reuters visited a clinic in Sohag last month, there were no contraceptives left. Nema Mahmoud, who had traveled from her village, was told to come back the next day.  Sohag, one of Egypt’s poorest governorates, also has one of the highest fertility rates at 4.3. The National Population Council said contraceptive use in Sohag is the lowest among six governorates surveyed.  For years Mahmoud, 33, didn’t use contraceptives consistently even though she wanted a small family. Her mother-in-law kept her from traveling to the city to get contraceptives when the local clinic was out, she said.  It was only after her mother-in-law died that she started using contraceptives properly. By then Mahmoud had three children and three miscarriages.  Since January, the government has limited cash assistance to poor families to two children instead of three in an attempt to push them to have fewer kids. Mahmoud will receive less cash every month. Her husband works only a few days a month, making 45 Egyptian pounds ($2.60) a day, she said.  Mahmoud and her neighbor Sanaa Mohammad, a 38-year-old mother of three, said the change should apply to new families, not women like them who already benefit from the program and have more than two children.  “It’s not fair to give someone something and then take it away,” said Mohammad.  The government sees the population boom as a threat to its economic reform plans. Every year, 800,000 young Egyptians enter the labor market, where unemployment is officially 10 percent.  In Egypt, population growth is around half the economic growth rate, but it should be no more than a third - otherwise it will be difficult to invest in social programs and improve living standards, said Magued Osman, chief executive of Baseera, the Egyptian Center for Public Opinion Research.  Analysts say Egypt should target people before they have children and sex education should be available in schools.  “Two Is Enough is good, but by itself it will not do the job,” said Abla Abdel Latif, executive director of the Egyptian Center for Economic Studies.  Wafaa Mohammad Amin, 36, a mother of four who works on “Two Is Enough”, got married at 17 and had her first child a year later. Two of her children were malnourished because she didn’t know how to breastfeed properly. She had to postpone her education and couldn’t work for years.  “There are many things I know now that I wish I had known back then,” she said. “I don’t want others to go through what I went through.”


drudgereport--2019-06-18--World population projected to STOP growing by end of century

World population projected to STOP growing by end of century...

[![World population growth is projected to flatten in coming decades](https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/FT_19.06 .17_WorldPopulation_World-population-growth-projected- flatten.png)](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds- population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the- century/ft_19-06-17_worldpopulation_world-population-growth-projected- flatten/)For the first time in modern history, the world’s population is expected to virtually stop growing by the end of this century, due in large part to falling global fertility rates, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of [new data from the United Nations](https://population.un.org/wpp/).  By 2100, the world’s population is projected to reach approximately 10.9 billion, with annual growth of less than 0.1% – a steep decline from current levels. Between 1950 and today, the world’s population grew between 1% and 2% each year, with the number of people rising from 2.5 billion to more than 7.7 billion.  Here are 11 key takeaways from the UN’s “[World Population Prospects 2019](https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_Highlights.pdf)”:  **1[![Global fertility is falling as the world is aging](https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/FT_19.06 .17_WorldPopulation_Global-fertility-is-falling-as-world-is- aging.png)](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds- population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the- century/ft_19-06-17_worldpopulation_global-fertility-is-falling-as-world-is- aging/)The global fertility rate is expected to be 1.9 births per woman by 2100, down from 2.5 today.** The rate is projected to fall below the replacement fertility rate (2.1 births per woman) by 2070. The replacement fertility rate is the number of births per woman needed to maintain a population’s size.  **2 The world’s median age is expected to increase to 42 in 2100, up from the current 31 – and from 24 in 1950.** Between 2020 and 2100, the number of people ages 80 and older is expected to increase from 146 million to 881 million. Starting in 2073, there are projected to be more people ages 65 and older than under age 15 – the first time this will be the case. Contributing factors to the rise in the median age are the increase in life expectancy and falling fertility rates.  **3 Africa is the only world region projected to have strong population growth for the rest of this century.** Between 2020 and 2100, Africa’s population is expected to increase from 1.3 billion to 4.3 billion. Projections show these gains will come mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, which is expected to more than triple in population by 2100. The regions that include the United States and Canada (Northern America) and Australia and New Zealand (Oceania) are projected to grow throughout the rest of the century, too, but at slower rates than Africa. (This analysis uses [regional classifications](https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/) from the UN and may differ from other Pew Research Center reports.)  [![Population growth in Africa is projected to remain strong throughout this century](https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/FT_19.06 .17_WorldPopulation_Populiation-growth-Africa-projected-remain- strong.png)](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds- population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the- century/ft_19-06-17_worldpopulation_populiation-growth-africa-projected- remain-strong/)![](https://www.pewresearch.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/06/FT_19.06.08_UNPopulationProjections_revised.gif)  **4 Europe and Latin America are both expected to have declining populations by 2100. **Europe’s population is projected to peak at 748 million in 2021. The Latin America and Caribbean region is expected to surpass Europe in population by 2037 before peaking at 768 million in 2058.  **5 The population of Asia is expected to increase from 4.6 billion in 2020 to 5.3 billion in 2055, then start to decline. **China’s population is expected to peak in 2031, while the populations of Japan and South Korea are projected to decline after 2020. India’s population is expected to grow until 2059, when it will reach 1.7 billion. Meanwhile, Indonesia – the most populous country in Southeastern Asia – is projected to reach its peak population in 2067.  **6 In the Northern America region, migration from the rest of the world is expected to be the primary driver of continued population growth.** The immigrant population in the United States is expected to see a net increase of 85 million over the next 80 years (2020 to 2100) according to the UN projections, roughly equal to the total of the next nine highest countries combined. In Canada, migration is likely to be a key driver of growth, as Canadian deaths are expected to outnumber births.  **7[![By 2100, five of the world's 10 largest countries are projected to be in Africa](https://www.pewresearch.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/06/FT_19.06.17_WorldPopulation_By-2100-five-of-10 -largest-countries-projected-to-be-in-Africa.png)](https://www.pewresearch.org /fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing- by-the-end-of-the-century/ft_19-06-17_worldpopulation_by-2100-five-of-10 -largest-countries-projected-to-be-in-africa/)Six countries are projected to account for more than half of the world’s population growth through the end of this century, and five are in Africa.** The global population is expected to grow by about 3.1 billion people between 2020 and 2100. More than half of this increase is projected to come from Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Tanzania, Ethiopia and Angola, along with one non-African country (Pakistan). Five African countries are projected to be in the world’s top 10 countries by population by 2100.  **8 India is projected to surpass China as the world’s most populous country by 2027.** Meanwhile, Nigeria will surpass the U.S. as the third-largest country in the world in 2047, according to the projections.  **9 Between 2020 and 2100, 90 countries are expected to lose population. **Two-thirds of all countries and territories in Europe (32 of 48) are expected to lose population by 2100. In Latin America and the Caribbean, half of the region’s 50 countries’ populations are expected to shrink. Between 1950 and 2020, by contrast, only six countries in the world lost population, due to much higher fertility rates and a relatively younger population in past decades.  **10[![By 2100, half of babies born worldwide are expected to be born in Africa](https://www.pewresearch.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/06/FT_19.06.17_WorldPopulation_By-2100-half-of-babies- worldwide-expected-to-be-born-Africa.png)](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact- tank/2019/06/17/worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the- end-of-the-century/ft_19-06-17_worldpopulation_by-2100-half-of-babies- worldwide-expected-to-be-born-africa/)Africa is projected to overtake Asia in births by 2060. ** Half of babies born worldwide are expected to be born in Africa by 2100, up from three-in-ten today. Nigeria is expected to have 864 million births between 2020 and 2100, the most of any African country. The number of births in Nigeria is projected to exceed those in China by 2070.  Meanwhile, roughly a third of the world’s babies are projected to be born in Asia by the end of this century, down from about half today and from a peak of 65% in the 1965-70 period.  **11[![Latin America and the Caribbean had one of the world's youngest populations in 1950; by 2100, it is expected to have the world's oldest](https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/FT_19.06 .17_WorldPopulation_Latin-America-Caribbean-had-one-of-youngest- populations-1950-by-2100-expected-to-have- oldest.png)](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds- population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the- century/ft_19-06-17_worldpopulation_latin-america-caribbean-had-one-of- youngest-populations-1950-by-2100-expected-to-have-oldest/)The Latin America and Caribbean region is expected to have the oldest population of any world region by 2100, a reversal from the 20th century. ** In 1950, the region’s median age was just 20 years. That figure is projected to more than double to 49 years by 2100.  This pattern is evident when looking at individual countries in the region. For example, in 2020, the median ages of Brazil (33), Argentina (32) and Mexico (29) are all expected to be lower than the median age in the U.S. (38). However, by 2100, all three of these Latin American nations are projected to be older than the U.S. The median age will be 51 in Brazil, 49 in Mexico and 47 in Argentina, compared with a median age of 45 in the U.S. Colombia is expected to undergo a particularly stark transition, with its median age more than tripling between 1965 and 2100 – from 16 to 52.  Japan is projected to have the highest median age of any country in the world in 2020, at 48 years old. Japan’s median age is expected to continue to rise until it peaks at 55 in 2065. It is expected to be lower in 2100 (54). By that time, the country with the highest median age is expected to be Albania, with a median age of 61.  _Correction: This post has been updated to clarify that India is expected to become the world’s most populous country by 2027. By 2059, its population is projected to reach 1.7 billion._  _Note: The UN projections for the future population are based on assumptions about likely future changes in key demographic indicators, including fertility, life expectancy and migration. There is uncertainty regarding specific estimates. This analysis uses the medium variant for future dates, which takes the midpoint of likely outcomes. For more information, see the_[ _full UN report, data tables and methodology_](https://population.un.org/wpp/) _._


freedombunker--2019-06-17--The UN Says World Population May Top Out at 109 Billion Before 2100 Other Demographers Say Itll

The U.N. Says World Population May Top Out at 10.9 Billion Before 2100. Other Demographers Say It’ll Be Much Lower.

In its 2017 World Population Prospects report, the United Nations projected that world population would reach 11.2 billion by 2100 and continue to grow from there. The U.N.'s new report, however, finds that while "a continued increase of the global population is considered the most likely outcome, there is roughly a 27 percent chance that the world's population could stabilize or even begin to decrease sometime before 2100."  Why the change in projections? Because the global average fertility rate—which is the number of children each woman is expected to have over the course of her lifetime—is falling steeply. That rate stood at 5 per woman in 1960 and has now dropped by 2.5 per woman. Replacement fertility is generally defined as 2.1 children per woman. During the same era, global average life expectancy increased dramatically, from 52.5 years in 1960 to 72.6 years today.  The U.N. demographers calculate that the bulk of future population growth over the remainder of this century will be concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa, rising from just over 1 billion people today to nearly 3.8 billion by 2100. In contrast, populations in most of Asia, Europe, Latin America, and North America will peak and begin declining before the end of this century.  Demographer Wolfgang Lutz and his colleagues at the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) believe that the United Nations' projections are likely to be too high. In their 2018 demographic assessment, IIASA calculates a medium fertility scenario that would see world population peak at 9.8 billion people at around 2080 and fall to 9.5 billion by 2100.  The IIASA researchers argue that the U.N. does not take adequate account of the effects on fertility of increased levels of education, especially the schooling of girls and women.  Alternatively, assuming rapid economic growth, technological advancement, and rising levels of educational attainment for both sexes—all factors that tend to lower fertility—Lutz and his colleagues project that world population will more likely peak at around 8.9 billion by 2060 and decline to 7.8 billion by the end of the twenty-first century. The global human population stands at about 7.7 billion now.    Other global trends, such as steeply falling child mortality rates, increased urbanization, rising incomes, and the spread of political and economic freedom all strongly correlate with families choosing to have fewer children. Instead of having many children in the hope that a few might survive, more parents around the world now aim at providing their children with the skills and social capital that will enable them to flourish in a modern economy.  The trend toward lower population growth is good news because it means that the global expansion of reproductive freedom is empowering more families to decide on how many children they wish to have.


liveaction--2019-02-13--Shock City zoning laws are forcing population control onto minorities

Shock: City zoning laws are forcing population control onto minorities

The population rate in the United States has sunk to its lowest number in decades. For the population of any country to be able to replace itself, 2,100 babies need to be born for every 1,000 women, for a replacement rate of 2.1; currently, the United States is reporting 1,765 births for every 1,000 women, far below replacement rate levels. While there have been numerous discussions on why this is happening, CityLab has exposed a disturbing new trend: in cities across the country, local politicians are using zoning laws to prevent families with children from moving in — and it’s disproportionately affecting Millennials and minorities.  Banning day care centers and three-bedroom housing leaves families with few options  Nolan Gray, an urban planning researcher, and Lyman Stone, an economist, outline multiple details showing how city planning officials are essentially creating what they call “vasectomy zoning,” as these policies encourage people to stop having children. “At the end of last year, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission weighed a proposed zoning change that would effectively ban new day-care centers—along with tire stores and car repair shops—in a large chunk of northwest Philadelphia,” they wrote, noting that the proposal appeared to be dead, but adding, “[T]he effort to block additional child-care facilities with a zoning overlay hints at a broader relationship between city planning and the cost of raising children.”  Banning day-care centers is just the beginning. Gray and Stone note that Garwood, New Jersey — a suburb of New York City — adopted a plan with a complete ban on housing units with three or more bedrooms. Nutley, New Jersey likewise has a ban on three-bedroom housing. In New Jersey overall, this is apparently a trend. “[M]unicipalities increasingly meet their state-mandated fair-share affordable housing requirements by building only senior housing,” Gray and Stone wrote. “Affordable housing proposals that include three-bedroom units are rejected out of hand, leaving working families with few options.”  Similar problems are happening in Massachusetts, where affordable housing construction has practically come to a halt. “In addition to simply limiting the number of development permits they issue, suburbs often forbid large apartments and townhomes altogether, while forcing detached homes to sit on large, prohibitively expensive lots,” they said, adding, “The combined result is that few new starter homes or family-sized rental units are successfully built. Meanwhile, rents and prices for the existing units sail beyond the means of most working families.”  Minorities with larger families are forced into lower-quality communities and schools  [W]e can now reliably say based on data that rising housing costs are preventing more and more women from having children. While jokes about avocado toast would have you believe that Millennials could afford homes if they could only change their spendthrift ways, the reality seems to work in reverse: High housing costs are likely forcing many young couples to make difficult lifestyle changes, such as delaying children.  In a recent study for the Institute for Family Studies, Lyman finds that faster-rising rents are associated with lower fertility for women in their 20s and 30s, when most young couples would normally be starting families. The net effect of the high cost of housing is that more women are either putting off having children well past their peak family-formation years, or are simply not having the children they say they would like to have.  There’s an even more disturbing aspect to these kinds of policies than just Millennials not being able to have children, however. According to the Census Bureau, the fertility rate has declined the most among white women, who are now having a minority of births in the country for the first time. In this context, minority women — who are having more babies — are effectively being shut out of communities, denied access to necessary support like day care, and are forced into low-income communities with lower quality schools and resources.  Minority families in desperate situations are more likely to choose abortion  When these minority families, who are disproportionately likely to struggle with poverty, are shut out of communities with family-friendly resources and affordable housing, what are they more likely to turn to? Abortion. This is especially problematic, considering how the abortion industry preys on and then mistreats minority women.  Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion chain, was found in a Live Action undercover investigation to be willing to accept donations when asked if the money could specifically go towards aborting Black babies. They likewise have been found to pressure black women into sterilization. And according to Protecting Black Life, Planned Parenthood facilities are overwhelmingly placed within walking distance of black or Hispanic neighborhoods.  The Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood’s former research arm, likewise relays some horrifying statistics regarding abortion and minority women. Black women, who currently make up just 13% of the population, account for 28% of abortions. Hispanic women make up 18% of the populations, but 25% of abortions. In cities like New York, the majority of babies aborted are Black and Hispanic, and more black babies are aborted than are born.  READ: Planned Parenthood supporter and abortionists agree: Abortion is good because it eliminates minorities  This is, without a doubt, a method of population control. Re-zoning laws are the least likely way one might assume that minority and poor women could be convinced to not have children, but that is exactly what is happening. The analysis written by Stone and Gray for City Lab pointed out that many of the people who are not having children aren’t doing so because they don’t want to; it’s because they feel like they have no other option. Women aren’t choosing abortion because they just flippantly feel like getting rid of their babies. They don’t enter abortion facilities cheerily thinking they’re exercising their “choice.” Women turn to abortion because they believe they have no choice — and too many city officials are reinforcing that belief.  More initiatives need to be launched to encourage, not discourage, families, with family-friendly zoning laws, affordable housing, and resources. It’s ludicrous that there are places in this country that day care and three-bedroom apartments are being shut down, and stopping these kinds of outrageous policies is imperative for pro-lifers. As long as they continue to spread, abortion will continue as well.  “Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!


liveaction--2019-02-24--Why the idea of overpopulation should not be used to justify abortion

When it comes to abortion, it’s not uncommon for people to claim it’s actually necessary in society. One of these excuses is overpopulation. The world is getting too crowded, we will soon run out of room, and there will be too many people for the planet to support, they claim — abortion, therefore, is touted as a force for social good, preventing the overcrowding of the planet. In fact, Tucker Carlson recently interviewed the president of the Sierra Club, who said this is the very reason why the group supports abortion. But are any of these claims about overpopulation true?  This is a term used to describe what happens when the existing number of human beings exceeds the carrying capacity for the planet Earth. In theory, too many people will put too much strain on our resources, leading to worldwide famine and death. These fears have led to population control policies which, in turn, have led to human rights abuses in numerous countries, most notably China, with its horrific One-Child (now Two-Child) Policy. That the Earth’s human population is at an all-time high only serves to further bolster fears that there are too many people. According to those who believe we are overpopulated, this is why we need abortion. To them, it shouldn’t matter if a woman wants an abortion, because there are already too many people on the planet, and abortion is ‘fixing the problem.’ This reasoning has led multiple leaders of western countries to attempt to push population control in Africa, discouraging large families while others argue in favor of forcible sterilization.  There’s just one problem with this line of thinking: overpopulation is a myth. Watch:  According to the Population Research Institute, the United Nations Population Division estimates that the world’s population will peak shortly — and then begin decreasing. Why? Because the global total fertility rate is plummeting. Fewer people are being born, and as the global population ages, the population of the planet will decrease, as more people die than are born. The World Bank’s fertility data shows that the overwhelming majority of countries have drastically lower fertility rates than they did in 1960.  The idea that overpopulation will lead to a lack of food is problematic because is there actually is enough food, but people sometimes don’t have access to it, often due to corrupt or incompetent governments. Natural disasters, poverty, and war also lead to starvation — none of which are due to overpopulation. Advancements in farming and agriculture, however, now allow for the production of more food using less land. The fact is, there isn’t an issue of too many people leading to too little food.  The truth? Fertility rates are dropping to disastrous levels  The real problem right now is that people are not having enough children. Many countries are currently experiencing a “baby bust”, with insufficient children being born to replace aging populations. This has led to several countries, like Denmark, Italy, Germany, Hungary and Norway, giving parents incentives to have more children. In many European and Asian countries, there could soon be catastrophic consequences to their low fertility rates, far below replacement levels, as there will not be enough workers to support the elderly population as they retire.  The United States is not far behind, either; the fertility rate is the lowest in 30 years.  Some may think it isn’t a problem if the world’s population declines; after all, that keeps us further away from overpopulation, right? But low fertility rates lead to numerous problems. As mentioned, when there are more elderly people in a country than there are younger people working, large financial problems result, and the younger workers find themselves forced to work longer hours and retire later in life — which also tends to make these younger people feel that they cannot have children of their own.  READ: Fertility rate of U.S. women plummets to lowest level in 30 years  China and India both serve as heartbreaking examples of what happens when population control is enforced in the name of preventing overpopulation. Both countries are struggling with epidemics of loneliness and depression, and China specifically has the highest suicide rate of women in the world. Human rights abuses, like human trafficking, prostitution, and crime, have skyrocketed as people struggle to find women to marry. Economic consequences abound too, as people frequently hoard their money in hopes of one day being able to afford a home to impress future brides, instead of spending it and stimulating the economy. Labor markets, consumption, and property values have become distorted. “It’s kind of an arms race in the dating and marriage market,” Shang-Jin Wei, a Columbia University economist, said to the Washington Post.  And due to gender preferences in China and India, men outnumber women by 70 million. “In the future, there will be millions of men who can’t marry, and that could pose a very big risk to society,” Li Shuzhuo, a leading demographer at Xi’an Jiaotong University, said in the same feature for the Washington Post.  In short, encouraging people to stop having children leads to disastrous results. Overpopulation has long been disproven, while what the world truly needs is more babies. Yet people continue to use this myth as an excuse for abortion — an idea that needs to finally, once and for all, die.  “Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!


liveaction--2019-02-27--Why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezs population control ideas wont save Earth

Why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s population control ideas won’t save Earth

On Sunday evening, freshman Congresswoman from New York Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez attempted to drum up support for her “Green New Deal” during an Instagram Live broadcast in which she raised an ominous question with radical population control undertones. “Our planet is going is going to have a disaster if we don’t turn this ship around,” she said. “There’s scientific consensus that lives of children are going to be very difficult. And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question: is it okay to still have children? […] Just this basic moral question, like what do we do?”  Ocasio-Cortez is alluding to the grim predictions in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which warned of “genocide,” global food insecurity, as well as dire economic outcomes. Ocasio-Cortez’s question — and her implied answer — reflects an increasingly common refrain among public figures and institutions that assert that aggressive population control, including universal and easy access to abortion, is one of the most effective ways to solve climate change. This ideology has even led some governments to use brutal and extreme measures to control their populations, like the horrific practices of forced abortion and family size limits in China. In the United States, such thinking is reflected in major initiatives like massive government funding for abortion pushed by House Democrats, many of whom also co-sponsored Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal, on the very first day of the new Congress.  Ideas like those of Ocasio-Cortez’s would likely promote and fund radical pro-abortion policies, even as actual data indicates that fertility rates in many countries are already dangerously low. The US population recently plummeted to a 30-year low, with rates reported by the CDC to be 16% below replacement levels. Sub-replacement fertility levels have the potential to pose severe economic problems as the numbers of retired citizens drawing pensions grows to be too large for the much smaller number of younger workers paying in to government pensions. Such dependency ratios, once they reach a certain level, can lead to economic collapse. This would cripple the ability of future generations to fund major initiatives proposed by people like Ocasio-Cortez.  READ: Half the world’s population is below replacement level, but the UN wants population control  In the great overpopulation scare of the 1970s, prominent academics and public figures issued dire warnings of imminent starvation and scarcity. Those overpopulation pessimists were proven wrong, thanks to human ingenuity in agriculture and technology that made these ideas a fiction even as the world’s population grew. The average person during this decade has just 0.006 times the risk of dying in a famine as he or she would have had in the 1960s. Where food security is a problem, more often than not the culprits are corrupt and incompetent governments. As Dr. Jacqueline Kesun points out in The War Against Population, “The world’s food problem does not arise from any physical limitation on potential output or any danger of unduly stressing the environment. The limitations on abundance are to be found in the social and political structures of nations.”  There may yet be scalable and economically viable measures that can be enacted by future generations. Ridding of the planet of people by whatever means is not a solution to climate change.  “Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!


liveaction--2019-09-05--Teslas Elon Musk Population collapse not overpopulation is biggest problem facing world

Tesla’s Elon Musk: ‘Population collapse’ (not overpopulation) is ‘biggest problem’ facing world

(LifeSiteNews) – The “biggest problem” facing the world is not population explosion, but “population collapse,” said Tesla CEO and billionaire Elon Musk.  Musk made the comment in a live-streamed debate with Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. chairman Jack Ma in at the August 29 World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai.  When Ma reflected on the low birth rate in China — which formerly had a one-child policy but now has a two-child policy — Musk agreed that there is a “birth rate” problem.  “Most people think we have too many people on the planet, but actually this is an outdated view,” said Musk.  “Assuming that AI (artificial intelligence) is fine — we’re assuming there’s a benevolent future with AI — I think the biggest problem the world will face in 20 years is population collapse,” he continued.  “Collapse: I want to emphasize this. The biggest issue in 20 years will be population collapse, not explosion, collapse,” he added.  Ma said in response: “I absolutely agree with that, the population will be facing a huge challenge.”  Musk said the “accelerating collapse” will not be able to be checked by immigration.  “The common rebuttal is: ‘Well, what about immigration?’” he said.  Demographers have for years already been warning Western countries with below replacement-level birth rates about what some call the “demographic winter” as a result of the decline. In such a collapse, the old outnumber the young, creating severe imbalances. Economies suffer. Some could even crash. The result could negatively impact, and could prove detrimental, to some of the main infrastructures — such as financial systems and healthcare — that contribute to living in a western democracy.  Population Research Institute president Steven Mosher said Musk’s comments on population collapse are accurate.  “An old-age tsunami is hitting not just the West and China, but all of humanity. China is now facing a demographic repression caused by the wanton elimination of 400 million people. So will the world as a whole in decades to come. Elon Musk is right,” he told LifeSiteNews.  Mosher said that governments should follow Hungary’s example where pro-family policies are making it easier for young people to marry and have children. Some of these measures include massive tax breaks for families, housing programs, interest-free loans for married couples, and many other incentives, all geared toward encouraging Hungarians to have children.  “People should be advocating for robust, very robust pro-natal policies,” he said.  Mosher noted that it is also “God advice,” as can be found in the Bible, that babies are a blessing. And, he added, it turns out that this advice is true “even in our secular age.”  “Scripture tells us that babies are blessings and not burdens. And they’re blessings for everybody. They’re blessings for their family, for the parents, for their community, for their society, for the economy, and for the nation as a whole. So, I think that if people kept that scriptural perspective in mind, they’d be better: they themselves would be better off, and their countries would be better off in the long run,” he said.  This is not the first time Musk has warned about population collapse.  In a July 2017 tweet, Musk noted that the world’s population is “accelerating towards collapse, but few seem to notice or care.”  His comment was in relation to a November 2016 New Scientist article titled “The world in 2076: The population bomb has imploded” that projected a measured decline of global population over the next 60 years, because half of the countries in the world have fertility rates below the replacement rate. The replacement fertility rate is 2.1 children per woman. Most developed countries are far below this.  Musk also told CCCMoney in a March 2017 interview that people “should be concerned about demographic implosion.”  “So if you look at countries like Japan, most of Europe, China,” Musk said, “and you look at the birth rates, in a lot of those places it is only at about half of the sustaining rate.”  He described an inverted demographic pyramid, where older people are on top who are not able to be sustained by the too few numbers of young people beneath them.  “So it will sort of fall over,” he said, “it will not stand.”  Editor’s Note: This article was originally published at LifeSiteNews and is reprinted here with permission.  “Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!