sottnet--2019-01-31--The US birth rate is declining and everyones missing the obvious reasons

The US birth rate is declining and everyone's missing the obvious reasons

1. The U.S. has the highest maternal mortality rate of all developed countries.  2. Giving birth in the U.S. is exceedingly expensive.  the most expensive place in the world  3. The U.S. has no national mandate for paid parental leave.  4. Child care can cost as much as rent.  5. Wages have remained nearly stagnant for 40 years.  6. We are struggling to make ends meet even before having children.  7. We're disillusioned and burned out.  For the past several days, my Facebook feed, Twitter timeline, and evening news have been filled with stories on the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's latest report about the declining birth rate of U.S. women.Despite the breadth of the data included in its January 2019 vital statistics update, the CDC statistic generating the biggest headlines is the one that calculates the birth rate in the U.S. to be 16 percent below the amount needed to replace our population over time.Most of the stories dominating the news cycle have sensational, clickbait headlines: "Women in the U.S. Are Having Fewer Babies" ( Time ); "U.S. Fertility Rates Have Plummeted Into Uncharted Territory, and Nobody Knows Why" ( Science Alert ); "The U.S. Is in the Danger Zone for a 'Demographic Time Bomb'" ( Insider ); and "Florida, U.S. Have a Baby Problem" ( Orlando Sentinel ). Among my personal favorites are the headlines where women are blamed as if it's all immaculate conception - "Women Aren't Having Enough Babies to Replace Ourselves" ( Moms ).But all of the news noise is missing the glaringly obvious facts that every millennial I know recognizes immediately. Here are seven real reasons behind the declining birth rate:When NPR and ProPublica investigated maternal mortality in the U.S., their findings were clear:Here, around 26 out of every 100,000 pregnant women die each year, and while some European and Eurasian countries have rates in the teens, thThe U.K., for example, has a rate of around nine in every 100,000 women dying, but the Lancet noted that country's efforts to reduce maternal mortality has meant "being pregnant in the U.K. has never been safer." Not to mention that our rate remains three times greater and is increasing.The lowest rates around the globe are three deaths per 100,000. Which means that compared with women in places like Finland, Iceland, and Greece,That's not even taking race into account. The CDC reports that black women in the U.S. are three to four times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes as their white counterparts.But it's not just a higher risk of death here in the U.S. that makes birth difficult, it's also a matter of cost.The United States isto give birth. In the Guardian's analysis , it costs around $32,000 to give birth vaginally in the U.S. if you don't have insurance. If you require a C-section, those costs increase to around $51,000.Think about that:And that's if everything goes well. If there are complications - either for the child or the mother - those costs can quickly escalate to six figures or more.Say you're lucky enough to have great insurance, though - despite the best efforts of Republicans in the House and Senate to repeal Obamacare and get rid of protections for pre-existing conditions, of which pregnancy is one - even then, insurers only negotiate the cost down to around $10,000 for a vaginal birth. In Spain (which has the supposedly dreadful socialized medicine), it costs insurance companies a mere average $1,950 for women to give birth vaginally.That's not a matter of lower cost for less quality; Spain's maternal mortality rate is five times lower than the U.S. So while pregnant women in the U.S. with insurance might be paying less out of pocket, the costs paid by their insurance companies are still astronomically high and are no doubt reclaimed by charging higher insurance rates.What we have in the U.S. then, is - on top of a high mortality rate - the added burden of giving birth made to be ridiculously expensive. And once you have the baby, we've created a system that fails to take care of U.S. mothers further.In another disappointing distinction, the United States remains just about the only industrialized country, and the only OECD member country, not to require paid parental leave. It's up to the discretion of individual employers to decide whether or not to offer paid maternal or parental leave.Governments in other countries provide weeks or even years with varying amounts of assured income to moms and, increasingly, dads. It's a simple argument - as Christopher Ingram writes in the Washington Post:Not only is it more dangerous and more expensive to have a child in the United States, but even after that, we're not going to provide parents with the financial security to ensure they can take time to be with their newborn. With these facts, is it really that shocking that we have a declining birth rate?Even if you manage to get past all of this, there's an additional financial burden that becomes a major factor in keeping people from having kids. Care.com's latest annual survey, which factors in parents who use nannies as well as those who opt for daycare, put the national average of child care expenses at $1,500 per month, or $18,000 per year. That's equivalent to a national-average rent payment, which Rent Cafe put at $1,405.The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says that child care is considered "affordable" if it costs no more than 10 percent of a family's income.But the latest figures from the Census putmeaning child care for the average family is likely closer to nearly 30 percent.Especially considering the state of most people's personal finances. Pew Research found that "today's real average wage (that is, the wage after accounting for inflation)And what wage gains there have been have mostly flowed to the highest-paid tier of workers.". This makes it all that much harder to afford both quality health care and quality child care. Plus, while wages have barely budged, our debt is crushing us.Our level of debt - which for many young people today is student loan debt - drastically outpaces any other generation before us, according to the Federal Reserve . Its most recent study flat out states that "millennials are less financially well-off than members of earlier generations when they were the same ages, with 'lower earnings, fewer assets and less wealth.'"If high maternal mortality rates, the high cost of having a baby plus the lack of guaranteed income after having that baby, and child care that costs a significant percentage of already stagnant wages for a generation that's openly worse off financially than previous ones isn't enough to evidence as to why the birth rate is decreasing, there's one more factor to bring it home.If you haven't read Anne Helen Peterson's brilliant piece on how millennials are the burnout generation, you really should. She explains how our parents raised us in relatively stable economic and political times and reared us with an eye to our hard-working futures with the belief we'd be even better off than they were. From purposeful play time to post-graduate school expectations, we have, as Peterson writes, "internalized the idea that [we] should be working all the time." But we very rarely reach the dangling carrot. Saddled with the nation's financial crisis on top of our own mountains of debt and the idea that we are failures if we stop, we are - quite simply - exhausted.Now, I'm not saying that no one should have children. I have many friends who have amazing kids, and I love them. But if you're going to act shocked at why the birth rate is decreasing, or worse, try to analyze it while ignoring all of the above realities, then you're doing everyone a disservice.


sputnik--2019-01-10--Threes a Crowd New Report Shows US Birth Rates Continue Steep Decline

Three's a Crowd: New Report Shows US Birth Rates Continue Steep Decline

Researchers from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed in a newly released report that the national total fertility rate (TFR), an estimate of how many babies the average American woman will have, dropped for the seventh year in a row in 2017, the most recent year for which data is available.  The report, which was published Thursday, indicated that the 2017 TFR rate of 1,765.5 births per 1,000 women was 16 percent below the number needed to keep the population stable without additions through immigration. The population needs to have a TFR of 2,100 births per 1,000 women to reproduce itself without other input.  Even more concerning for researchers is that the US' total fertility rates have been steadily declining since 2010, with numbers from 2017 representing the biggest drop in recent history. In 2014, the TFR rate stood at 1,862.5; in 2015, 1,843.5; and in 2016, 1,820.5.  In reviewing data from birth certificates of all 50 US states and those of Washington, DC, researchers found that procreative habits of Americans varied across the Land of the Free. The highest TFR was detected in South Dakota, with a rate of 2,227.5 births per 1,000 women. The lowest was from the nation's capital, which averaged a TFR of 1,421.0.  When it comes to race, the highest rates were among Hispanic woman, with a TFR of 2,006.5, which was followed by black women with a rate of 1,824.5. For white women, it was 1,666.5.  Researchers also found that South Dakota and Utah, in 2017, were the only US states with a TFR that was above the 2,100 births per 1,000 women replacement level. More than 60 percent to the population of Utah are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. A Pew Research poll from 2015 found that members of that church were more likely to be married and to have children than any other US religious group. Utah had a TFR of 2,120.5.  Although the report didn't offer an explanation for the declining numbers, experts have noted that various factors, such as increased access to birth control and women delaying having children to pursue job opportunities, are playing a role in the matter.  A July 2018 survey conducted by the Morning Consult for the New York Times found that many women put off having kids because they simply weren't able to afford child-care costs. Others surveyed noted that they just preferred having more personal freedom.  "In general, women are getting married later in life," John Rowe, a public health researcher at Columbia University, told NBC News. "They are leaving the home and launching their families later."  Another factor that has played a role in dropped fertility rates is teenage pregnancies, or lack thereof. According to the CDC, from 2006 to 2014, the teen birth rate for those aged between 15 and 19 dropped by 40 percent in that period, with teen birth rates among Hispanic and black teens falling most dramatically.  "We've been seeing, year after year, a precipitous drop in the number of births to teenage girls," Rowe said. "That's good news. Not only are these children not having children, but they're also getting a chance to finish high school. And that makes a huge difference to their lives."  This latest report comes months after the CDC published a report in May 2018 that indicated the 2017 numbers marked the lowest rate since 1978.


cnsnews--2019-03-19--Death Rate Is Outpacing Birth Rate in America

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported late last year that Americans aren’t having enough babies to replace themselves. In fact, a record one in five American women will never have children, and those who do will, on average, never exceed two. As a result, the death rate is outpacing the birth rate, which means—except for immigration—the U.S. has joined many developed countries on the long, slow road of population decline.  That’s bad news. Not having enough children as a society has costs that are hard to appreciate on the individual level. We know from examples like Japan and much of Europe that aging countries become economically top-heavy, especially those that promise extensive government services to the elderly. This results in runaway aging and population decline, and negatively impacts every sector of the economy except for maybe healthcare, depending on how you look at that one. It also places heavier and heavier burdens on the shoulders of an ever-shrinking workforce of young people, which leaves them even less likely to have kids.  On a deeper level, young members of a graying society lose hope for the future, or stop planning for it altogether. In Japan, this hopelessness manifests as one of the highest rates of suicide among youth in the developed world.  To be clear, the United States is not Japan, but as Jonathan Last writes in his book, “What to Expect When No One’s Expecting,” there’s no example in history of a shrinking society experiencing long-term prosperity.  Given the impending demographic disaster, you might think this would be the wrong time to discourage people from having children. But some are doing just that. Citing numbers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the website Market Watch recently warned that the cost of raising children has grown an unbelievable 40 percent since the year 2000.  According to those USDA estimates, the average American parent spends almost a quarter million dollars raising a single child, not including college expenses. This translates to huge figures for families who have four, five, or even more kids. If these numbers are correct, a minivan-sized family will spend something on the order of a million dollars just to get their children through high school.  But I’m not buying those numbers, at least not totally. The USDA’s estimates don’t take into account things like shared living space, hand-me-down clothes, grandparents pitching in, or other common ways parents have learned to save money.  Such outlandish estimates of the cost of kids are now cited in article after article, making the case that few Americans can really afford kids. CNBC joined in recently with a piece called “Here’s how much money you save when you don’t have kids.” To make matters worse, they cited a study purporting to show parents are less happy than non-parents.  All of this bean-counting in the government and secular media comes at a moment when the thing we need most is babies. Even sadder, it coincides with one of the hardest pro-abortion legislative pushes we’ve seen in decades. Our culture is simply less welcoming to little lives than ever before.  And yet those of us who have kids and those who desperately long and pray to have kids know how fundamentally skewed these cost-benefit analyses are, even if their math was better. Because children are priceless, and as my friend Dr. Ben Mitchell says, anytime you put a price tag on something priceless, you cheapen it.  The question of whether kids are too expensive raises much bigger worldview questions, such as, “what’s the purpose of life?” and “what’s the good life?” Children aren’t a bucket list item, like paragliding or visiting Paris. It’s an others-centered way of living—a radical statement of hope for the future—a declaration that you and I are not the center of the universe, and that the here and now is not the only thing that matters.  In a society already suffering from a birth dearth, the question isn’t whether we can afford to have kids. It’s whether we can afford not to.  John Stonestreet is President of The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview and BreakPoint co-host.  : This piece was originally published by BreakPoint.


drudgereport--2019-02-10--Hungarian PM announces new loan tax cuts to boost birth rate

Hungarian PM announces new loan, tax cuts to boost birth rate...

BUDAPEST, Feb 10 (Reuters) - Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban announced on Sunday a raft of new tax and loan benefits for families as part of efforts by his government to increase the birth rate while holding a hard line against immigration.  Orban, one of the most outspoken critics of mass immigration to Europe from the Middle East and Asia, also said that his government aimed to keep economic growth 2 percent above the European Union average in the coming years despite an expected global slowdown.  "There are fewer and fewer children born in Europe. For the West, the answer (to that challenge) is immigration. For every missing child there should be one coming in and then the numbers will be fine," he said in his annual state of the nation speech.  "But we do not need numbers. We need Hungarian children," Orban said, announcing a seven-point programme of benefits for families and newly-weds.  The new measures include the expansion of a loan programme for families with at least two children to help them buy homes, subsidies for car purchases and waiving personal income tax for women raising at least four children.  Women below 40 who marry for the first time will be eligible for a 10 million forint ($36,000) subsidised loan, Orban said. A third of the debt will be forgiven when a second child is born and the entire loan waived after the third child.  "This is the answer for Hungarians, not immigration," Orban said. ($1 = 281.4800 forints) (Reporting by Gergely Szakacs; editing by Jason Neely and Gareth Jones)


prisonplanet--2019-05-15--US Birth Rate Plunges to All Time Low

U.S. Birth Rate Plunges to All Time Low

The U.S. birth rate has hit a record low of 1.7, well below the replacement rate of 2.1, as more women choose careers over having families.  According to figures released by the CDC, the number of live births in the U.S. dropped to 3.8 million last year, which is the lowest level in 32 years.  Tumbling fertility rates combined with women choosing careers over babies is being blamed for the decline, with only women aged 35-44 seeing an increase in birth rates.  Birth rates for all other age groups is in decline, most dramatically amongst teens aged 15-19, with the birth rate for that demographic falling to 17.4 births per 1,000 women, down 72% from a peak of 61.8 in 1991.  It’s really remarkable, not something that we’ve seen over the last century,” said Prof. Buckles.  Just by coincidence, depression levels amongst women have been continually on the rise ever since the cultural shift which sent the message that being a homemaker was an unfulfilling, boring life.  Stories of women who sink into depression because they have left it too late to have children are also becoming increasingly commonplace.  There is a war on free speech. Without your support, my voice will be silenced.  Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.  Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.  This article was posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 7:52 am


russiainsider--2019-02-19--Dying Russia Soldiers On With the Exact Same Birth Rate as the West

'Dying Russia' Soldiers On With the Exact Same Birth Rate as the West

Russia birth rates are on par with those in Germany and the US so how exactly is Russia dying out and these countries aren't?  Preliminary data for 2018 is in.  There were about 1,599,316 (10.9/1,000) births in 2018, a decline of 5.4% relative to the 1,689,884 (11.5/1,000) births in 2017. There were about 1,817,710 (12.4/1,000) deaths in 2018, a decline of 0.4% relative to the 1,824,340 (12.4/1,000) deaths in 2017.  Consequently, the rate of natural increase declined from -134,456 (-0.9/1,000) in 2017, to -218,394 in 2018.  Unlike the previous year, the decline in birth rates was relatively even across Russian and non-Russian regions in 2018 (e.g. Dagestan declined by 5.2%, which is similar to the Russian average).  The population was estimated at 146,793,744 as of Jan 1, 2019, down from 146,880,432 exactly one year ago. This implies about 131,706 in long-term net immigration, down from 172,551 last year.  If accurate, this would mark the first time since 2007 that the population of Russia has declined in absolute terms*.  Russia experienced a sustained recovery from the fertility collapse of the 1990s starting from the mid-2000s, during which TFR rose from around 1.3 children per woman to a post-Soviet record of 1.78 children per woman by 2015. However, Russian fertility fell off a cliff in the second half of 2016.  Monthly births in Russia, 2006-2018, with yearly moving average.Monthly births in Russia (percent change year-on-year), 2007-2018 , with yearly moving average.  In my last Russia demographic update a year ago, I noted that there were tentative signs that it may have bottomed out in recent months. This turned out not to be, though the rate of decrease did slow down.  Adjusting for the age structure of the population – the number of Russian women in their childbearing years is falling faster than the number of absolute numbers – I calculate Russian TFR was ~1.57 children per woman in 2018, down from 1.62 in 2017. (In the previous year, I calculated it would be 1.61 children per woman, while it turned out to be 1.62 children per woman in reality).  I have previously established that ethnic Russians have approximately 0.08 fewer children than the average for the Russian Federation. This would imply that ethnic Russian TFR is now at around 1.5 children per women.  While there’s no way to put a positive spin on these developments, it’s worth bearing in mind that pretty much the entire industrialized world has been in a minor baby glut for the past couple of years (as documented by Twitter demographer @Cicerone1973). Consequently, Russia has largely preserved the relative position to other countries it acquired around 2014-15, at the height of its baby boom. Its numbers are currently very similar to those forecasted for Germany (1.55) and Visegrad (1.47 in Poland; 1.50 in Hungary; 1.53 in Slovakia; 1.67 in Czechia). Note that native German and Visegrad TFRs will also be modestly lower on account of immigrants and Gypsies, respectively.  Broadly speaking, Russia continues to do better than the Med, but worse than France, the UK, Ireland, and Scandinavia. Overall EU fertility in 2016 was 1.60 children per woman, so bearing in mind the decline since then, it should now be in the low 1.50s (with natives at perhaps 1.45 children per woman). American TFR has declined from 1.84 children per woman in 2015 to perhaps 1.74 children per woman in 2018 (translating to a White American fertility rate of ~1.64 children per woman).  I have often made the point that there there seems to be a Great Homogenization, as American millennials adopt European mores while Europeans soak up American culture from Game of Thrones to #MeToo. Despite geopolitical tension, Russia is very much involved in this process as well. It is interesting to see this happening with respect to demographics as well. As we can see, natives/whites in the EU (~1.45), Russia (~1.50), and the US (~1.64) all now have rather similar fertility rates.  While I recommend you check it out and read it in its entirety, one prediction I am willing to make on the basis of that data is that the retreat in Russian TFR observed in 2016-18 will halt, modestly recover, and stabilize at around 1.7 children per woman by the early 2020s.


sputnik--2019-08-03--We Cant Roll Back Species Extinctions Environmental Crisis Affecting UK Birth Rate - Pundit

'We Can't Roll Back Species Extinctions': Environmental Crisis Affecting UK Birth Rate - Pundit

Alastair Currie from Population Matters, shared his insight on the situation.  Sputnik: Firstly, can you tell me how significant these findings are and is it really that surprising?  Alastair Currie: These birth rates are following a trend that has been going on for quite some time, in fact for a very long time, and generally as countries become more affluent the birth rate declines.  What we have seen in the UK is fertility rates being pushed up slightly by immigration, because immigrants tend to be younger people who come to work, and therefore, they're more likely to have kids, which is the birth rate up a little bit but the overall trend has been continuing to be downward over quite a long time.  So it's no surprise, but it certainly is a good thing.  Sputnik: Is something that we should be particularly concerned about and how does it compare to other nations?  Alastair Currie: We are the lowest in Europe, but the trend is down really across Europe and across the developed world, the question is whether or not it's concerning.  When we talk about demographics, one of the issues that is constantly raised is an ageing population and I think we have to see this in a in a much broader context.  The broader context is environmental crisis and I think people are beginning to realize the depth of the environmental crisis we're in but it really is profound.  It’s in that context that we have to see the contribution of people, particularly in rich developed countries, such as the UK to global warming to biodiversity loss, to multiple problems that we have.  The impact that we have in our numbers and our level of consumption is so high that we have to be using all the ethical voluntary means that we can in order to address that situation - choosing to have your kids if one of those things.  People aren't using it and that's why the threats are going down. It's not because people are being forced to bring them down because they're making that choice.  Sputnik: How should these figures be handled by British Government taking into account that we are moving into an aging population?  Alastair Currie: I think one of the first things is we have to do is stop looking at anyone over the age of 65 has been some sort of burden on society, in fact many people who are retired actually contribute in a great way to the economy and to the quality of our life just to simple things like babysitting for their for their grandkids and that kind of thing.  People are can be much more productive than they were in the past because we are seeing longer life and longer, healthier life but there are challenges, of course, with people with older people who require more care.  I think we need to be clear, this is a question of our priorities as a society, if we want to invest in looking after the old people who need our help, we can choose to do that. It's just that it's just a question of what resources we devote to it.  The issue is that really the government sees it as it's got to be all about growth, it's got to be all about expansion of GDP, but really what people want is a is a better quality of life and we don't have to have more people making more growth.  If we choose to offer that greater support to older people that's something we can do whereas and again, I go back to this wider context, when we're in a situation in which we're facing environmental crisis we can't roll back species extinctions.  We can't roll back temperature changes if we get up to three degrees centigrade.  Our first job as a society and indeed our first job of our government is to is to protect people and prevent that. That's our greatest challenge. The challenge of dealing with making society is certainly warmer up to addressing.  Views and opinions expressed in this article are those of Alastair Currie and do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.


thedenverpost--2019-05-15--US birth rate continues to fall leading to fewest babies in 32 years

U.S. birth rate continues to fall, leading to fewest babies in 32 years

America’s baby bust isn’t over. The nation’s birth rates last year reached record lows for women in their teens and 20s, a government report shows, leading to the fewest babies in 32 years.  The provisional report, released Wednesday and based on more than 99% of U.S. birth records, found 3.788 million births last year. It was the fourth year the number of births has fallen, the lowest since 1986 and a surprise to some experts given the improving economy.  The fertility rate of 1.7 births per U.S. woman also fell 2%, meaning the current generation isn’t making enough babies to replace itself. The fertility rate is a hypothetical estimate based on lifetime projections of age-specific birth rates.  Whether more U.S. women are postponing motherhood or forgoing it entirely isn’t yet clear.  If trends continue, experts said, the U.S. can expect labor shortages including in elder care when aging baby boomers need the most support.  “I keep expecting to see the birth rates go up and then they don’t,” said demographer Kenneth M. Johnson of University of New Hampshire’s Carsey School of Public Policy.  He estimates 5.7 million babies would have been born in the past decade if fertility rates hadn’t fallen from pre-recession levels.  “That’s a lot of empty kindergarten rooms,” said Johnson, who wasn’t involved in the report.  Other experts are not concerned, predicting today’s young women will catch up with childbearing later in their lives. The only two groups with slightly higher birth rates in 2018 were women in their late 30s and those in their early 40s.  “Our fertility rates are still quite high for a wealthy nation,” said Caroline Sten Hartnett, a demographer at the University of South Carolina.  American women are starting families sooner than most other developed nations, according to other research . Other countries are seeing similar declines in birth rates.  Young Americans still want to have children, but they don’t feel stable enough to have them yet, said Karen Benjamin Guzzo, who studies families at Bowling Green State University in Ohio.  The U.S. could do more to encourage childbearing with parental leave, preschool expansion and child care subsidies and other policies aimed at helping young adults struggling with student loan debt and housing costs, Guzzo said.  Births were down across racial groups, with small declines for Hispanics, whites, blacks and Asians. The number of babies born to native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders was stable.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report also found:  — Overall, the U.S. birth rate for women ages 15 to 44 was 59 births per 1,000 women, an all-time low.  — Last year, there were 2% fewer births than in 2017.  — Births to teenagers again reached a record low. The number of births to mothers ages 15 through 19 was 179,607, down 8%.  — The rate for premature births — delivery at less than 37 weeks — rose for the fourth straight year to just over 10%, from 9.9%.


theguardianuk--2019-08-01--Birth rate in England and Wales at all-time low

The birth rate in England and Wales has hit its lowest level since records began, government statistics have shown.  In total, there were 657,076 live births in England and Wales last year – a fall of 3.2% from the previous year and down by 10% from 2012.  The number of live births fell from 11.6 per 1,000 people to 11.1, the lowest since records started in 1938.  The figures, from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), also showed that the percentage of live babies with mothers not born in the UK also fell for the first time since 1990, from 28.4% to 28.2%.  Since 1947, the rate has dropped by 45.9%, when the number of babies being born was at its ultimate peak.  Although Britain’s ageing population means the proportion of older people compared with women of childbearing age is increasing, the record low in crude birth rates is mostly being driven by falling fertility rates.  Except for 1977 and the period between 1999 and 2002, total fertility rates are also lower than all previous years since records began.  ONS figures show that overall fertility rates stood at 1.7 children per woman in 2018, a 3.4% decrease from the year before, when the rate was 1.76.  While crude birth rates are calculated per 1,000 of the entire population, regardless of sex or age, total fertility rates refer only to women between 15 and 44 years old, who are deemed to be of childbearing age.  Although women aged 40 and over were the only demographic for whom the rate of fertility did not fall, in 2018 the rate stalled for the first time since the 1970s, at 16.1 per 1,000.  As has been the trend since the millennium, fertility rates fell for women under 20 years of age. In 2018 the number of births per 1,000 women in the group dropped to 11.9 – down 6.3% from the previous year.  Although before 2004 women aged 25 to 29 generally had the highest fertility rate, for the past 15 years women aged 30 to 34 have taken the lead.  In 2018 stillbirths reached a record low for the second year running, with 4.1 per 1,000 total births.  Ann Berrington, a professor in demography and social statistics at the University of Southampton, said the reasons for the birth rate decline were likely to differ between age groups. As well as “changing aspirations” she said education and expectations were among the possible reasons for fewer teenagers having babies.  “There’s been government legislation which means the school leaving age has increased to 18. There’s also been significant improvements in the availability of emergency and long-acting contraception,” she said.  Berrington added that she thought people in their 20s and 30s were more likely to postpone having children because of practical factors such as the lack of affordable housing.


thehill--2019-09-07--Where did all the babies go Falling birth rates imperil our future

Where did all the babies go? Falling birth rates imperil our future

Nordic countries top many global comparisons of wellbeing and equality. Raising kids while both parents work full time is relatively easy today; economic uncertainty and unemployment, which may cause people to postpone having and raising kids, have retreated during recent boom years.  Yet, fertility has been falling in all Nordic countries. At the lower end, the total fertility rate fell to 1.43 percent in Finland in 2018, leaving scientists and politicians scratching their heads. The fertility rate measures the average number of children a woman will have in her lifetime, and a fertility rate this low has a significant impact on the country’s future demographics.  Initially, there would be less need for daycare and schools, implying a cost-saving for taxpayers. But the shrinking working-age population together with an aging population would make the welfare state unsustainable in coming decades.  Finland and other Nordic countries are not alone in this issue. Fertility typically falls with economic development, and many developed countries have even fewer babies than Finland. Falling birth rates in high-income countries have been explained, in part, by higher education and more attractive careers for women, who continue to be expected to do the majority of childcare and housework. Having to choose between jobs and motherhood, many women will keep working or try to have their first baby at an older age, when they feel secure about their careers and personal finances.  Aging is old news in Japan, where fertility actually has improved a bit in recent years. Preschool is now free for children between three and five years old, and municipalities have created a lot more public daycare slots. The government has tried to ease female entry into labor markets, but the gender gap remains large in Japan, according to the World Economic Forum.  Germany has had encouraging results by introducing more generous parental-leave laws and rules to encourage fathers to take time off. Although there are still not enough nursery spots for all, the number of children under three enrolled in nurseries rose from 286,000 to 762,000 between 2006 and 2017.  A fertility rate of slightly over two per woman is necessary for a nation to maintain its population and labor force. The average in OECD countries is 1.7, and in the United States the rate is 1.8.  The U.S. fertility rate has generally been below replacement level since 1971, and there is no reason to expect a sudden reversal. A fall in unintended pregnancies can partly explain the drop, but there are also big societal reasons worldwide.  Israel has the highest fertility rate, at 3.1, among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries.  All European nations — and many others — fall short of being able to maintain working-age populations through domestic births alone.  South Korea probably leads the downward spiral. In 2018, its fertility rate dropped to 0.98, and 8.7 percent fewer babies were born in 2018 compared to 2017. Worried about a future demographic cliff, the South Korean government has discussed using vast sums of money to provide allowances to encourage young women to marry and have children. But South Korea and some other Asian countries typically have societal structures that make it difficult to have children if two parents both pursue ambitious careers.  Nordic countries have for many years worked hard to provide childcare services in order to promote working-life balance, which makes the decline in fertility a bigger mystery.  The consequences of shrinking fertility have long tails. According to the latest official projection, Finland’s population will start shrinking in less than two decades. The native population is shrinking already as deaths exceed births, and only immigration keeps the country’s population growing. By mid-century, Finland would have a very old population. Other Nordic countries have a slightly better situation, thanks to slightly higher fertility and immigration, but they face similar challenges.  Of course, some people think that a shrinking global population is exactly what an environmentally challenged Mother Earth needs. Climate-change anxiety has been offered as one reason for the declining willingness to have babies; others think that the welfare state has flaws, or that people simply do not want babies anymore. Perhaps the Nordic societies have shifted to embrace individuality over family-centricity. People are free to decide if they want to have babies or not.  Falling fertility rates will dampen economic growth and put pressure on existing pension systems; people may need to save more for their pensions, and the health care of the elderly will drain resources from other industries.  Positive net migration is one obvious solution to fill health care vacancies and keep pension systems afloat. But many Western economies face the same challenge simultaneously, and that may soon create a need to compete for a global talent pool. Switzerland, the U.S. and Canada are best at tapping the talent pool, according to the IMD World Talent Ranking, but many more demographically challenged economies are falling behind. For these nations, it might be a time to overhaul their immigration policies and marketing strategies.  Pasi Kuoppamäki is the chief economist of Danske Bank A/S Finland and recently was a visiting scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington. He previously worked at the Research Institute of Finnish Economy, the Finnish Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Bank of Finland.


theindependent--2019-02-13--Chinaaposs birth rate falls to lowest level in modern history

China's birth rate falls to lowest level in modern history

China's birth rate fell to its lowest level in decades last year, new figures reveal.  It stood at 10.94 per thousand in 2018, compared to 12.43 per thousand in 2017, according to data released by the country's statistics bureau.  It has never been lower in the history of the People's Republic of China, which was founded in 1949.  The new figures mean that 2 million fewer babies were born in China in 2018.  Figures also show that the rate of natural increase in population, deducting the number of deaths, has also slowed.  It is now at its lowest level since the aftermath of a famine in the early 1960s.  China relaxed its notorious one child policy in 2016 by allowing urban couples to have two children, but the new rules have done little to encourage more births.  The policy change was spurred by fears about the country's increasingly ageing population.  China's statistics bureau did not suggest a reason for the rate's fall, but in 2018 economic growth in the country fell to its lowest in nearly 30 years.  Many couples are reluctant to have children due to high property prices and soaring healthcare and education costs.  In January, a government-affiliated think tank warned that the population in the world’s second-biggest economy could start to shrink as soon as 2027.  We’ll tell you what’s true.   You can form your own view.  At The Independent, no one tells us what to write. That’s why, in an era of political lies and Brexit bias, more readers are turning to an independent source. Please support us and enjoy extra exclusives, events, ebooks – all with no ads.  The Brexit deal for you. Subscribe now.


theindependent--2019-03-14--Scotland birth rate continues to fall with record-low figures data shows

Scotland birth rate continues to fall with record-low figures, data shows

The birth rate in Scotland fell to some of the lowest levels recorded in more than a 150 years during the last three months of 2018.  New figures from the National Records of Scotland (NRS) revealed the birth rates from 1 October to 31 December last year.  According to the figures, there were 12,580 births recorded during the time period - the lowest figure for the fourth quarter since 1855.  The number of births was also the second-lowest figure recorded since records began.  Compared to the past five years, the number of recorded births in the last three months of 2018 is 5.9 per cent lower than the fourth quarter average.  While there is no single reason for the decline, possible reasons include postponement of childbearing until later in life, and economic uncertainty, considering the initial decline coincided with the financial crash, the report states.  Paul Lowe, the Registrar General for Scotland said: “Continuing the downward trend since 2008, the number of births for the fourth quarter of 2018 has been at its lowest number recorded since civil registration began. This is the second record-low number of quarterly births in a row, with quarter three also falling to its lowest level in 2018.  “The number of deaths fell compared to the recent peak recorded in the fourth quarter of 2017, but was slightly higher than the average of the previous five years.”  We’ll tell you what’s true. You can form your own view.  At The Independent, no one tells us what to write. That’s why, in an era of political lies and Brexit bias, more readers are turning to an independent source. Subscribe from just 15p a day for extra exclusives, events and ebooks – all with no ads.


theindependent--2019-03-22--China birth rate plummets again despite government relaxing one-child policy

China’s birth rate in several regions, including the capital Beijing, fell again in 2018, the official China Daily said on Friday, despite government efforts to encourage couples to have more children.  Alarmed by the rapid ageing of its population, China relaxed its controversial “one-child policy” in 2016, allowing all couples to have two children instead of just one.  The change has failed to reverse what demographers say is a long-term trend of falling birth rates fuelled by growing prosperity and concerns about the high cost of raising children.  Beijing’s birth rate fell to 8.24 per 1,000 people in 2018 compared to 9.06 in the previous year, China Daily said, citing figures from local authorities.  In the financial capital Shanghai, the birth rate dropped to 7.2 per 1,000, from 8.1 in 2017.  Beijing’s total population fell for a second straight year in 2018, dropping 170,000 to 21.54 million people, though the decline could also be due to new policies aimed at shifting “non-capital functions” out of the city, China Daily said.  The birth rate in Liaoning, a rustbelt province where the population has dropped in recent years due to an exodus of young people, fell to 6.39 per 1,000, from 6.49 in 2017.  China recorded 15.23 million births last year, down two million from 2017 and the second consecutive annual decline, according to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS).  Marriage rates are also falling throughout China, with the ratio of newly-registered marriages in the total population down to 0.72 per cent last year from 0.99 per cent in 2013, NBS data showed.  China’s ageing problem was on the minds of delegates to the annual session of parliament this month, where some called for radical new measures to encourage new births.  Think tanks expect China’s population to peak at 1.4 billion in 2029 and then begin an “unstoppable” decline that could reduce the workforce by as many as 200 million people by the middle of the century.  By 2050, China’s dwindling number of workers will be under pressure to support more than 400 million people aged 60 or over, putting the country’s pension, health and social service provisions under immense strain, experts say.  We’ll tell you what’s true. You can form your own view.  At The Independent, no one tells us what to write. That’s why, in an era of political lies and Brexit bias, more readers are turning to an independent source. Subscribe from just 15p a day for extra exclusives, events and ebooks – all with no ads.


theirishtimes--2019-10-18--Ireland’s birth rate down 25% compared to Celtic Tiger period

People living in Ireland are having significantly fewer children compared to a decade ago despite Ireland’s thriving economy, the Central Statistics Office yearbook reveals.  Last year 61,016 babies were born in the Republic, the lowest figure since 2002.


thesun--2019-06-26--Britains population stalls as birth rate falls to lowest level since 2006 but immigrations on the

Britain’s population stalls as birth rate falls to lowest level since 2006 but immigration’s on the up

BRITAIN’S rising population has stalled after the lowest number of births since 2006.  Latest figures show there were 66,436,000 people living in the UK at the end of June last year — an annual rise of just 0.6 per cent.  In the previous 12 months 744,042 babies were born, a steep drop since the high of 813,000 in 2012.  Over the same time period 623,000 people died, more than in any year since the new millennium.  The Office for National Statistics confirmed the country is getting older, with the number of children rising slower than the number of pensioners over the past decade.  The year up to last June, the latest figures available, also showed immigration up ten per cent to 626,000 while 351,000 people left the country.  It leaves net migration running at 275,000 — almost three times PM Theresa May’s now-abandoned target.  Neil Park, head of the ONS population estimates unit, said: “For the fifth year in a row, net international migration was a bigger driver of population change than births and deaths.  “However, overall population change has remained fairly stable. An increase in net international migration has been roughly matched by the fewest births in over a decade and the highest number of deaths since the turn of the century.”


thetelegraph--2019-08-01--Birth rate lowest since records began as families opt for environmentally friendly two children

Birth rate lowest since records began, as families opt for 'environmentally friendly' two children

The birth rate in England and Wales has fallen to the lowest since records began, official figures show, as families opt for 'environmentally friendly' two children.  The birth rate has hit a record low, falling from 11.6 to 11.1 live births per 1,000 people - the lowest since records began in 1938, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said.  The ONS said falling fertility rates were mainly responsible, but the fall could also have been exaggerated by an ageing population, with a larger proportion of older people compared with those able to bear children.  However Mumsnet, the website and forum for parents in the UK, said that it had seen an increasing number of its users voicing concerns about ‘environmentally-friendly parenting’.  Justine Roberts, Mumsnet CEO, said: "Like Harry, some Mumsnet users have made a conscious choice to only have two children (or some say one or even none) in a bid to conserve resources.  "But others make the point that making other changes like reducing waste as much as possible or flying less can have an impact too and family size isn't the only issue.


upi--2019-11-27--Birth rate down two percent in 2018, continuing two-decade trend

Nov. 27 (UPI) -- Birth rates in the United States continued to decline in 2018, particularly for younger mothers, an analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has revealed.  In its latest National Vital Statistics Report, released Wednesday, the agency reported that fewer than 4 million births were registered across the country in 2018, a 2 percent decline over the prior year. Overall, according to CDC figures, the American birth rate has been in decline since the early 2000s.  Among women between 15 and 44 years of age, the general fertility rate also declined by 2 percent from 2017 to 2018, from 60.3 to 59.1 births per 1,000 population. Notably, the birth rate among women between 15 and 19 years of age declined by 7 percent from year to year, while dropping by 4 percent for those between 20 and 24 years of age and by 3 percent for those between 25 and 29.  The birth rate also fell by 1 percent for women between 30 and 34 years of age in 2018, but increased by the same amount for women between 35 and 29. The figure increased by 2 percent for women between 40 and 44 years of age, and remained unchanged from year to year for women 45 years of age and older.  In all, the CDC reported, the total fertility rate in the U.S. declined by 2 percent from 2017 to 2018, from 1,765.5 to 1,729.5 births per 1,000 women. And, birth rates for both married and unmarried women declined by 2 percent from 2017 to 2018 -- with 85.6 and and 40.1 births per 1,000 women, respectively.  Twin and triplet higher-order multiple birth rates also declined in 2018, by 2 percent and 8 percent, respectively. The CDC reported that the number of triplet and multiple births in 2018, 3,525, was the lowest number reported since 1991 and less than one-half of the highest number ever reported, which was 7,663 in 2003.  The percentage of women who began prenatal care in the first trimester of pregnancy rose to 77.5 percent in 2018 from 77.3 percent the previous year. The percentage of all women who smoked during pregnancy declined to 6.5 percent, a 6 percent decline from 2017. The cesarean delivery rate decreased to 31.9 percent in 2018 following an increase to 32 percent in 2017. That figure peaked at 32.9 percent in 2009.  Medicaid was the source of payment for 42.3 percent of all 2018 births, down 2 percent from 2017. The preterm birth rate rose for the fourth straight year to just over 10 percent in 2018, while the rate of low-birth-weight babies delivered remained unchanged at approximately 8.3 percent.


breitbart--2019-10-31--Report: Homeless Death Rate in Los Angeles County Skyrockets

The homeless crisis in Los Angeles County has reached deadly proportions, according to a recently released report by California public health officials.  The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health stated in a report released Tuesday that between 2013 and 2018 the number of people who died while being homeless doubled from 536 to 1,047.  The overall death rate jumped by over a third during that same period of time.  Most of the deaths were caused by drug and/or alcohol overdoses, which accounted for 27 percent of the death rate between 2016 and 2018.  The overdose death rate for homeless individuals was also 26 times higher than the general population, according to the report.  Other causes of death included injury and violence at 24 percent, coronary heart disease at 22 percent, and transportation-related injuries at 9 percent.  Six percent of homeless deaths were caused by homicide, while about 5 percent of deaths were inflicted by suicide during 2016 and 2018.  “This report is tragic, and reflects a true state of emergency on the streets of our community,” said Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, lead author of the motion, in a statement.  “It is unconscionable and inhumane for society to continue to turn a blind eye to this plight. That’s why we recommended that the Board act with urgency and purpose to direct the Department of Public Health to examine and execute strategies that lead to a rapid reduction in these disturbing numbers,” he continued.  Homeless individuals also died earlier than their non-homeless counterparts, according to Tuesday’s report.  On average, homeless people in Los Angeles died around the age of 51, while the average Los Angeles resident’s life expectancy was age 73.  The problem of homelessness in the city does not seem to be getting better. According to data from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), 16 percent more people experienced homelessness between 2018 and 2019— with more than 36,000 people included in this year’s count.  Throughout Los Angeles County, 58,900 experienced homelessness during that same period— a 12 percent increase, according to the data from LAHSA.


abcnews--2019-10-31--The Latest: Census test shows citizenship has little impact

The Latest on the U.S. Census Bureau's preparations for the 2020 count (all times local):  The U.S. Census Bureau says a test for the 2020 census shows having a question about citizenship didn't have much of an impact on response rates for the general population, though responses by Hispanics were down slightly when the citizenship question was included on the questionnaire.  The Census Bureau sent out the test questionnaires in June to 480,000 addresses as part of an effort to fine-tune planning for the 2020 head count next spring.  Half of the questionnaires had a question asking for citizenship information. The other half didn't.  At the time, the bureau didn't know if the question would be allowed since it was being litigated between the Trump administration and civil rights groups.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this summer that the question couldn't be on the 2020 questionnaire.  A new report says the U.S. Census Bureau is on track to meet key deadlines ahead of next spring's massive head count, but the agency faces delays in building a temporary workforce that eventually could number as many as a half-million people.  The report released Thursday by the U.S. Government Accountability Office also says the bureau still has critical work to do in making sure its information technology systems are secure and tested for the 2020 census.  The GAO says hiring for early operations has been slowed because of delays in background checks and a higher than expected rate of people who were hired but then dropped out.  The Census Bureau plans to recruit more applicants and expand the number of locations applicants can get fingerprinted for background checks.


sottnet--2019-12-25--Periodic Exercise: India approves funds for census and population survey

India's federal cabinet approved funds on Tuesday for a census and population survey to be conducted in 2020, amid fears that the database could be used to build a controversial citizens register that has been opposed by hundreds of thousands of people who have taken to the streets.The government approved 87.54 billion rupees ($1.23 billion) for conducting the census and 39.41 billion rupees for updating the National Population Register (NPR).The census collects data on population, economy activity, social and cultural aspects, migration and demography, down to the lowest administrative level.The NPR is intended to create a comprehensive identity database of every resident of India, including demographic and biometric database.Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan


thedailycaller--2019-04-18--New Census Data Shows Puerto Rico Lost 4 Of Population After Hurricane Maria

New Census Data Shows Puerto Rico Lost 4% Of Population After Hurricane Maria

New data released Thursday by the New Census Bureau shows that Puerto Rico lost nearly 4% of its population after Hurricane Maria.  Between the period of July 2017 and July 2018, the U.S. territory’s population dropped by 129,848 people, marking the largest population drop in the island’s history, according to the Associated Press.  Hurricane Maria hit the island in September 2017 and is estimated to have caused nearly 3,000 deaths.  “It’s the largest population drop seen in a single year ever registered in Puerto Rico,” said demographer Raúl Figueroa.While deaths were a factor, the population loss was mostly attributed to people emigrating from the country. Metropolitan areas such as San Juan, which lost 81,087 people, and Ponce faced the heaviest drops in people. (RELATED: Critics Blame Trump For The Hurricane Maria Death Toll And Response But The Facts Tell A Different Story)  Within the 12-month period, the census data show that there were 6,449 more deaths than births, which is considered a “normal figure” even with the thousands of deaths that immediately followed the hurricane. Many of the excess deaths brought on by the deadly storm were of sick and elderly people who died within the year in question, said Figueroa.  Lack of electricity, services and fresh water after the hurricane may have lead to the concentrated number of deaths.  Many Puerto Ricans left for Florida and New York, which have communities of people from the territory, in the aftermath of the Atlantic storm. Locals in San Juan notice the lack of people within the country’s capital. (RELATED: Debt-Ridden Puerto Rico Releases Its Long-Awaited Financial Statements)  Sister Carmen Negrón, who sells handmade rosaries and icons in the Plaza del Mercado in the Rio Piedras area of San Juan, faces a decrease in sales from the loss of people.  “This area’s been shrinking,” said Negrón. “Sales are down.”  “You see fewer people around, fewer young people,” said local Wilfredo Montañez.  Magaly Robles, who has been selling potatoes for 15 years in the plaza, stays in the city because of her job but has lost many friends because of the storm.  “Lots of people have left since Maria,” said Robles. “Many of my friends have gone and not come back.”


truepundit--2019-01-03--Texas Florida see big population gains while New York Illinois see big losses Census Bureau data

Texas, Florida see big population gains, while New York, Illinois see big losses, Census Bureau data show

The exodus from two of the nation’s biggest Blue States continues, according to new numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau. Many Red States, meanwhile, continue to gain population, the figures show.  The biggest population losers between July 2017 and July 2018 were the high-tax, Democrat-controlled states of New York and Illinois.  In that one-year span, New York lost more than 48,000 residents, while Illinois’ population declined by more than 45,000, the figures show.  “It’s taxes. It’s corruption. It’s politics,” Mary Miller, a former Illinois resident, told the Chicago Tribune, explaining why she moved to Florida. “And I don’t mean Republicans or Democrats. It’s all of them.”  It was the fifth straight year the state has seen a decline, the newspaper reported.- READ MORE


usatoday--2019-04-18--Census Bureau Puerto Rico metro areas lost population 2017-18 Florida Texas metros gained

Census Bureau: Puerto Rico metro areas lost population 2017-18; Florida, Texas metros gained

Metro areas in Texas and Florida were standouts in percentage gains in population from 2017 to 2018, the Census Bureau reported Thursday.  The greatest percentage losses were in hurricane-ravaged Puerto Rico, where all metro areas shrank, according to the bureau's estimates for population as of July 1, 2018.  In actual residents added, the biggest winner was the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington metro, which increased by 131,767 residents, or 1.8% in the year. The greatest headcount loss was in the San Juan-Carolina-Caguas, Puerto Rico, metro – down 81,087 people or 3.9% in the one year.  More: Trump administration plan for census citizenship question ruled against by third federal judge  More: Census 2020 citizenship question: Feds, groups fought for months before courts nixed it  Metro areas, by percentage, that lost the most population from 2017 to 2018:


abcnews--2019-12-12--Detroit tops list of hard-to-count cities ahead of census

DETROIT -- When the U.S. Census Bureau starts counting people next year in Detroit, obstacles are bound to arise: The city has tens of thousands of vacant houses, sparse internet access and high poverty — factors that will make it the toughest community to tally.  Other Rust Belt towns that have lost population and cities in the Sun Belt with large numbers of immigrants and transplants will pose similar challenges in the coast-to-coast headcount, an Associated Press analysis of government data found. Nationwide, about a quarter of the population lives in hard-to-count neighborhoods, including a majority of people in Atlanta, Cleveland, Dallas, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Memphis, Tennessee, and Fresno, California.  Obtaining an accurate count is critical because the census determines the allocation of $1.5 trillion in federal spending and decides which states gain or lose congressional seats.  “There is nothing more important, no higher priority, than reaching the hard to count,” Census Bureau Director Steven Dillingham told lawmakers last summer.  Detroit's recent resurgence has led to refurbished downtown buildings, new boutique hotels and an invigorated arts community. But the renaissance has done little for some residents who live in persistent poverty and harbor lingering mistrust after decades of racial upheaval. The many empty homes are relics of the mass exodus that began in the 1950s and sent Detroit’s population plummeting from about 1.8 million to 670,000.  About 86% of Detroit’s population lives in hard-to-count neighborhoods, by far the largest proportion of any major U.S. city, the AP analysis found.  Annette Brock, who lives northeast of downtown, said some residents see no connection between answering questions from the government and improving their lives.  “Everybody else outside of us gets help before we do,” Brock said. “I don’t blame nobody if they don’t want to participate, or if they don’t want to help, or if they don’t want to say nothing no more. They’re tired of speaking their mind.”  About 70% of Detroit residents turned in their 2000 Census forms. That figure fell to 64% a decade later, when the national rate was 74 percent.  In 2010, 220,000 Detroit residents were living in households that did not fill out questionnaires, costing the city $2,000 to $5,000 annually for every uncounted person, said Victoria Kovari, executive director of Detroit’s 2020 Census Campaign.  To get those numbers back up, city census teams have knocked on nearly 130,000 doors in neighborhoods that were under-counted in the last census and spoken with more than 26,000 people. But Kovari is still concerned. For the first time, the Census Bureau would like respondents to answer questions online, but the agency estimates that 30% of Detroit households lack regular connection to the internet, roughly double the national percentage.  The Census Bureau sends workers to homes that don't respond. In Detroit, that means knocking on the doors of vacant houses and others where residents may not answer.  Almost 80 percent of Detroit is African American, and observers “know we are going to have an undercount among the black population,” said Diana Elliott, an Urban Institute researcher who co-wrote a report last summer that estimated anywhere from 900,000 to 4 million people could be missed.  “That puts Detroit at greater risk just because of the demographics,” Elliott said.  Researchers have learned that Latinos, African Americans, non-English-speaking immigrants and children under 5 are the hardest to count, along with tribal members, nontraditional families and people with informal living arrangements.  Experts say the Trump administration’s effort to put a citizenship question on the questionnaire may scare off immigrants who live here illegally and others. Although the effort failed, opponents of the question say damage has already been done.  California and New Mexico have some of the nation’s largest concentrations of Latinos. In those states, over 40 percent of the population lives in hard-to-count neighborhoods.  By contrast, Vermont, Maine and West Virginia have some of the highest concentrations of white residents and older people, who are more likely to fill out census forms. There, less than 5% of the population lives in hard-to-count neighborhoods.  To tout the importance of the 2020 census, California is spending an estimated $187 million on advertising and events and recruiting neighborhood leaders to encourage participation. California census officials have hired liaisons whose sole focus is 15 specific hard-to-count groups, including farm workers, the homeless and people without broadband subscriptions.  “You really have to understand the structural barriers that exist,” said Ditas Katague, director of the California Complete Count-Census 2020 Office.  Gathering accurate population data in Detroit can be daunting because of its size and the emptiness of some neighborhoods. The city was almost bursting its limits through the 1950s, until good-paying auto and other manufacturing jobs allowed a burgeoning white middle class to find bigger homes and better schools in the suburbs. Years of housing discrimination made it harder for the city’s black residents to leave.  Tensions between Detroit’s black residents and its mostly white police department exploded in a riot in 1967, scarring the landscape and driving more white flight.  The 1973 election of Coleman A. Young as the city’s first black mayor was a milestone in Detroit’s rise as a city dominated by African Americans. But soon many in the black middle class also sought better homes, schools and safety in the suburbs.  In the late 2000s, the national housing crisis and economic downturn fell hardest on the Motor City. Foreclosures abounded. Three of every 10 adults was jobless and about 4 of every 10 people lived in poverty. Thousands more left the city, and the population dropped by 2010 to 713,000.  In 2013, Detroit became the largest city in the U.S. to file for bankruptcy. When it emerged the following year, it was able to wipe out or restructure about $7 billion in debt, sparking a turnaround that helped fuel a massive demolition program. Since 2014, about 19,000 vacant houses have been razed, mostly with federal dollars.  Still, current Postal Service estimates show nearly 60,000 vacant units in Detroit.  Mayor Mike Duggan’s office has recruited volunteers and groups to go into neighborhoods to speak to friends and churches to explain why census participation is important and to dispel fears.  “You just can’t walk and knock on somebody’s door, now,” said Charles Jones Jr., who also lives northeast of downtown. “You’ve got to find somebody in the neighborhood that the people trust. Not strangers. They’re scared of strangers.”  Edith Floyd understands why being counted matters. Working in a community garden, the 70-year-old digs up dirt for composting and makes winter preparations for greens and other crops still in the ground. A cold, stiff breeze blows across scores of vacant lots, broken by the few homes that have withstood time and busy bulldozers leveling vacant structures.  “We need all the money we can get for the city and for ourselves,” Floyd said. “There’s very few people over here, and everybody counts. Everybody needs to participate.”  Follow Corey Williams on Twitter at http://twitter.com/coreywilliamsapreporter. Follow Mike Schneider on Twitter at https://twitter.com/MikeSchneiderAP.


prisonplanet--2019-01-14--Data White American Births Below Replacement Level in Every State

Data: White American Births Below Replacement Level in Every State

The United States birth rate remains well below the replacement level needed as white American births plummet in all 50 states and the District of Colombia.  New federal data released by the Center for Disease Control reveals that American women are having less and less children needed to sustain the current population. In 2017, all but two states in the country had birth rates below replacement level. The total U.S. birth rate was about 1.765 children per woman.  The U.S. needs a birth rate of at least 2.1 children per woman to replace the current population of the country without experiencing population decreases.  States like California, New York, Wyoming, West Virginia, and Washington, DC, saw the lowest birth rates in the country. For example, Washington, DC, had a birth rate of only about 1.7, far below the 2.1 level needed to replace the metro area’s population.  Meanwhile, only South Dakota and Utah had birth rates above replacement level. South Dakota had a birth rate of about 2.2 children per woman, while Utah had a birth rate of about 2.1 children per woman.  This article was posted: Monday, January 14, 2019 at 7:19 am


prisonplanet--2019-03-14--Fertility Falls in EU Not ONE Country Hits Population Replacement Level

Fertility Falls in EU, Not ONE Country Hits Population Replacement Level

Total births in the European Union’s 28 member states in 2017 has fallen from the year before, while first-time mothers are now almost 30.  Figures released by Eurostat on Tuesday revealed that there were 5.075 million babies born in the union in 2017, compared with 5.148 million in 2016 with the total fertility rate standing at 1.59 births per woman — down from 1.60 on the year before and well below the 2.1 births per woman needed to maintain a population.  In terms of individual countries, France had the highest fertility rate at 1.90 births per woman, followed by Sweden (1.78), Ireland (1.77), Denmark (1.75), and the United Kingdom (1.74).  The lowest fertility rates were in Malta (1.26), Spain (1.31), Italy and Cyprus (both 1.32), Greece (1.35), Portugal (1.38), and Luxembourg (1.39).  These figures reveal that not one of the 28 European Union countries came close to replacement level in 2017.  This article was posted: Thursday, March 14, 2019 at 7:18 am


activistpost--2019-01-11--US Fertility Rates Dropping and How Cell Phone and WiFi Radiation Exposure Affect Baby Making Part

U.S. Fertility Rates Dropping and How Cell Phone and WiFi Radiation Exposure Affect Baby Making Parts

US fertility rate is below level needed to replace population, study says The total fertility rate for the United States in 2017 continued to dip below what’s needed for the population to replace itself, according to a new report from the National Center for Health Statistics. Previous research has shown that US birthrates appeared to hit a “record low” in 2017, when the number of births nationwide was at its lowest in three decades. Based on data from the released last year, about 3,853,472 babies were born nationally in 2017 — the lowest number of births in 30 years and down from a . The total fertility rate for the United States has been on the decline for a while, said Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, who was not involved in the new report.  A New York Times poll in July found that young adults are choosing not to have kids because it’s so expensive.  According to the CDC, women are also choosing not to have children until they are older.  Some have even wondered whether the decline might be influenced by sperm quality . Recent medical journal publications have indicated that exposure to pollutants might be harming reproductive health, including the motility and quantity of sperm, which could delay childbearing and overall fertility. The University of Pennsylvania’s Hans-Peter Kohler, who studies fertility and birthrates, said the data indicated that many shifts affecting fertility are occurring “in the transition to adulthood.” The biggest recent drops in birthrate have been among teenagers as well as people in their 20s. In 2016, the teen birthrate hit at an all-time low after peaking in 1991.  Research has also determined that exposure to electromagnetic radiation from cell phones and other sources of wireless WiFi radiation can also affect sperm quality, cause impotence, reduce fertility and even lower libido.  All of this technology may offer some benefits and conveniences but it doesn’t operate via magic.  Reducing your exposure to digital, electronic, and wireless devices, wearables, and infrastructure is always better for your health even if you don’t want to be a parent or a sexual dynamo.  For more information, visit the following websites:


cnsnews--2019-01-15--CDC US Fertility Rate Dropped in 2017 DC Had Lowest Rate in Nation

CDC: U.S. Fertility Rate Dropped in 2017; D.C. Had Lowest Rate in Nation

A new report by the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics reveals that Americans’ fertility dropped in 2017 and that the Nation’s Capital had the lowest rate of fertility in the U.S. for that year.  According to the CDC, the U.S. total fertility rate (TFR) fell to only 1,765.5 babies born per 1,000 women, a figure far below the number of births needed to replace the American population in the future. As the CDC researchers note, a TFR of 1,765.5 is “16% below what is considered the level for a population to replace itself (2,100.0).”  In fact, only two U.S. states had fertility rates above the replacement level. South Dakota’s fertility rate was 2,227.5, and Utah’s was 2,120.5. Washington, D.C., by contrast, had a fertility rate of 1,421.0 – the lowest in the U.S.  American women had approximately 3,855,500 babies in 2017. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the 2017 birth rate was at its “lowest number” in thirty years..  Total fertility rates varied considerably by race and ethnicity. Hispanic women were the most fertile, and non-Hispanic white women were the least. According to the CDC, “Among non-Hispanic white women, no states had a TFR above the replacement level (Utah was 2,099.5); among non-Hispanic black women, 12 states had TFRs above replacement; and among Hispanic women, 29 states had TFRs above 2,100.0.”  The CDC defines total fertility rate as “the expected number of births that a group of 1,000 women would have in their lifetimes according to the current age-specific birth rates.” The TFR assumes that the current birthrates of women “will remain constant over their reproductive lifetime.” Therefore, as the CDC notes, “the TFR is an estimate of their possible completed fertility.” The researchers noted that the report is potentially limited, since “the number of births by maternal age and race and Hispanic origin, which serve as the basis for the age-specific birth rates, was small for some groups.”


drudgereport--2019-01-10--Fertility rate for whites plummets below limit needed to maintain population

Fertility rate for whites plummets below limit needed to maintain population...

Fertility rates for white women were down in every US state in 2017 - below the rate needed for the population to replace itself, a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reveals.  However, among black and Hispanic women, fertility rates were up in 12 and 29 states, respectively.  When researchers looked at fertility rates for women of all age groups and races, they found that the nationwide rate was 16 percent lower than what is considered the level for a population to replace itself.  Experts say this is likely due to the fact that the large proportion of native-born women are having fewer children than before, while the much smaller proportion of immigrant-born women are having more children.  Additionally, the US white population has been hit hard by the Great Recession of 08-09, and is aging.  The overall fertility rate was only above the level in two states: South Dakota (with a boom in jobs for white Americans in the energy industry) and Utah (home to a high concentration of Mormons).  Demographers and public policy experts say if the rate continues to decline, there will not be enough healthy, young workers to keep the economy going and replace an aging population.  Researchers looked at the birth certificates from all 50 states, including the District of Columbia and self-reported data on the mother's race from the certificate.  The highest total fertility rate was found to be in South Dakota, which was 57 percent greater than the lowest rate in Washington, DC.  No state in 2017 had a total fertility rate for white women that was above the population replacement level - what the population needs to exactly replace itself from one generation to the next.  Meanwhile, black women had a rate higher than the population replacement level in 12 states and Hispanic women had a rate that was higher in 29 states.  However across all age groups and races, the total fertility rate for the US in 2017 was 1,765.5 per 1,000 women - 16 percent below the level of a population to replace itself.  There were only two states that had rates above the population level, South Dakota and Utah.  For Utah, the answer as to why is easy: its Mormon population.  'It's certainly from Mormonism,' Dr Kenneth Johnson, a professor of sociology at the University of New Hampshire, told DailyMail.com  'The concentration for so many Mormons in a state is why the fertility tends to be higher.'  Currently, nearly 63 percent of all Utahans identify as Mormon in comparison with two percent of the US population.  According to a 2014 Pew Research Center survey, Mormons were found to have more children than other US religious groups.  Mormons between ages 40 and 59 had an average of 3.4 children in their lifetime, compared to the national average of 2.1 among all Americans in that age range.  It's also the reason why Utah had the highest total fertility rate for white women in 2017.  As for South Dakota, Dr Johnson theorizes it's due to the state's economic growth.  'My guess is South Dakota has had so much growth in the energy industry, it may the influx of people to the state that affects fertility,' he said.  The US Bureau of Economic Analysis has reported strong earning growths for the Mount Rushmore State and, in 2018, South Dakota had the third-highest growth rate in the nation behind Washington and Utah.  In a bit of a surprising twist, Maine had the highest total fertility rate for black women in 2017.  Historically, Maine has been named the state with the largest white population - which is why many residents have nicknamed it the Wonder Bread State.  And, according to the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, Maine is expected to have in 2020 more residents aged 65 and older than resident aged 19 and younger.  'My guess is a lot of [the black women who've given birth to babies in Maine] are foreign born,' Dr Jonathan Resiman, an associate professor of economics and public policy at the University of Maine at Machias, told DailyMail.com.  'There's a significant Somali group in southern Maine, along the northern coast there's a lot of Central Americans. Immigrants who are foreign born tend to have higher fertility rates.'  Dr Philip Cohen, a professor of population at the Maryland Population Research Center, says the reason might also be that black populations are moving to places with majority white populations for economic prosperity.  'In places with with small black populations like Maine or Oregon, they may have had some positive reason for ending up there and are higher-educated and better off than black populations in inner cities,' he told DailyMail.com.  Also surprising, Alabama had the highest total fertility rates for Hispanic women in 2017, which Dr Cohen says might be because of immigration.  'Places like Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina might be new immigration destinations with more recent immigrants and immigrants have higher fertility rates,' he said.  Dr Johnson says the declining nationwide rates are an indicator that fertility rates haven't recovered since the Great Recession and wonders if they ever will.  'The question will be whether these numbers are temporarily low. Are these delayed or are they really going to be low forever and never going to return?' he said.  But Dr Cohen says he doesn't want people to be alarmed by the report.  'It might make people fear society will stagnate, but we're a couple of generations away from that,' he said.  'And there are pathways out of it. The main way is through immigration. It may be difficult with culture and politics, but not with demography.'  Dr Resiman agrees that immigrants are the key to replenishing population levels.  'We're not quite Japan yet,' he said, referencing the Asian's country struggling birth rates. 'But this definitely makes the case for why we need more immigrants.'


drudgereport--2019-07-25--CDC Fertility rate all-time low

CDC: Fertility rate all-time low...

(CNN) 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.  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.  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%.  "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."


hitandrun--2019-11-27--U.S. Total Fertility Rate Falls to Record Low

The U.S. total fertility rate (TFR) has dropped to below 1.73 births per woman according to a new report from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). This record low edges out the previous U.S. fertility nadir of 1.74 births per woman back in 1976.  The NCHS notes that the TFR for the U.S. in 2018 remained below replacement, the level at which a given generation can exactly replace itself (usually defined as 2.1 births per woman). In addition, the TFR was below replacement for all race and Hispanic-origin groups in 2018, except for Pacific Islanders. Overall, the U.S. TFR has generally been below replacement since 1971.  In general, American women of all races are having children later in life. In the 1960s, the mean age for a mother's first birth was 23.3 years. The new report notes that for all ethnic groups, the mean age of mothers at first birth has been rising and has now reached a national average of 26.9 years.  U.S. fertility rates appear to be following the downward below-replacement trend seen in other developed countries. For example, the overall TFR for the 28 countries in the European Union is just under 1.6 births per woman; Japan's is at 1.4 births; Australia's is at 1.74 births, and Canada's is 1.5 births. Why are fertility rates falling around the world?  In my book, The End of Doom, I reported on how the life prospects of women shape reproductive outcomes, as analyzed in a fascinating 2010 article in Human Nature, "Examining the Relationship Between Life Expectancy, Reproduction, and Educational Attainment." In that study, University of Connecticut anthropologists Nicola Bulled and Richard Sosis divvied up 193 countries into five groups by their average life expectancies. In countries where women could expect to live to between 40 and 50 years, they bear an average of 5.5 children, while those countries with female life expectancies between 51 and 61 average 4.8 children. The big drop in fertility occurs at that point. Bulled and Sosis found that when women's life expectancy rises to between 61 and 71 years, total fertility drops to 2.5 children; between 71 and 75 years, it's 2.2 children; and over 75 years, women average 1.7 children.  As global average life expectancy rose from 52.6 years in 1960 to 72.4 years now, the global total fertility rate has fallen from 5 births per woman in 1960 to 2.4 births now. Average global life expectancy is projected to exceed 77 years by 2050. If Bulled and Sosis's insights continue to hold, global TFR should fall to around 1.7 births per woman by then. As noted in the NCHS report, U.S. TFR has been below replacement since 1971, which, as it happens, is exactly the year that average life expectancy for American women reached 75 years.  Is falling fertility a bad thing? Obviously not for those still benighted folks worried about a supposedly exploding population bomb.  However, earlier this month there was a lot of anxious handwringing about falling fertility rates in the New York Times opinion article, "The End of Babies." According to the op-ed's author, Anna Louie Sussman, the culprit responsible for falling fertility rates is "late capitalism." She doesn't mean "just the economic system, but all its attendant inequalities, indignities, opportunities, and absurdities—[have] become hostile to reproduction. Around the world, economic, social, and environmental conditions function as a diffuse, barely perceptible contraceptive."  Sussman does acknowledge that declining fertility "reflects better educational and career opportunities for women, increasing acceptance of the choice to be child-free, and rising standards of living." Nevertheless, she blames employers and governments for failing to make parenting and work compatible. To her credit, Sussman begins by noting the vast array of pro-natalist policies mandated in Denmark including 12 months' paid family leave for new parents, highly subsidized daycare, and state-funded in vitro fertilization for women under 40 years of age. And yet Denmark's TFR is just 1.7 births per woman, almost exactly the same as that of the U.S.  Modernity, a.k.a, late capitalism, clearly offers people a multitude of life options that compete with the bearing and rearing of children. Evidently the trade-offs between work, travel, socializing, entertainment, sports, and parenting that people are making reduce fertility. Attempts to skew trade-offs toward more childbearing may have some effect—Denmark's fertility rate rose from 1.4 in 1983 to 1.7 births per woman now—but in no developed country so far have pro-natalist policies sustained fertility above the replacement rate.  We do know, however, what policies do sustain high fertility rates: Low incomes, low education levels, high levels of violence, defective rule of law, extensive corruption, lack of property rights, and despotic government. I doubt that even the most ardent pro-natalists would advocate a reversion to Malthusian hell-holes as a way to boost fertility.  The upshot is that modern people considering their options are voluntarily choosing to have fewer children. Freedom of choice is a good thing.


liveaction--2019-01-13--Fertility rate of US women plummets to lowest level in 30 years

Fertility rate of U.S. women plummets to lowest level in 30 years

The United States fertility rate has hit its lowest in three decades, according to a National Vital Statistics Report (NVSS) released Thursday from the CDC. The results show a significant variance between states’ fertility rates, but the numbers are troubling. The report notes that the total fertility rate (TFR) is “16% below what is considered the level for a population to replace itself…. For overall population, only two states, South Dakota and Utah, had TFRs above replacement level.”  This means, of course, that if the current pace continues, the nation will continue to decline in population, theoretically, until there are no more young people to reproduce.  Some of the states with the lowest fertility rates also appear to have the highest abortion rates, while some of the states with the lowest abortion rates have some of the highest fertility rates. According the CDC’s most recently available Abortion Surveillance Report from 2015, the pro-life state of South Dakota, which, along with Utah is only one of two states with a high enough fertility rate to sustain its population, had 444 abortions; it had a population of about 860,000 that year.  By contrast, the District of Columbia, which had the lowest fertility rates currently reported, has a reputation for late-term abortions. Despite having a 2015 population of about 672,000, the CDC reported 1,267 abortions — three times the number in South Dakota, which has 200,000 more people. While the numbers vary from state to state, and abortion rates can’t be attributed to every instance of declining birth rate, abortion rates certainly can’t be ignored.  Live Action News reported last September how abortion was contributing to declining birth rates in various nations of the world, including the United States, as well as Japan and China, pointing out:  Sadly, the U.S. abortion rate even made the top ten in the world, as reported by the United Nations in 2013…  With a fertility rate of only 1.6, China’s population will drop 28 percent by 2100, ceding the title of world’s most-populous nation to India, the UN predicts. With a fertility rate of 1.4, Japan’s population will plunge 34 percent by 2100. The U.S.’s headcount is expected to keep growing, despite a low fertility rate of 1.8, because of large numbers of immigrants, though government policies could change that.  Other news reports share opinions from experts attributing the fertility decline to economic reasons. ABC News reports on Dr. Karen Guzzo, associate director of the Center for Family & Demographic Research at Bowling Green State University:  “[W]e kind of expected that after the Great Recession has supposedly disappeared and we are doing much better, fertility rates would start to pick up…. They really haven’t recovered as much as we had expected, and I think that suggests a lot about how people feel in terms of their own personal lives and how secure they feel. It’s not just the global or national economic or GDP numbers, it’s, ‘Can I pay my bills, can I pay my student loans, can I buy a house, is my job secure? Do I have a strong relationship and can I maintain that?’ So people go through a lot of uncertainty,” she said. “I really think that those characteristics haven’t improved as much over the last 10 years, and that’s probably what’s going on here.”  However, Guzzo’s words are similar in topic to the words abortion advocates use when they tell women they don’t need to have children until they are ready, that careers should come first, that money and financial security are the most important things. Women have been led to believe they must have it all — and in a certain order — for so long that it may be factoring into their decision to delay childbirth, whether by abortion or birth control. And now the consequences are showing themselves.  As Live Action News previously noted, other nations with declining fertility have partially solved the problem with increasing immigration:  The message is that ongoing high immigration, coupled with a recent increase in the birth rate, could keep the country’s population stable for another forty years…  In 2015, Germany recorded net migration of more than one million people as a result of the arrival of refugees from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2016, that figure was 750,000 people.  Additionally, Bloomberg reports that in Germany, the fertility rate is up “thanks in part to a recent immigration surge but also to adoption of family-friendly policies, including raising parental-leave allowances.” With American immigration at its most controversial in decades, with its fertility rate hovering there as well, it’s clear it’s a season of decision for the nation. Deciding to not have children over and over is resulting in some dire consequences.


liveaction--2019-12-09--As declining fertility rates are a growing problem worldwide, Hungary takes an innovative approach

Government officials and pro-family advocates from Hungary, Poland, Brazil, and the United States met earlier this week in Washington, D.C., for the 2nd International Conference on Family Policy. Poland and Brazil were represented for the first time. They addressed the stark reality that over half of the world’s population — citizens of the United States along with every single European Union member country included — live in countries with below-replacement level fertility rates.  Rather than counting on mass immigration to offset fertility rates below 2.1 children per woman as many countries have, Hungary shared a different approach. Among the incentives introduced since Prime Minister Viktor Orban took office in 2010 are loans up to $35,000 for parents to cover costs of living like mortgage payments. Furthermore, having three or more children can qualify families for complete forgiveness of the loan. According to the Christian Post, other benefits include ” a state-funded day care system, three years of paid parental leave, free kindergarten, and subsidized vacations.” What’s more, starting in 2020, mothers of four or more children will no longer have to pay income taxes. Hungary furthermore prioritizes preborn babies and nuclear families headed by one father and one mother. Enacted in 2011, Hungary’s Constitution reads “embryonic and fetal life shall be subject to protection from the moment of conception.” The Constitution also upholds “the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman established by voluntary decision, and the family as the basis of the nation’s survival.”  Hungary’s Ambassador to the U.S., Laszlo Szabo, explained the rationale behind all of these initiatives. “We believe that strong family policy makes the country stronger and the nation stronger. When we are talking about nations, we are not talking about The Washington Post version of nationalism. We are talking about loving your country and making your country more successful.” Of note, both abortion and divorce rates have decreased in Hungary during the nine years since Prime Minister Orban took office.  READ: Fertility rate of U.S. women plummets to lowest level in 30 years  Joe Grogan, Director of the Trump administration’s Domestic Policy Council, celebrated Hungary’s efforts, and emphasized pro-family steps that the U.S. has taken since 2016. He cited President Trump’s doubling of the child tax credit to $2,000 for American families, efforts to decrease unnecessary regulations on child care providers, and bipartisan promotion of paid family leave as evidence of America’s commitment to promoting strong families. Grogan also stressed President Trump’s commitment to the sanctity of preborn human life, noting that “he has restricted the use of fetal tissue for federally funded research, and published a regulation that prevents the mixing of taxpayer funding for Title X family planning program with projects that promote or refer for abortion as a method of family planning.”  Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland also dismissed the myth of overpopulation, saying “There is a growing realization among western nations that there have been myths propagated over the years. The myth, for instance, that overpopulation is the result of a birth rate. It’s not true. I am a physician. These graphs that present overpopulation is not because we have too many births, it is that people have now stay healthier and live longer because we deliver better medical care.”  “Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!


prisonplanet--2019-01-10--Fertility rate for white women plummets BELOW the limit needed to maintain the population in every s

Fertility rate for white women plummets BELOW the limit needed to maintain the population in every single US state

Fertility rates for white women were down in every US state in 2017 – below the rate needed for the population to replace itself, a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reveals.  However, among black and Hispanic women, fertility rates were up in 12 and 29 states, respectively.  When researchers looked at fertility rates for women of all age groups and races, they found that the nationwide rate was 16 percent lower than what is considered the level for a population to replace itself.  Experts say this is likely due to the fact that the large proportion of native-born women are having fewer children than before, while the much smaller proportion of immigrant-born women are having more children.  Additionally, the US white population has been hit hard by the Great Recession of 08-09, and is aging.  This article was posted: Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 7:10 am