Baby boomlet: US births in 2007 break 1950s record
March 18, 2009 By MIKE STOBBE , AP Medical Writer
Graphic shows number of births in the U.S.
(AP) -- More babies were born in the United States in 2007 than any year in the nation's history, topping the peak during the baby boom 50 years earlier, federal researchers reported Wednesday.
There is both good and bad news from the more than 4.3 million births:
-The U.S. population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend.
-However, the teen birth rate was up for the second year in a row.
The birth rate rose slightly for women of all ages, and births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40 percent, continuing a trend begun years ago. More than three-quarters of these women were 20 or older.
For a variety of reasons, it's become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke University's S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher.
Even happy couples may be living together without getting married, experts say. Some cited a growing trend among all adult women to have children regardless of their marital status.
The new numbers suggest the second year of a baby boomlet, with U.S. fertility rates higher in every racial group, the highest among Hispanic women. On average, a U.S. woman has 2.1 babies in her lifetime. That's the "magic number" required for a population to replace itself.
Countries with much lower rates - such as Japan and Italy - face future labor shortages and eroding tax bases as they fail to reproduce enough to take care of their aging elders.
But it's not clear the boomlet will last long. Some experts think birth rates are already declining because of the economic recession that began in late 2007.
"I expect they'll go back down. The lowest birth rates recorded in the United States occurred during the Great Depression - and that was before modern contraception," said Dr. Carol Hogue, an Emory University professor of maternal and child health.
The 2007 statistical snapshot reflected a relatively good economy coupled with cultural trends that promoted childbirth, she and others noted.
Meanwhile, U.S. abortions have been dropping to their lowest levels in decades, according to other reports. Some have attributed the abortion decline to better use of contraceptives, but other experts have wondered if the rise in births might indicate a failure in proper use of contraceptives. Some earlier studies have shown declining availability of abortions.
Cultural attitudes may be a more likely explanation. Morgan noted the pregnancy of Bristol Palin, the unmarried teen daughter of former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The young woman had a baby boy in December, and plans for a wedding with the father, Levi Johnston, were scrapped.
"She's the poster child for what you do when you get pregnant now," Morgan said.
Teen women tend to follow what their older sisters do, so perhaps it's not surprising that teen births are going up just like births to older women, said Sarah Brown, the chief executive for the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.
Indeed, it's harder to understand why teen births had been declining for about 15 years before the recent uptick, she said. It may have been due to a concentrated societal effort to reduce teen births in the 1990s that has waned in recent years, she said.
The statistics are based on a review of most 2007 birth certificates by the National Center for Health Statistics, part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The numbers also showed:
-Cesarean section deliveries continue to rise, now accounting for almost a third of all births. Health officials say that rate is much higher than is medically necessary. About 34 percent of births to black women were by C-section, more than any other racial group. But geographically, the percentages were highest in Puerto Rico, at 49 percent, and New Jersey, at 38 percent.
-The pre-term birth rate, for infants delivered at less than 37 weeks of pregnancy, declined slightly. It had been generally increasing since the early 1980s. Experts said they aren't sure why it went down.
-Among the states, Utah continued to have the highest birth rate and Vermont the lowest.
CDC officials noted that despite the record number of births, this is nothing like what occurred in the 1950s, when a much smaller population of women were having nearly four children each, on average. That baby boom quickly transformed society, affecting everything from school construction to consumer culture.
Today, U.S. women are averaging 2.1 children each. That's the highest level it's been since the early 1970s, but is a relatively small increase from the rate it had hovered at for more than 10 years and is hardly transforming.
"It's the tiniest of baby booms," said Morgan in agreement. "This is not an earthquake; it's a slight tremor."
©2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Dec 03, 2007 |
not rated yet |
0
Sad to see that 40% of births happen to out of wedlock! These children will have lower education, more poverty, will be in more physical danger, have greater mental/social issues.
Govermnment loves out of wedlock babies. When you have a baby out of wedlock, the govnerment steps in, creates programs, intrudes into your lives.
Couples, if you love your children and want the government to stay out of your lives, get married before having a child!
If I have to explain it to you, then you probably won't understand...but here goes...
Believe it or not MANY women LIE about being on the pill for a multitude reasons, and they essentially have no repercussions about doing so (in fact in most cases will benefit from it). While many men are duped into paying 18 years (or more) of child support AND excluded from their children's lives...or being labeled "dead beat dads".
This (a male pill) would put men and women on equal footing power wise with respect to reproduction and insure that this practice would at the very least be trimmed down significantly. It will in effect overnight take away the political/biological/legal power women have had over this issue.
If you don't believe me look at some of the maniacal rants against the introduction of male hormonal contraceptives on feminist sites...it's quite telling AND entertaining.
On a side note, and one that will lower prengnacy rates amoung non-married, I propose that a woman should not get child support from a man, unless they were marrried when the child was conceived. Also, the state should not support single women with children. If a person cannot take care of a child, the state should step in and take the child, until the mother (or father) can provide for that child. I have no problem supporting a child, but I have big problems supporting dead-beat parents (fathers and mothers)
Go women go, use your freedom to destroy lives.
1) The amnesty bills that were passed and increased eligibility for prior illegal aliens
2) The record number of births to illegal aliens.
It's a well known fact that if a woman conceives with a US citizen and that child is born on US soil, citizenship is automatically granted to the child, making it almost immoral to deport the mother, and illegal to deport the child.
Now this most likely isn't a driving factor, but more a contributor to the overall increase.
It's most likely a combination of many small factors that leads to mini booms of this nature, the economy of the country being the foremost indicator that an increase is comming.
People need to stop and think before they just screw and make babies!
I think the male pill will help for other reasons, though. A man or young boy doesn't have to think twice about the stigma associated with taking birth control. Particularly young women are kept off of it, because the concept that they are now "loose" women. Guys are likely to be able to take it with pride. So, it should reduce teen pregnancy.
Also, if both the man and the woman are taking it, it will further reduce unplanned pregnancy. So, all around, there is benefit.
Unforseen side affect? Some men will forgo the use of condoms once they start the pill. Will there be increased disease?
Sure, they are arrogant. Men rule the world, and look at the results! Sure, it would be really nice to have men who are protective and can take care of the women and the babies... But they can't. They are not willing or not capable, so what is the modern woman left to do? Don't you see that modern women have no other choice?
While I hear the argument all the time that there are unhappy married couples and that some children do better that some children in married homes, it cannot be argued by reasonable people that children on whole do better in such situation.
Women who have children outside of wedlock, do not have the best intentions for their children. Fathers who have children outside of wedlock do not have the best intentions for their children.
I am a modern father. I take care of my children, I am protective of my children and wife.
While there are many men who call themselved modern and do not take care of their children I can say the same about modern women. They dont take care of their children. They have them out of wedlock by men who are horrible, who then stick them to be raised by the state in daycare.
Those factors attributed to a single parent household could be causative rather than corollary or simply component pieces of that societal class.
The "traditional household" view has been proven false in many studies while social class determining family structure has been observed to be rather accurate.
Good for you! But not everybody is the same. Most people I know who are married with children have to work day and night to make the ends meet. It's a two-income world, dude, so THEY have to stick their children in daycare, too. So, what's the difference? Also, the statistic is no longer correct. With the increased number of women in the workforce, the picture has changed. Now, popularly speaking, if the mom makes big bucks and the dad is a looser, sometimes the mom is better off not to marry him. Think Britney Spears. Yep, the men are no good, but that's the ones we've got, Mr. Perfect!
FACTS:
the number one killer of children are their mothers, number two killers of children are the boyfriends of the mothers, number three killer of children are the biological father. Why am I stating this? Its to show that anything that adds stress to a woman, or removed a biological dad away from their children increases the safety risk to those children.
Commonlaw marriages are the least stable or all relationships. Why should the man commit when the woman is dumb enough not to demand it? Yes some work, but the exception does not prove the rule. A woman is much more likely to be dumped by a man in common law marrage. Thats a FACT. Wether or not that makes me happy is not the point.
A couple in commonlaw marrage is statistically a single parent household yet to be. Always so, no, but statistically most likely. Its just like a drunk driver most likely doesnt have an accident or kills someone everytime s/he drives drunk, but the stats are against him/her. Also some people drive better drunk than some do sober, that doesnt mean people should drive drunk. It just means the sober people need to learn to do it better.
Sticking a child in Daycare is worse than raising them at home statistically speaking. Society should encourage and promote one parent staying home.
Also, a man who stays at home to look after his child is NOT A LOSER. Only a vicious person would say that. I will not call a worman who stays at home a loser, so a man isnt either. I know of a man who stayed home because his wife made more money. I keep telling my wife she needs to find a job that makes more than me, so I can stay home.
Poverty, danger, less education, more government involvement is a sad thing. It is sad that 40% of children are born to unwed mothers. Children deserve the best the parents can give. Not the worst.
Who exactly do you think "THE STATE," is??? Have you ever visited the low budget, overcrowded, APATHETICALLY run foster care homes? And for all the man haters in the other comments; I've only attracted wonderful, strong men. Maybe the huge chips on your shoulders are scaring the nice guys away. Remember the Universal Law; LIKE ATTRACTS LIKE.
What about diaphragms?
First of all it's vasectomy. Secondly...your fing kidding right? Or are you really THAT moronic?
First of all condoms are NOT effective in preventing pregnancy. They have a 15% failure rate...which is abysmal.
Secondly what could possibly be wrong with simply putting another choice on the market? What do you have against a TRULY effective method of male contraception? Nevermind...I'll answer for you, you fear the loss of power and control women have had over the issue for decades. I know your type all too well.
And will yet insist upon the courts making these "unreliable" men pay for the children they have...won't they.
Guess that depends on how you define both of those terms.
It does do one thing tho, it makes damn sure it's VERY painful for the "unreliable" male to get out of a bad situation...
What bugs me is that people who make poor choices attack those who make good choices. Having a parent (mother or father) stay at home, being married before having kids, etc, etc are attacked by ignorant people. You state it is almost impossible today to have only one person working while the other stays at home (you even said a man who does this is a loser), I and many, many others prove you wrong. I guess you feel guilty for not staying home, for putting you kids in daycare, etc etc. But in your guilt (shame maybe??) dont spread the lie that it is impossible to do what is best for children. Is it hard to do the right thing for children? Yes, but you make the choice.
I repeat I do not think that men who stay home with kids are loosers!
And will yet insist upon the courts making these "unreliable" men pay for the children they have...won't they.
No, they won't. I do not understand why you are so cynical. I am the provider in the family, and, yes, I have a great guy, but he cannot afford to support me, let alone our child. Though would I "keep him on the hook" should things go bad between the two of us? No way! What for? But that would be the same if we were legally married. That's why I am keeping my day job... However, with 50% of marriages ending up in divorces, I can assure you, a lot of women would be better off to have their basis covered when their husbands walk away on them with a bunch of children after years of a "happy" and "legal" marriage.
Although your idealism is great, and your point of views aren't necesarily flawed under perfect circumstances, realize that not all women are like you or think like you do.
There is merit to what Modern is saying about women leveraging the court against former spouses.
Conversely Modern, realize that those same leverages do also apply without marriage in the mix.
You're both right, and you're both wrong. It's a case by case basis.
No we simply DON'T have even remotely as good a choice in contraception as women do now. THAT is the simple truth. As such women are more responsible or irresponsible as many (no not all V) cases bear out in this regard.
You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts...and the fact is that hormonal contraception is the only truly reliable method available (and it's currently only available to women).
So yes it IS fair to blame a woman who says she's taking a highly reliable method of contraception when in fact she isn't for any resulting pregnancy. A man may take the best choice available to him and only be effective 85% of the time to counter her potential deception....not exactly russian roulette, but not GOOD odds by any means unless of course it's a one time deal.
V.
All too aware that they do...I fail to see how this diminishes the overall point I'm making though. In fact it reinforces it....
Basically I'm through giving modern women a "free ride" on this issue. They have ALL the power and NONE of the responsibility (unless you count carrying a child for 9 months, which they don't have to do either if they don't want to) on these issues.
It's to be a moot point soon however. Thank God modern pharmacology is going to take away all that power and force some responsibility and make it a 50-50 split like it should be...well at least as far as simple contraception goes (ignoring the blatant legal bias for women in our current legal system).
Well, the best 100% reliable contraception is abstinence. If you are REALLY that concerned, don't have sex until you get married. Men do not get that there is no such thing as "casual sex". And yes, men just as responsible (or irresponsible) for getting intimate without getting to know the woman or giving too much thought to the possible consequences.
What's wrong with women getting their tubes tied until they are married?
Of course that's a dumb question, as is your question about a vasectomy.
FYI getting snipped doesn't guarantee your shooting blanks.
As I said before, this is a person by person thing. Having more options available simply means you'll have more people making a choice rather than "going with the flow" and playing russian roulette.