Teen birth rate hits historic low, federal report says

And yet again, we are only getting part of the story from a federal agency. The teen marriage rate is also significantly lower than it was in the 1950's, less than half of what it was in fact. In 1950, nearly 1 in 10 teens were married. Today that figure is roughly 4 in 100.

Tell me SC, what is the out of wedlock birthrate today? Is it also at "historic lows"? Somehow I doubt that it is. This is what happens when you focus on the symptom and not the underlying disease. Something like 7 in 10 black children are born out of wedlock, over half of hispanic children and something approaching 30% for whites. Today a child born to a woman under 30 is more likely to be born outside of wedlock than it is to have parents who are married.

These "historic" numbers aren't trotted out by the administration looking for accolades to boost its approval ratings. I wonder why that might be, don't you?

And regular birth rates are coming back from historic lows. Do Americans think the economy is coming back? Or tired of waiting for the economy to come back to have kids?

FredHayek wrote: And regular birth rates are coming back from historic lows. Do Americans think the economy is coming back? Or tired of waiting for the economy to come back to have kids?

Really?...Of course, you have a SOURCE for that?... :rofllol lol

Baby bust: U.S. births at record low
U.S. fertility rate is 63.0 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44 years old
(Two days ago)

I'll be waiting for that SOURCE....

Science Chic wrote: PS, I haven't looked in a while at what the out-of-wedlock numbers are. I'm figuring that the divorce rate is still as high as it's been so I'd guess those numbers aren't changed.

What matters to me is that the overall abortion numbers are down because the number of unintended pregnancies is down. And since it's not only single women getting abortions, then the problem isn't close to being solved, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

What else matters is that the success is coming from the plan that many of us liberals have been saying all along would be most successful if only implemented in significant effort - increased availability of contraceptives and more effective sex education programs. It works, it should be expanded.

This would be in contradiction to the paragraph you quoted in the OP, where it said that abortions are not much changed. Contraception has been available for quite some time now. Adding $10 per month to the cost of insurance to pay for a $10 a month presecription doesn't really make much sense, does it? The cost to the individual is the same as it was in the past even with the mandate that contraception be covered by prescription coverage. IUDs are not significantly more expensive than "The Pill" itself is averaged out over the effective life of the IUD. What's it cost now, about $650 on average and expected to last 60 months for the chemical variety and 120 months for the copper wound ones? Still averages out to $10 or less per month for the IUD. Plus teenagers who have never been pregnant are more likely to expel the IUD. What is that rate, about 1 in 10?

You are not one of those who believes that services mandated under "preventative care" are "free" services, are you? You strike me as being much more intelligent than that. The cost is the same as it ever was. That cost is still coming out of the pocket of the person purchasing the insurance which has the "free preventative care" mandate in it, the cost of the insurance has simply increased to cover the "free preventative care" mandated by law. One of the reasons health insurance is so expensive is that it has become less like insurance and more like pre-paid health care. The majority of the increase in cost is associated with making routine care a no-cost or low-cost "benefit" under the insurance. The insurance company is going to make their profit regardless of how much they pay out in benefits. The more benefits they are required to pay out, the more expensive the insurance is going to be. It really is just that simple.

LadyJazzer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: And regular birth rates are coming back from historic lows. Do Americans think the economy is coming back? Or tired of waiting for the economy to come back to have kids?

Really?...Of course, you have a SOURCE for that?... :rofllol lol

Baby bust: U.S. births at record low
U.S. fertility rate is 63.0 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44 years old
(Two days ago)

I'll be waiting for that SOURCE....

My source said they have flatlined and are starting to climb.

The lower teen birth rates? Too many teen boys playing video games in their basement rather than pursuing their classmates.

Who cares.

on that note wrote: Who cares.

Nation states do.
Russia and other nations are very concerned about declining birth rates and many western nations are compensating people for having children with tax credits, actual monthly checks and generous maternity and paternity benefits.

Ireland pays you a couple hundred per month for the first kid and the second child another hundred, despite not having jobs for the current generation of teens. 50,000 of them emigrate every year after graduating high school.

I guess the question is, are we a collective group of individuals working together as a nation, or are we a nation state?

Are you in charge of you are is the govt. In Russia and Ireland, sounds like the govt and not examples I want to aspire to. Taking money form your neighbor to pay you to have kids just sounds sick to me.

Perhaps if we empower individuals, Americans will not be looking at the next baby as a something to fund or get funding from. So if you designed your life to live off of the wealth of a future taxpayer, you are already screwed, this will be no big deal.

Making babies at a sustainable rate has been occurring for 1000's if not 100,000's of years with next to no help from govt. My guess is that we will be just fine, we will survive as a nation and as a species.