Births plunge to record lows in U.S.
By LEO HOHMANN
America has entered a demographic winter that should make every patriotic citizen shiver with concerns for their children’s future.
That is, if they have any children.
It’s a problem you won’t hear much about in the media but it’s been brewing for years. For many feminists, to even talk about it is tantamount to the unforgivable sin.
But all denials aside, this problem is as plain as the nose on little Johnnie’s face: The birth rate in these United States of America is imploding.
After several lackluster years, the rate fell by a record amount in 2017, according to a new report put out by the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta.
U.S. birth rates declined last year for women across the board – in their teens, 20s and even in their 30s – leading to the fewest babies being born in 30 years, according to the CDC report released Thursday, May 17.
Thursday’s report shows that the birthrate decline that started in 2014 was likely not a blip but the beginnings of a trend. America the global superpower has entered the clutches of a demographic death spiral from which it appears unable to pry itself loose.
The CDC report, based on a review of more than 99 percent of the birth certificates filed nationwide, counted 3.853 million births last year. That’s the lowest since 1987.
The fertility rate now stands at 1.7 births per woman. For a generation of Americans to replace itself, it takes a fertility rate of at least 2.1 children per woman.
The U.S. was, until a few years ago, among a handful of developed countries that could muster the pivotal 2.1 threshold. That day is apparently gone, with millennials having a stronger aversion to large families — or even medium-sized families for that matter — than even the previous generations of baby boomers and gen-Xrs [who were not exactly prolific themselves].
A decade ago, the estimated rate was 2.1 children per U.S. woman. In 2017, it fell below 1.8, hitting its lowest level since 1978. “That’s a pretty remarkable decline,” John Santelli, a Columbia University professor of population and family health and pediatrics, told the Associated Press.
In my 2017 book, Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest through Immigration and Resettlement jihad, I pointed out the critical importance of birthrates to a nation’s survival. Secular globalists teaching in our schools and universities have brainwashed students since the 1960s that smaller is better when it comes to family size. But in the Islamic world, there is no such taboo against having kids.
A 39-year-old Christian woman who has worked in Germany’s migrant camps for years told The Express that Christians in those camps are harassed and intimidated. They thought she was a Muslim, so they confided in her.
“Some women told me, ‘We will multiply our numbers. We must have more children than the Christians because it’s the only way we can destroy them here.’”
U.S. Muslims have repeatedly boasted of the same strategy. In 2015, a Muslim mother lashed out in anger at a school board meeting in Jersey City, New Jersey, when the board refused to grant students the day off for the Islamic holiday of Eid al-Adha, warning that “We’re going to be the majority soon!”
In the free nations of the West, a declining population is the norm, and any increases in population are due strictly to immigration from the Islamic world. A declining birthrate results in an aging population and leads almost without fail to a nation turning to mass migration to save its economic soul.
As a nation’s young women opt for abortion and contraception in place of motherhood, that nation inevitably falls into a pattern of a slow decline.
If the low-birthrate trend continues, it becomes increasingly difficult to pay the Social Security pensions and healthcare needs of the previous “boomer” generations.
To head off the coming economic implosion, politicians look for a quick fix: Importing foreign laborers to pay for the mounting pensioners and to do the jobs that were once done by the indigenous population starts to look increasingly appealing. And you can count on the Chamber of Commerce to stand over the shoulder of elected leaders, whispering words of encouragement for them to dive into the foreign labor pool head first.
The United Nations also advises low-birthrate countries in the West to “replace” their aging native populations with Third Worlders [See Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Aging Populations, UN Archives, 2000]
Just ask the Swedes, the Brits and the Germans how well that formula has worked out for them.
If we want to know what our future will look like, just look across the pond: The call to Islamic prayer rings out over loudspeakers, surging migrant knife attacks, no-go zones, out-of-control sexual assaults against women and girls, and, finally, the widespread election of Muslims to public office.
These European nations started their decline long ago, soon after World War II, leading keen observers like Ben Wattenberg and Mark Steyn to warn that the U.S. may become the fading last remnant of a Western civilization based on Christianity, free enterprise, freedom of speech and religion. [Steyn authored America Alone in 2006 while Wattenberg predicted back in 1987 a forthcoming population decline in The Birth Dearth: What Happens When People in Free Countries Don’t Have Enough Babies?]
I am not sure if a nation actually loses its will to survive, or if its inhabitants just become more self-absorbed as they become more educated and wealthy. Self-absorbed people tend to opt for pets over children. They don’t talk back, they sit and shake hands on command, and can be counted on to return affection with affection. Children are far more unpredictable and can be exhausting.
Modern society also lacks the close extended-family relationships that previous generations counted on to help raise larger families. Children today are more likely to not even know their grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins, seeing them only infrequently due to the scattering of families across state lines.
Whatever the causes, we’ve seen what happens to an aging, declining nation whose leaders decide to delve headlong into mass migration as their economic panacea. Such a nation gravitates increasingly toward global governance, loss of sovereignty, and a multicultural worldview that seeks to punish one’s own culture while promoting foreign cultures that have no history of appreciation for individual freedom. [News flash: This means saying adios to the First and Second Amendments to the U.S. Constitution].
The “politics of guilt and pity,” as the late author Rousas Rushdoony called it, spells doom for any great power that becomes addicted to the toxic trifecta of foreign labor, a tax-funded welfare state and self doubt bordering on self hatred.
Germany, Italy, France, Greece, Sweden, Spain and the UK are all suffering the after-effects of drinking from this toxic cup. The governments of these countries, faced with aging populations, all turned to mass migration to fill in the gaps in their labor forces and temporarily prop up their economies. It’s obvious now that this was fool’s gold.
Yet, we see American politicians falling into the same trap — and it’s not only Democrats. Jeb Bush argued for an increase in legal immigration, already at historically high levels, in his 2015 book Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution, citing declining birthrates as his main justification.
You can argue whether mass-migration is the best solution to the birth dearth, but you cannot argue with the fact that our current economy is based on the concept of perpetual growth, and perpetual growth requires a steady stream of young workers entering the work force.
The options are limited: Either we find a new economic model based on moribund growth, like Japan seems intent on doing, we continue to increase the number of new immigrants, or we somehow convince our young women of the blessings of motherhood. The only way to do the latter is for men to release their spouses from some of the income-producing responsibilities. Many families in today’s globalized economy have been squeezed to the point where they simply cannot survive without both spouses working full time. Yet, we all know of other families for whom the second income is a luxury, not a necessity.
According to the Associated Press, experts cited several factors contributing to a perfect storm of declining U.S. birthrates. Chief among them is “shifting attitudes about motherhood among women in their 20s and early 30s.”
Births have been declining since 2014, but 2017 saw the greatest year-to-year drop – about 92,000 less than the previous year.
That surprised the report’s authors, because baby booms often parallel economic booms, and last year was a period of low unemployment and a growing economy.
The CDC report also found the following fascinating facts:
- The rate of births to women ages 15 to 44, known as the general fertility rate, sank to a record low of about 60 per 1,000.
- Women in their early 40s were the only group with higher birth rates in 2017, up 2 percent from the year. The rate has been rising since the early 1980s.
- The cesarean section rate rose slightly after having decreased four years. Studies have shown C-sections are more common in first-time births involving older moms.
- Rates of preterm and low birth weight babies rose for the third straight year, possibly for the same reason.
- Birth rates for teens continued to nosedive, as they have since the early 1990s. In 2017, they dropped 7 percent from the year before.
- Birth rates for women in their 20s continued to fall and hit record lows. They fell 4 percent.
- Perhaps most surprising, birth rates for women in their 30s also fell, dipping 2 percent for women ages 30 to 34 and 1 percent for women 35 to 39.
Leo Hohmann is a veteran journalist and author of the 2017 book “Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad.” If you appreciate this type of original, fact-based and independent reporting, please consider a donation of any size to this website. We accept no advertising and are beholden to no one.
9 thoughts on “Birth dearth: Millennials’ rejection of parenthood could be lethal blow to Western civilization”
Does the modern rejection of parenthood signal the end of Western Civilization or the rebirth of it? While it is true that Western liberals are not having children, Western religious conservatives are having children. Nobody pays attention to the birth rate divide because most of the large families are homeschooled or religiously private schooled and are therefore out of the public eye. Even more interesting is the fact that most of the (legal) immigrants to the West have been influenced by pro-family concepts through decades of Protestant missionary activity around the world and are more “Western” (i.e. monotheistic, entrepreneurial, hard-working) then most native-born liberal Westerners and are bolstering Western Civilization, not destroying it. What we are seeing is not the disappearance of the West, but the cultural suicide of Western liberals/progressives. Ironically, this entire paradigm is playing itself out in the daily news aging and impotent liberal Westerners violently lash out at the God-fearing, pro-family, pro-work-ethic people who make up both the majority of the West and the majority of our immigrants.
Can you imagine? A future where the West is again pro-God, pro-family, and pro-hard-work? The possibilities are limitless.
I suspect the “women’s movement” has a lot to do with this reality. I grew up in the 50s, when most moms were at home raising their brood and relating to their peers on a daily basis. Birth control was, for the most part, hit or miss and limited to rhythm or mechanical methods. When the 60s hit, along with Betty Friedan et al, the pressure for women to “self-actualize” escalated exponentially, and our kids took it in the shorts. But the long-term effect on the economy was just as bad, in the sense that, as household incomes rose (due to two wage-earners), demand also rose for goods and services, and consequently prices rose to parallel the demand. In those days, a minimum wage of approx. $3.50/hr, or $6720 annually, corresponded to about $12,000 for an average house. That’s less than 2 years’ annual gross income. Today’s minimum wage of approx. $10 gets you $19,200 in annual income, but the average cost of a house is more like $240,000 in many parts of the country. Those same 2 years of work now get you $43,200 in gross income, but only 1/5 the cost of an average house, and more like 1/10 the cost in many localities. In other words, housing now costs 5-10 times what it used to, and that is largely due to increased family incomes (i.e., supply and demand). Good bargain? Hardly. But what would happen if millions of women opted to return home to raise their families fulltime and consequently dramatically lower their standard of living? Would prices fall? Possibly, slowly, but only at the cost of precipitously escalating default rates on every conceivable type of debt, leading to potential financial collapse on a scale never previously known. Which further drives the incentive for women to keep working rather than raising their own kids, or perish the thought, having MORE kids. So essentially we’ve imprisoned ourselves in a financial and social jail of our own making, all because we threw God’s prescription for families out the window. Do we actually think God wanted children to be raised in daycare institutions and by godless public schools? (1 Tim. 2:15) But obviously the Almighty Dollar won the adulation of our souls and we are the poorer for it. And now, many millennials entering the workforce can’t even afford rent in many of our cities, let alone a home of their own. The American dream has gone on hiatus, and consigned many of us to hopeless drudgery on the hamster wheel of life.
I wrote a blog post on this issue about 10 years ago after reading a NY Times article on the same topic. That it is happening now in the US in 2018 is no great surprise. In fact it is a continuing tragedy.
I want to ask, is your figure stating the number of births in 2017 limited to births to American citizen mothers? Does it include births to noncitizen and illegal mothers? I keep reading articles stating that, today, the annual number of births to illegal alien mothers is about half a million, but have not seen any figures for births to Muslim mothers in our country. Another question, would the figures differ in different parts of our country, small cities as opposed to large, etc? I live in a small southern city. I have 3 neices, each have three kids. I, myself, know, personally, 5 young unmarried women with 1-2 babies. Our elementary schools are full. I see lots of young children every time I go out shopping. I realize this is not statistical, just observation, but I wonder about what babies were included in this count. If the count made no differences in births to American citizen mothers and noncitizen mothers, the actual numbers for Americans replacing themselves could be even worse. Anyway, turning our bation over to foreign third world illegal aliens and third world Muslims is NOT the answer if we wish our America, as founded, to continue for our descendants. Replacing our own people with foreign people totally different in all respects accomplishes nothing but the loss of ourselves along with all the freedoms and independence our ancestors built and left for us to fight for. Most all of my childbearing years were represented by the push to decrease the population in order to save the planet. But, another cause for most of us of my era in limiting our children to, usually 1 or 2, is being able to afford them, not just financially but also in time and attention because most of we mothers worked. We might have chosen, after marriage, to both work for a few years to get settled before starting a family, but birth control options then were not what they are today. I, personally, think we stopped having more children, if any, is because we have become, over the last 3 decades, more and more selfish and self centered and fixated on material things for ourselves as well as our children. I wonder is there any correlation between the start of fewer births and the beginning easy access to credit cards?
Really interesting – keep up the good work!
Comments are closed.