{*}
Add news
March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010
August 2010
September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 August 2018 September 2018 October 2018 November 2018 December 2018 January 2019 February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 May 2019 June 2019 July 2019 August 2019 September 2019 October 2019 November 2019 December 2019 January 2020 February 2020 March 2020 April 2020 May 2020 June 2020 July 2020 August 2020 September 2020 October 2020 November 2020 December 2020 January 2021 February 2021 March 2021 April 2021 May 2021 June 2021 July 2021 August 2021 September 2021 October 2021 November 2021 December 2021 January 2022 February 2022 March 2022 April 2022 May 2022 June 2022 July 2022 August 2022 September 2022 October 2022 November 2022 December 2022 January 2023 February 2023 March 2023 April 2023 May 2023 June 2023 July 2023 August 2023 September 2023 October 2023 November 2023 December 2023 January 2024 February 2024 March 2024 April 2024 May 2024 June 2024 July 2024 August 2024 September 2024 October 2024 November 2024 December 2024 January 2025 February 2025 March 2025 April 2025 May 2025 June 2025 July 2025 August 2025 September 2025 October 2025 November 2025 December 2025 January 2026 February 2026 March 2026 April 2026
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
News Every Day |

America’s Birth Rate Has Declined 23% Since 2007 as Abortions Decimate Population

The U.S. birth rate reached a new record low in 2025, according to provisional Vital Statistics data released this month by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Last year, the U.S. recorded only 53.1 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age (ages 15-44), a 1.3% decline from 2024 and a 23% decline from 2007. The decline reflects a social shift as women are choosing to bear children later in life, as well as the combined weight of decades of social changes that undermined the American family.

The U.S. birth rate today is so far below historical averages that the total number of annual births is much smaller than in previous years, when the U.S. had a significantly smaller population. For example, there were 4.3 million births in 1961, when the U.S. population was 184 million, slightly larger than the current population of Bangladesh. In 2025, there were only 3.6 million births in the entire U.S., despite a population of 342 million.

In 1961, the general fertility rate stood at 117.1 births per 1,000 females aged 15-44, more than twice the current rate. Or, to put it differently, there were an average of 3.62 births per woman in 1961, versus an average of 1.61 births per woman in 2023 (the last year for which data is available), far below the replacement rate.

REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.

Significantly, U.S. birth rates declined most since 2024 among younger age cohorts. Births to girls (ages 10-14) declined from 0.2 per 1,000 females to 0.1 per 1,000 (a total decline from 1,727 to 1,350). Births to underage teens (15-17) declined from 5.3 per 1,000 to 4.7 (from 34,465 to 29,939), while births to 18- and 19-year-olds declined from 23.6 per 1,000 women to 21.9. There are obvious benefits to the continued decline in teen pregnancies, as most teen mothers are still unwed (if not underage) and not in a stable position to raise a child.

However, the trend shown by these data, a decline in teen pregnancies, does not explain the causes for the decline — whether it is due to less pre-marital sex or to more sinister causes, such as the easy access to chemical abortion pills by mail, a Biden-era policy the Trump administration has taken no steps to reverse.

Birth rates also declined for women in their 20s, once considered the peak years for childbearing. Among women aged 20-24, the birth rate declined from 55.8 per 1,000 women to 52.2. Among those aged 25-29, the birth rate declined from 89.5 per 1,000 women to 85.6.

By contrast, among older cohorts, the birth rate actually increased. For women aged 30-34, there were 96.2 births per 1,000 women, up from 93.7 in 2024. For women aged 35-39, the birth rate rose to 55.1 per 1,000 women, from 54.3. For women aged 40-45, the birth rate rose to 12.8 per 1,000 women from 12.7. For the age categories 35-39, 40-44, and even 45-54, the total number of births actually rose.

Notably, the age cohort with the highest birth rate was ages 30-34, closely followed by ages 25-29; lagging behind was the 35-39 cohort, followed by the 20-24 cohort. In other words, more women are giving birth in their 30s than in their 20s, although the median is still slightly above 30.

This is not a natural distribution of childbirth. According to the CDC, “A woman’s chances of having a baby decrease rapidly every year after the age of 30,” meaning that a woman’s fertility is highest in her late teens through late 20s. Thus, these data indicate that American women are choosing to have children far later than their years of peak fertility.

The important question is why there is such a delay in childbearing. One common hypothesis is that women (or, more broadly, families) wait to have children until they reach a certain threshold of economic security. Historic trends suggest that economics does play a role. During the Great Depression, for instance, birth rates plummeted from a post-World War recovery of 119.8 births per 1,000 women in 1921 to 75.8 births per 1,000 women in 1936; birth rates then rose sharply again during the economic boom that accompanied World War II, even before the famous “baby boom” of 1946.

However, economics is not the only factor at play. For starters, note that birth rates during the worst of the Great Depression were still significantly higher than birth rates today. During the relative prosperity of the 1960s, American birth rates once again plunged, falling from 117.1 births per 1,000 females in 1961 to 85.2 in 1968, and finally bottoming out at 65.0 in 1976. Despite short rallies leading to peaks in 1990 (70.9 births per 1,000 women) and 2007 (69.3 births per women), U.S. birth rates have never again climbed from this deflated level.

We must therefore ask, what happened in American society in the 1960s that led to a permanent reduction in the birth rate? Many readers likely know the answer already: the Sexual Revolution, a widespread popularizing of godless academic theories that tore sex outside of its proper expression in marriage, denied its orientation toward childbearing, and claimed it was nothing more than a vehicle for the fulfillment of adult desires.

Alongside this revolution in thought came revolutions in technology (contraception pills) and law (Roe v. Wade and no-fault divorce). Before these developments (especially contraception), married couples did not really “choose” to have children; children were just natural results of their marital union. Thus, these revolutionary changes not only helped legitimize the Sexual Revolution practically, but they did so by directly reducing the number of children women would bear. Indeed, it would be surprising if such fundamental social changes did not affect U.S. birth rates.

Since 2007, the U.S. birth rate has only declined further. To the extent that families consider financial stability when deciding whether to have children, the Great Recession and its slow recovery, not to mention the COVID panic and the ensuing inflation, have surely played a role in depressing birth rates.

Additionally, American society continues to experience aftershocks of the Sexual Revolution. Transgender ideology entices young people, especially young women, into treatments that permanently sterilize them, without due consideration for their future fertility. Radical new waves of feminism encourage women to postpone families and prioritize careers. New reproductive technologies such as IVF promise extended fertility, although they may fail to fulfill those promises. The principles of the revolution have been fruitful and multiplied even if its principals refuse to do so.

The continued decline in birth rate leaves America in a perilous position. As American women have fewer babies, and do so later in life, the population grows gradually older. American welfare programs like Social Security and Medicare rely upon a healthy, young population to support the needs of frail and elderly Americans. But a point is coming soon when the tax base of the system will no longer be able to support the beneficiaries, forcing difficult decisions about curtailing these programs. Additionally, population decline leads to empty homes and neighborhoods, a blight that invites crime and other social ills to multiply.

Progressives have a solution to America’s stalling birth rate: open the borders and invite the world to come here. After all, they don’t much like Americans anyway. Conservatives (or, more precisely, “Natalists”) have a different solution: create better incentives for families to have children.

However, this prescription is hardly popular in an individualistic society obsessed with self-fulfillment. Raising children demands endless sacrifice. But it is good, both for one’s own maturity and for society as a whole. Such long-term good is what results when we follow God’s design to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Genesis 1:28). At the end of the day, government policies do little to promote this principle. Those who believe it is true must first embody it one family at a time. With 65 years of a bad cultural example to counter, there is no time to lose.

LifeNews Note: Joshua Arnold is a staff writer at The Washington Stand, contributing both news and commentary from a biblical worldview. Originally published by The Washington Stand.

The post America’s Birth Rate Has Declined 23% Since 2007 as Abortions Decimate Population appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Ria.city






Read also

'This could end poorly': GOP had 'ugly' scramble in lead-up to big Senate choice

Bryson DeChambeau not pleased with 3D-printed club question after eventful day at Augusta National

These Republican-on-Republican disputes are keeping Congress frozen

News, articles, comments, with a minute-by-minute update, now on Today24.pro

Today24.pro — latest news 24/7. You can add your news instantly now — here




Sports today


Новости тенниса


Спорт в России и мире


All sports news today





Sports in Russia today


Новости России


Russian.city



Губернаторы России









Путин в России и мире







Персональные новости
Russian.city





Friends of Today24

Музыкальные новости

Персональные новости