affairs “a complete revolution in the way we value family and children.”
RED-BLUE DIVIDE America’s fertility crisis is tracking along political fault lines. Demograph- ic data clearly show that red-state resi- dents are having a lot more babies than their blue-state counterparts. Take the blue stronghold of Seattle
as one example. Based on the fed- eral data number-crunching by Steven Malanga, City Journal’s senior editor, the average Emerald City woman will bring .96 children into the world dur- ing her lifetime. That explains why Seattle’s popu-
lation growth has slowed in recent years — and is likely to actually shrink in the future unless something drasti- cally changes. In the red-state stronghold of Dal-
las, by contrast, women average a robust 2.36 children. By that measure alone, Big D is destined to be fruitful and multiply. The same red-blue disparity is
reflected nationwide. Women in more conservative regions enjoy higher fer- tility rates than their blue-state cous- ins, although they too often fall below the replacement rate. Consider: South Dakota has the nation’s high- est total fertility, at 1.99. The lowest fertility, at 1.19, is found in Wash- ington, D.C., followed by 1.27 in Ver- mont. The 15 states with the highest fer- tility rates are all either Republi- can strongholds or GOP-leaning, as rated by the Cook Political Report.
In the red-state stronghold of Dallas, by contrast, women average a robust 2.36 children. By that measure alone Big D is destined to be fruitful and multiply.
The six states with the lowest fertil- ity are all rated either safely Demo- crat or Democrat-leaning. The biggest fertility nosedive hap- pened in California. It plummeted from having the third-best U.S. fer- tility rate in 1990, at 2.47, to the ninth worst today, at 1.47. New York and Illinois aren’t doing much bet- ter, at 1.54 and 1.51 respectively.
CURING THE CONUNDRUM The red-blue fertility divide matters because policymakers want to know how to get people to have more babies. Proposals include childcare subsidies, paid maternity leave, subsidized fertil- ity treatments, per-child family allow- ances, and larger tax credits for depen- dent children. Many of these measures have been
tried either here or abroad, and have had mixed success at best. Richards thinks he knows why. It turns out that whether you have a big family or not transcends mere
Open Borders Won’t Solve Problem U
ndocumented immigrants give birth to an estimated
250,000 babies annually in the United States. Biden- Harris supporters use low U.S. fertility rates to justify the administration’s open immigration policies. America needs the influx of cheap labor, they say, arguing
the human influx is actually good for the economy. Jay W. Richards, director
of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family at The Heritage Foundation, begs to differ. It’s true, Richards says,
that first-generation Latin Americans have higher
economics, and strongly depends on the values and culture prevalent in the place where you live. “The average Seattle wife,” Rich-
ards notes, “is being taught — and believes — that children are carbon footprints. The more people born, the closer we are to some kind of cli- mate catastrophe. “That’s going to have an impres-
sion on people; it’s going to affect the way you view having children. “If, on the other end,” he says,
“you think God has created man and woman in his image to be fruitful and multiply, that’s going to have an effect, too, culturally. And it can be so profound.” One place to start, he suggests, is
getting rid of policies and regulations that discourage child-rearing by sta- ble families. He notes, for example, the “marriage penalty” that can leave mothers on welfare with less income if they have children and stay married. “That’s the least we can do,” he
says. “Let’s get government out of the way where it is preventing family formation.” Experience suggests it’s not enough
for societies to support marriage and child-bearing economically. How the value of parenthood is portrayed in a culture is critical as well. “The central irony of fertility is
that so many of our fellow Americans, when they think of having kids, or having more kids, imagine it as a bur- den and a cost on their life. And then you discover children are your life’s greatest blessing.”
fertility rates than native-born Americans. When they first arrive, they often reflect the fertility patterns seen in their native countries, where young mothers with large families are common. Once on U.S. soil, however,
the trend soon changes. “They very quickly tend
to assimilate to American fertility patterns,” Richards tells Newsmax. “It only seems to last about one generation. “So, we’re not going to
solve this problem simply with immigration,” he adds. “If a country just decides to stop having children collectively, the days of that country are numbered. It’s really that simple.” — A.H.
OCTOBER 2024 | NEWSMAX 29
DESIGNED BY FREEPIK
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108
