More

Baby Boomlet: US Births In 2007 Break 1950s Record

MIKE STOBBE   03/18/09 10:12 PM ET   AP

Babies

ATLANTA — Remember the baby boom? No, not the one after World War II. More babies were born in the United States in 2007 than any other year in the nation's history _ and a wedding band made increasingly little difference in the matter. The 4,317,119 births, reported by federal researchers Wednesday, topped a record first set in 1957 at the height of the baby boom.

Behind the number is both good and bad news. While it shows the U.S. population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend, the teen birth rate was up for a 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 that started 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. And more women _ especially those in their 30s and 40s _ are choosing to have children despite their single 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.

While the number of births in the U.S. reached nearly 4.3 million in 2006, mainly due to a larger population, especially a growing number of Hispanics, it's not clear the boomlet will last. 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 dropped 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 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 increase is different from 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 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."

___

On the Net:

The CDC report, including some state-by-state figures: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs

FOLLOW HUFFPOST STYLE

Filed by Anya Strzemien  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 286
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sunnybunny
09:31 AM on 03/22/2009
I can't wrap my head around an idea that anyone would just randomly get pregnant whenever it happens. To me, it's part of taking care of yourself and your family to plan when you get pregnant, just like brushing and flossing your teeth so they don't fall out, or exercising and eating right or good hygiene. The only thing keeping these women from having like 10 kids is bad health.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sunnybunny
09:59 AM on 03/22/2009
This is part 2 of another comment
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sunnybunny
09:30 AM on 03/22/2009
People feel differently as individuals about marriage and committment and family planning. Even in this country, there are social groups where birth control and family planning and safe sex are practically considered myths or something that "uppity people" do - right along with teeth whitening, tanning, and well, they make fun of aerobics classes too. I went to a party yesterday (redneck party) and one of the women there was getting married soon to a man she has been living with for a couple of years and we were talking about marriage and the difference between living together and being married. I made the statement about my own marriage that we had always planned to have a big wedding but not until we had lived together 10 years but we were forced because of a legal problem to go and get a marriage license about 9 years into our relationship. There isn't much difference in the way we see our relationship, but we have seen a huge difference in the way other people treat our relationship. We had made the commitment to stay together for life before we DECIDED to have our children. These women proudly stated they don't use any of that birth control stuff, that none of their children were planned, they just take what the good lord gives them and they think thats how it should be.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
brandnewstuff
04:40 PM on 03/21/2009
It make me think by some comments that Many people are single with No children- which does change a humans outlook on life- for the better- The best thing in my family are the two births we just experienced--- and are family is not out of wedlock either-
11:50 PM on 03/19/2009
Misleading story.....

The 1950 Census showed 151+ million people. The 2000 Census showed 281+ million

A baby boom of 4.3 million babies in the 1950s, isn't really being eclipsed, relative to the population.

Were we making 10 million babies, then we could evoke the baby boom stuff.

Anyway, the birth jump isn't a total surprise. People have babies in times of anxiety and crisis, you know, like comfort food..... I'm sure this will be great for society.
10:15 PM on 03/19/2009
The Housing Bubble produced this spike in offspring...

New subprime loan for the stucco McAbode in the burbs...new lease for the flossin' SUV...how about a dog or two to show off? And, then, of course, the final fashion/success accessory, the child (or 2)...

See how I successful we are! See how we've made it! All on credit!

The Bubble popped...what now?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
neurolux
...flunked micro-biology.
09:43 PM on 03/19/2009
Oh good, more people. I was afraid we were going to run out.
10:23 PM on 03/19/2009
HAhahahaa!
09:02 PM on 03/19/2009
As long as the US has a slightly positive birthrate, I'm happy. Not too positive, just a little over zero. Although I hate to see the high percentage of "unintentional" single mothers.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
cd789
aka RoryBellows
07:15 PM on 03/19/2009
I would caution against reading too much into the 40% of unwed mothers statistic before understanding their methodology for determining whether a birth occurs out of wedlock. In a number of instances, all that happens is that birth certificates are examined, and if the last names of the mother and father are different, then they are classified as unwed, and there is no follow up to see whether the birth actually comes from married mothers who decided to keep their maiden names. This artificially inflates the unwed statistic.
06:53 PM on 03/20/2009
In order to properly fill out a birth certificate you indicate whether you are married or not. It is a yes or no question so determining whether the mother is married or not has nothing to do with the last names. Birth certificate forms also ask for the highest level of education completed by each parent in addition to race and ethnicity information.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:32 PM on 03/19/2009
Someone here MUST have mentioned Soylent Green already.
06:31 PM on 03/19/2009
As long as future conservatives are multiplying faster than future Democrats (which, considering Republicans have more children and Democrats abort more), might be the case.
07:15 PM on 03/19/2009
"...and Democrats abort more"

That's absolutely ridiculous.
07:35 PM on 03/19/2009
Which orifice did you pull that out of? Cite your source, if you're so confident that's true.
03:52 PM on 03/19/2009
"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."

I don't get it?? I thought the world was becoming overpopulated......?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Sepulchre
A neutron walks into a bar...
05:09 PM on 03/19/2009
It is in non-developed countries the birth rate is growning exponentially every year, but then you probably don't count that part of the world as worth mentioning.
08:02 PM on 03/19/2009
why do you say that? i was just wondering, why so hostile?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Sepulchre
A neutron walks into a bar...
05:13 PM on 03/19/2009
And the not funny thing about it is that those same fundamentalist Christians turn around and condemn the unwed mothers. It's well like watching a person with a split personality fight with itself.

Also how do get that assumption? As the number of people decrease, consumption decreases. So even though you have a reduced population you have enough workers to accomidate your decreased consumption, not so difficult is it.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
rlugbill
01:59 PM on 03/19/2009
A lot of the births now are either unwed mothers or fundamentalist Christians of one stripe or another. Mainstream families' birth rates are down.

So, it appears that society is going to become even more split between those with very strict upbringings in a big family and those without much of an upbringing at all because no one is at home watching them because the mother is too busy.

Meanwhile, fathers are mostly in roles of either being the patriarch and breadwinner or being a distant wallet, paying out a little child support, but otherwise not around much.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Sepulchre
A neutron walks into a bar...
02:02 PM on 03/19/2009
And the not funny thing about it is that those same fundamentalist Christians turn around and condemn the unwed mothers. It's well like watching a person with a split personality fight with itself.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Sepulchre
A neutron walks into a bar...
05:11 PM on 03/19/2009
Sorry replied to the wrong post.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
patianneb
PISSST
01:50 PM on 03/19/2009
So much for education and responsibility. So much for giving a damn about anything but narcissism. The popularizing of Spears, Palin etc., not to mention Octomom is disgusting, as far as I'm concerned.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
baseballmom
My micro-bio is empty.
12:39 PM on 03/19/2009
Those who feel that one doesn't have to be married to be committed are missing the primary reason to marry: A marriage is a legal contract. Try getting your live-in's health insurance benefits or social security or making important health care decisions for him or her without that silly piece of paper.
07:37 PM on 03/19/2009
Try being gay - in California now, you're not even given that option.
02:31 PM on 03/29/2009
Yeah, I agree. Even if you don't believe in the religious aspect at all, why the h*ll would you have a kid without signing a legal contract with the other parent? Makes no sense. But then, humans aren't rational.

I also say there's something to be said about signing on the dotted line. It weeds out some of the less committed and makes some folks more committed than they would without that so-called "piece of paper". I know divorce rates are high, but "live in" relationships have even higher breakup rates.
photo
Nutcase
Of, By and For - Elsewhere known as Psycho MD
12:27 PM on 03/19/2009
It seems we are headed back to the good old days.

Over half of all women were either pregnant at or had given birth before the time of their marriage in the days prior to the American Revolution.

That may explain why our country harbors so many atavists.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
midwesthousewife
01:58 PM on 03/19/2009
Where does that information come from? And what recording agency took those figures? Just curious-- I have never seen that.
photo
Nutcase
Of, By and For - Elsewhere known as Psycho MD
02:46 PM on 03/19/2009
I ran across it while taking a History degree at UCLA back in the 1960s. It is credible though I would have difficulty locating it after more than four decades. I do recall that it was based on a compilation of records of births and marriages across all of New England. It could very well have been based on sampling but I think it was from a large study.
02:34 PM on 03/29/2009
Yes, it's true. I leaned it in a college sociology class. It just shows you how birth control in many ways has encouraged indiscriminate sex and the resultant unplanned pregnancies....the opposite of what was intened.