Changes In Parenting: Nearly 1 In 4 Babies Are Born To Unwed Cohabiting Couples, CDC Report Shows

ATLANTA -- Health officials say nearly 1 in 4 babies are born to unmarried couples who are living together, a significant jump from a decade ago.

The government previously said more than 40 percent of births are to unwed mothers. But a report released Thursday offers new detail showing most unwed births occur in cohabiting couples.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study was based on face-to-face interviews with more than 22,000 men and women during 2006 through 2010.

About 23 percent of the reported births were to unmarried heterosexual couples who were living together when the child was born. That was up from 14 percent when a similar study was done in 2002. The CDC did not speculate on reasons for the increase.

___

Online:

Related on HuffPost:

From our partners

• 25 Considerations For Naming Baby - LilSugar
• A Letter To My Postpartum, Hormonal Completely Overwhelmed Self - Mommyish
• 6 Tips For Getting More Veggies Into Your Kid's Diet - BabyCenter

Comments

[giagul]

12:26 PM on 04/13/2012

as long as the kids are raised in love, food, and no abuse. that is all that matters. there are plenty of married couples abusing, beating, starving their kids to death.

a piece of paper doesnt proof you are good parent.

[megs1985]

05:02 PM on 04/12/2012

Those kids are doomed I tell you....DOOMED!!!! /sarcasm over/

[FreeThinker in AZ]

12:47 PM on 04/12/2012

I can see the religious right heads exploding this gos against there core belief, This is were church and state did not separate and it is not working out at all.

[J R M]

12:39 PM on 04/12/2012

I will the traditionalist here. What is important is that children have a stable supportive environment while they are growing up. While this can occur in cohabitation environments, marriages appear to be substantially more stable than cohabitation - I think by about a factor of 2. There is more legal protection for children in a marriage.

[jonny dipstick]

10:46 AM on 04/12/2012

Oh no, our society will pretty much collapse now that this has happened. Wait, its happening in europe and they haven't all gone to a post apocalyptic environment? How is this possible?

[wlcd]

07:25 PM on 04/13/2012

Greatr social safety net. Medical care is a right not a privilege, Clear separation of Church and State. Great public education with nationwide standards. Worker's rights. No two party monopoly in elections-more views represented in government. Not the policeman of the world.

[Aub411]

10:17 AM on 04/12/2012

I am having my first child in August-along with my husband and his small comp nay's insurance plan leaves me paying a $7,500 "maternity deductible" which is apparently separate from my $500 medical deductible! On the other hand, my friend is having a child with her boyfriend and is getting everything covered by state health insurance because she is technically a single mother.
I feel like I am being penalized for being a working, married woman and it is a daunting proect to face that kind of bill right out of the starting gate! She is also getting paid to attend school while I am taking out student loans...the system is set up to benefit those who chose to stay unmarried, IMO.

[Seven Teenatheart]

09:00 PM on 04/12/2012

When I had my child single I had a maternity deductible on top of the regular deductible. Blue Cross was no fun to deal with either. They kept giving money to Dr's, taking it back from Dr's, etc.

I was working and self-sufficient. And unmarried (I spent 20 years with my now ex-husband, but we didn't get married until our son was about six and a half).

If your friend has state insurance, could the difference be that she was out of work?

[giagul]

12:28 PM on 04/13/2012

i feel sorry for you. $7,500. that is bad insurance right there. but its not like you can get another insurance. since pregnancy is pre existent.

shoot, i would say ...see if you can get state health insurance. unless your husband makes a lot of money . than you wont qualify

[Antidiot]

01:54 PM on 04/13/2012

He could make minimum wage and she could quit work because she is pregnant, and if they are married they would not qualify, if they are not married she would. The system of figuring out how to qualify people for medicaid assumes that a) if you have a spouse you have unlimited control over their money as well as your own b) If you have a job you don't need help and c) it makes perfect sense to quit working if you get pregnant (and the other thing - if you don't have kids you don't need help? which is a whole other issue) . It was set up in the 1930's when life was different and the only updates have been by people who still have yet to get a clue and are mainly concerned with making assistance tougher to get so that they can look better politically - not being more efficient (even cost effective) and/or more helpful to those in need.

[Silverfloss]

09:50 AM on 04/12/2012

Universal health insurance coverage would encourage these couples to marry before the baby is born. As things stand now, the woman (up to age 21 or 26, whatever) is covered by her parents' health insurance for all costs related to prenatal and birth and postnatal care. If she marries, she loses that insurance and her husband's, if he has any, won't cover her "pre existing condition." It's been this way for decades. Our Private health insurers have actually encouraged the unwed mothers scenario. I've seen it happen so many times in the past 30 years.

[rabbitz]

10:24 AM on 04/12/2012

I would think UHI would do the opposite.

[Antidiot]

11:16 AM on 04/12/2012

Why? I see what Silverfloss is saying, but I don't understand your point. Most people I know who are having babies can't afford to marry for reasons just like that.

[LAKESHA WHALEY]

09:49 AM on 04/12/2012

It's so unfortunate that so many frown upon or make an issue of marriage. I've seen great marriages and people who should have never married. It allowed me to make some determined choices as to how I would approach marriage and family. Being raised by a single mother, I did not want that for myself. I was intentional about the type of man I wanted as a husband. Thank God I did so because for almost six years I've been married to a man I love and am proud to be with. Additionally, he is an exceptional father to our sons.

[NellWebbish]

12:45 PM on 04/12/2012

I don't think there is a huge group of people who "frown upon or make an issue of marriage". When asked, most cohabitating couples site economic reasons for not marrying.

Otherwise, I think most people are fine with marriage and in fact would like to increase the number of people who are getting married by opening it up to gays.

[FloB]

11:54 PM on 04/13/2012

They are not "frowning on marriage" they are just trying to get something for nothing. Usually you get what you pay for. Say what they want, you recognize that marriage forms a more stable relationship and a better family unit and offers legal protections not offered to unmarried "friends with benefits". When these in not ready to commit relationships break up there are all sorts of legal problems. in addition to an unstable home life if the relationship lasts, there can be support and inheritance problems. If Dad dies while "fiance" is still pregnant, his parents or relatives get his insurance and property. Mom would have to get a DNA test and go through the court system to prove the child was his for social security survivor benefits for the child. After a few years, Dad grows tired of family life, with no legal binding he moves in with new sweet thing and starts new family. First "baby mama" constantly has to battle for child support for his first child. Before young females derail their life, they should all sit in a family courtroom and/or volunteer in a women's shelter a few times and learn what their future may hold if they choose the wrong path.

[tosc]

09:47 AM on 04/12/2012

so why aren't the right wingers jumping on this statistic? one of their arguements against gay marriage is that children need a married woman and man for a child to be raised properly. It would seem that 1 in 4, according to this study, heterosexuals are opting NOT to embrace the institution of marriage.

[Sarita1225]

09:45 AM on 04/12/2012

I am a proud statistic! I love my man and our son. We are both gainfully employed, I am a veteran, and our child has more than either of us did when we were growing up in Detroit (better opportunities, safe neighborhood, better schools when he's old enough). To share a last name with my guys would be nice, but that I don't doesn't make our commitment to one another any less than if we had a marriage certificate.

[helenwheels74]

09:43 AM on 04/12/2012

many people treat their marriage certificate like toilet paper anyway, so what's the big fuss? as long as both parents take responsibility and put their hearts into raising the kid, whether they live together or not, i've got no issue with it. the 'ideal' nuclear family is a dying concept, we've got to figure out how to do the best we can with what we've got. men need to step up, and women need to let them. our family court system is in the dark ages. ok, bit of a tangent there ;)

[nonChristian]

09:40 AM on 04/12/2012

Christians must be writhing in pain, reading this. Whole lot of fornicators :D

[LAKESHA WHALEY]

09:50 AM on 04/12/2012

No. You make your choices and live with them.

[rabbitz]

10:27 AM on 04/12/2012

yea, I can't imagine this being good in the long run. Clearly the newer generations, having dealt with high divorce rates, feel no need to be married. the problem will come when they split up after having children will the fathers be listed as the parent or not.

[Roommate]

09:39 AM on 04/12/2012

Never marry because over half divorce so you lose half ur bank account. Marriage leads to kids which cost like a thousand dollars a year

[KIVPossum]

09:37 AM on 04/12/2012

At least 1 in 4 babies have a shot at knowing who their father is. With the incidence of unwed teens, many kinds will never have that opportunity

[NellWebbish]

12:52 PM on 04/12/2012

I'm sorry, what is the reasoning for that? Fathers have rights and responsibility for their children even without a marriage certificate.

[Antidiot]

05:48 PM on 04/12/2012

Also, I'm pretty sure most cohabiting people who have children together are committed to their relationships, both with each other and with their children. We are not talking about single people here. We are talking about cohabiting couples, many of whom intentionally planned those children - together.

[Tsvi1]

09:25 AM on 04/12/2012

Its the same in France, if not even worse, and there doesn't seem to be any issues there.
It seems the problem is not that people are not getting married, but that its overwhelmingly the poor who will become single mothers.
While that happenes in France too, France has a more equal amount of single mothers throughout all social classes.
This means that single moms do not have the same stigma there as here. Both because clearly because there is no stigma as the middle class and rich class of French participate in this family lifestyle, and because it is so well-spread it also does not cause the stigma of poverty, crime, and neglected children (whether true or not).
People need to calm down.