The nearly 4.3 million births in 2006 were mostly due to a bigger population, especially a growing number of Hispanics. That group accounted for nearly one-quarter of all U.S. births. But non-Hispanic white women and other racial and ethnic groups were having more babies, too.

An Associated Press review of birth numbers dating to 1909 found the total number of U.S. births was the highest since 1961, near the end of the baby boom. An examination of global data also shows that the United States has a higher fertility rate than every country in continental Europe, as well as Australia, Canada and Japan. Fertility levels in those countries have been lower than the U.S. rate for several years, although some are on the rise, most notably in France.

Experts believe there is a mix of reasons: a decline in contraceptive use, a drop in access to abortion, poor education and poverty.

Read More...

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

1. MikeAmerica   January 15th, 2008 - 11:17 pm I am glad the birth rate is up. However our 14th amendment is being used by invaders for an entirely inappropriate way than for what it was intended. Here in California, were broke. We cannot build a freeway interchange without floating a bond. The reason, of course, is the enormous burden invaders place on health resources, schools, roads, prisons and courts. It may be too late for California, but for you others I would urge a re-examination of the 14th amendment. Perhaps a court challenge to determine, finally, the rationality of giving American citizenship to babies born to invaders from another county. After all the 14th does not say it directly. Somehow its been interpreted this way. It has to stop. 2. Andrew Reader   January 16th, 2008 - 12:18 am The article forgets to mention that the “baby boomlet” is totally due to high fertility (about 3.6 or so) of Mexican immigrant (legal and otherwise) women. Once they populate the U.S., it will sure look like Mexico. 3. Bill Thomas   January 16th, 2008 - 1:47 am I find it incredibly biased to mention that lack of access to abortions is one of the contributors to the increased number of births. It is legal in every state, I guess the “pro-choice” agenda required the statement, because that must be the reason for so many births that “should” have been terminated. As for births outside wedlock, the US doesn’t hold a candle to Europe where the “partner” is more common than the spouse. 4. Matt   January 16th, 2008 - 3:19 am I am surprised that in a story like this you didn’t look at the religion angle. Are the women in those “certain mountain states” mormons (Utah & Idaho) and evangelical protestants (Colorado)? The hispanic women are catholic and pentecostal, I bet. What’s going on innew england that it has such a low birth rate compared to the rest of the country? Might it be that the forms of religion that promote large families are weak there, compared to the south, and west? 5. Mary t   January 16th, 2008 - 5:44 am I think its just plain offensive to talk about babies being born as if it were a scourge of some sort of insects. Funny how you only get this sort of slant from people who portray themselves as being the compassionate ones. 6. Tom Faranda   January 16th, 2008 - 5:46 am So all those poor, uneducated, people - who don’t have access to condoms and abortion - there were only 1.3 million abortions last year - insist on having babies. Wow. What’s the world coming to? Europe and Japan are contracepting and aborting themselves out of existence, and the author of this “news feature” is sorry we’re not on the same path? 7. mark   January 16th, 2008 - 5:59 am its due to our stupid illegal aliens that pile into our country and have a pile of kids to receive gov. monies…time to run them off. way over due. 8. JB   January 16th, 2008 - 7:06 am You’re right on the mark Bill T - From article: ” Experts” believe there is a mix of reasons: a decline in contraceptive use, a drop in access to abortion, poor education and poverty. These so called “experts” are the “elites” who (as you can see from the blatant arrogance of the article) view births as something related to “poverty and lack of education”. These pro-death people’s arrogance knows no bounds. They are so much “smarter” than everyone else. The paradox is they wouldn’t know truth if it smacked them between the eyes. They see life as a zero-sum game and these births are a threat to them because they see the worlds resources as limited and any new children’s gains must come at their expense. These are the ruling elites who see YOU as taking away from them, and so YOU and your offspring must be reduced or eliminated - by any means possible. Seems we went through that before in the 40’s and said “never again”. 9. Tex Taylor   January 16th, 2008 - 7:44 am The AP is so liberally biased, you always have to read each article from the lefty perspective and work your way back to the middle. Abortion is a sacrament to the left and the moral equivalent to having a wart removed. It’s that culture of death they espouse. Fortunately, I think a great many Americans, especially the women folk, have figured out this accumulation of wealth to buy more useless crap is very unfulfilling in the long run. Speaking from personal experience and as a father, if there is anything that has brought me more joy than my children, career included, I haven’t found it. Expensive? Absolutely! Challenging? The biggest challenge you’ll ever meet. But the most rewarding thing you’ll ever do is watching your children grow into great adults. Nothing like it. Thank goodness much of America is finally coming to grips that we don’t want to be like “progressive” Europe - contrary to what the “experts” think we ought to be doing. 10. LD   January 16th, 2008 - 7:48 am Foreigners are trying to out-breed the white race in this country. The quality of life in the US in 100% better than their naive country so why not have as many offspring as possible. Many caucasians have noticed this and decided why wait to finish your education get a career and be financially ready to. What benefit do you get being independent or responsible when there’s free day care, lunch program, healthcare and all the other social programs the demoncrats can come up with. 11. scot   January 16th, 2008 - 7:56 am Before even reading the article I knew it was due to our invaders popping their litters with no fear of the consequences. Mexicans have ruined California and will continue to infest the rest of our country. Wake up America. 12. Stephanie   January 16th, 2008 - 8:49 am Before reading the comments, I had a hunch that most would fall into (at least) one of three categories: Anti-abortion hysterics Environmental apocalypse hysterics Anti-immigration hysterics Two out of three ain’t bad. The points made in the article have been vindicated by these remarks. 13. Karenina   January 16th, 2008 - 10:35 am My belief, and this is my belief, is that fewer women are having abortions, not due to “education” (what a RIDICULOUS assumption!) or lack of access to abortion (because that is a lie), it is because the more science learns about how a baby is concieved and develops, the more woman (and men) come out against abortion. In the first four weeks a baby has developed a head and a trunk, arms, legs, blood vessles are in the beginning stages and beginning to pump blood, and most especially, the tissue that will form the brain and spinal cord. When you actually KNOW that at 4 weeks old, it’s already developing the most complicated parts you realize that abortion IS the taking of a HUMAN life! As more and more science comes out, you will continue to see birth rates rise. Most women (and men) just cannot come to terms with disposing of a viable living human being and take the consequences of their actions. The “choice” is having unprotected sex that everyone knows leads to pregnancy, so women still have the CHOICE, but the goal posts have moved, back, thankfully! 14. Karenina   January 16th, 2008 - 10:40 am Sorry, that should be “conceived” and “vessels”. Stupid spell check. 15. Karenina   January 16th, 2008 - 10:42 am GREAT resource! http://www.health.state.mn.us/wrtk/handbook.html 16. Andrew Reader   January 16th, 2008 - 1:34 pm “They see life as a zero-sum game and these births are a threat to them because they see the worlds resources as limited and any new children’s gains must come at their expense.” Are you one of those who favor perpetual population growth that will drive us all into poverty of Calcutta, India, or other grossly over-populated Third-World area? Or you have a device in your pocket to enlarge Earth’s inhabitable area and volume of available breathable air and drinkable water there? Because based on your idiotic advice, all those who use birth control and family planning in order to maintain sustainable population (at the current level of living standard) in the U.S. are suckers, and everything should go to volume breeders who have 6, 8, 10 or 12 children per family regardless of their (in)ability to provide decent subsistence for them.

Post a Comment

Name * Mail (will not be published) * Website   Comment Notice: Comments containing foul language will not be posted. Enter the characters from the image below:   * Required Fields