logo
A mother carriers her baby during celebrations for Eid al-Adha at Trafalgar Square in June 2025 in London, U.K. A new UNFPA report warns that as global fertility rates are declining, very high proportions of men and women in every region of the world are unable to achieve their fertility aspirations.

A mother carriers her baby during celebrations for Eid al-Adha at Trafalgar Square in June 2025 in London, U.K. A new UNFPA report warns that as global fertility rates are declining, very high proportions of men and women in every region of the world are unable to achieve their fertility aspirations.

Yahoo3 days ago

Why aren't people having more kids? What we should actually be asking, according to a new global report, is why so many people feel like they can't.
It's often assumed that low fertility rates are due to people simply not wanting to have children, or more than one or two, but a report released Tuesday from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) says that's not the whole picture.
"Vast numbers of people are unable to create the families they want," said Dr. Natalia Kanem, UNFPA's executive director, in a news release.
That lack of choice "is the real fertility crisis," she said, "and the answer lies in responding to what people say they need: paid family leave, affordable fertility care and supportive partners."
The UNFPA report included polling by YouGov. About one in five of the reproductive-aged adults surveyed in 14 different countries said they won't be able to have the number of children they would like, with most saying they would likely have fewer than they wanted, or none at all.
The most common barriers were economic, with 39 per cent reporting that financial limitations affected or would affect their ability to realize their desired family size.
Other significant barriers included a lack of partner support, low-quality sexual and reproductive health care, a lack of access to services like affordable childcare, and pessimism about the future.
The polling surveyed 14,256 adults aged 18 to 88 from 14 countries including the U.S., South Korea, Italy and India between Nov. 15 and Dec. 5, 2024. It didn't mention a margin of error but said most data was nationally representative.
While Canada wasn't surveyed, the authors note the sample of countries represents a third of the global population with a mix of incomes and fertility rates.
Canadians face barriers, too
Previous Statistics Canada data shows a similar trend, with people aged 15 to 49 reporting in 2022 that comparable issues, like affordability, could influence their fertility intentions.
And 37 per cent of those polled said they did not believe they could afford to have a child in the next three years.
"Many Canadians face structural constraints that prevent them from realizing their fertility aspirations," said Rania Tfaily, an associate professor at Carleton University who studies social demography.
The topic recently came up during the federal election campaign when Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre mentioned that too many young people can't afford to buy homes before their "biological clocks" have run out.
But while his wording struck a nerve, his supporters said he highlighted a real concern. In 2022, 32 per cent of Canadians aged 20 to 29 didn't believe they would have access to suitable housing to start a family in the next three years, according to Statistics Canada.
WATCH | Why aren't Canadians having more kids?:
Canada recorded its lowest-ever fertility rate for the second year in a row in 2023, according to Statistics Canada data, at 1.26 children born per woman. It joined the ranks of "lowest-low-fertility countries," including South Korea, Spain and Japan.
Of course, it's not just a lack of choice driving the rate down — having fewer children is also seen as more desirable today, notes Lisa Strohschein, a sociology professor at the University of Alberta.
Statistics Canada data, for instance, consistently reported between 1990 and 2006 that Canadian women intended to have just over two children, on average, Strohschein said. But the most recent estimates from 2022 now suggest the desired number of children overall is 1.5, and that gets even lower with the younger people surveyed.
"At the same time, it is the case that women tend to have fewer children than they actually want — even as they want fewer children overall," she said.
Reproductive agency goes both ways
The UNFPA report emphasizes that reproductive rights go both ways, and so does the global fertility crisis.
"It is a crisis in reproductive agency — in the ability of individuals to make their own free, informed and unfettered choices about everything from having sex to using contraception to starting a family," says the report.
One in three respondents in the YouGov poll said they or their partner had experienced an unintended pregnancy, for instance, and nearly one in five said they felt pressured to have children when they didn't want to.
This can have unintended consequences on the fertility rate, the report noted, especially when policymakers attempt to control reproductive autonomy. For instance, "bans on abortion can lead to individuals voluntarily or involuntarily forgoing reproduction," the report explained.
WATCH | This is what an abortion ban looks like in Texas:
A recent study looking at U.S. medical claims found that tubal sterilization and vasectomies increased in the U.S. after among participants ages 19 to 26 after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
If we want people to achieve their desired family size, we need to move away from treating fertility as a means of controlling women's bodies, Strohschein said.
Incentives don't work, but what does?
Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump says he wants a baby boom, and has mulled incentives to try to convince more people to have children, including so-called baby bonuses.
This week, he announced his plan to create tax-deferred investment accounts for babies born in the U.S. over the next four years, starting them each with $1,000, reported The Associated Press.
Yet, as the UNFPA report notes, most incentives like this don't work, and can sometimes have the opposite effect. That's because they "are not creating the full range of enabling conditions that people say they need to have families," it states.
So what would help people have more children — assuming that's what they want?
"Guaranteed affordable and high-quality childcare for all," said Carleton University's Tfaily, as well as economic policies that could reduce people's financial stress, like better worker benefits and more stable jobs.
Strohschein had similar suggestions, like making it easier for mothers to return to work after having a baby, as well as affordable childcare.
However, "we still have not been all that successful in Canada with either of these two policy levers," she said.
"It will be interesting to see whether our national childcare program can change this in the years to come."

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How one meeting in 2020 and a GOP senator helped create RFK Jr.'s vaccine wreck
How one meeting in 2020 and a GOP senator helped create RFK Jr.'s vaccine wreck

Washington Post

time24 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

How one meeting in 2020 and a GOP senator helped create RFK Jr.'s vaccine wreck

In more than 20 years of covering policy, I have witnessed some crazy stuff. But one episode towers above the rest in sheer lunacy: the November 2020 meeting of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Sounds boring? Usually, maybe. But that meeting was when the committee's eminent experts, having considered a range of vaccine rollout strategies, selected the plan that was projected to kill the most people and had the least public support. In a survey conducted in August 2020, most Americans said that as soon as health-care workers were inoculated with the coronavirus vaccine, we should have started vaccinating the highest-risk groups in order of their vulnerability: seniors first, then immunocompromised people, then other essential workers. Instead of adopting this sensible plan, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory committee decided to inoculate essential workers ahead of seniors, even though its own modeling suggested this would increase deaths by up to 7 percent. Why did they do this? Social justice. The word 'equity' came up over and over in the discussion — essential workers, you see, were more likely than seniors to come from 'marginalized communities.' Only after a backlash did sanity prevail. I've thought a lot about that meeting as I've watched the havoc Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is wreaking as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services — including, most recently, firing all the members of the ACIP panel and replacing them with advisers more to his liking. That 2020 committee meeting was one of many widely publicized mistakes that turned conservatives against public health authorities. It wasn't the worst such mistake — that honor belongs to the time public health experts issued a special lockdown exemption for George Floyd protesters. And of course, President Donald Trump deserves a 'worst supporting actor' award for turning on his own public health experts. But if you were a conservative convinced that 'public health' was a conspiracy of elites who cared more about progressive ideology than saving lives — well, there was our crack team of vaccine experts, proudly proclaiming that they cared more about progressive ideology than saving lives. This is one of the reasons we now have a health and human services secretary who has devoted much of his life to pushing quack anti-vaccine theories. That's not to say that public health experts deserve all of the blame. They don't even deserve most of the blame, which properly belongs to Trump, who appointed Kennedy to curry favor with Kennedy's supporters, and to the Republican senators who confirmed Kennedy to curry favor with Trump. When Kennedy was being considered for the nomination, I interviewed Yuval Levin of the American Enterprise Institute about what that might mean for HHS. Levin, a former George W. Bush staffer who worked on health-care policy, said that as secretary, Kennedy would have significant power to shape our vaccination policy, thanks to his control over advisory boards such as ACIP. 'In practice, the secretary can more or less remove and add individuals to these advisory boards at his discretion,' Levin told me. I concluded that column by begging senators not to confirm him. For a moment it looked as if they might actually put principle over party. On Feb. 3, our Editorial Board praised Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana) for the probing questions he asked during Kennedy's confirmation hearing, pressing him to admit that there's no good evidence vaccines cause autism. The next day, Cassidy, who is a medical doctor, made one of the clearest and most forthright defenses of vaccination in a speech on the Senate floor: 'Vaccines save lives. They are safe. They do not cause autism. There are multiple studies that show this. They are a crucial part of our nation's public health response.' Alas, he said those things while explaining why he was voting to confirm Kennedy. His excuse was that Kennedy had promised that he was committed to vaccination … including to maintain ACIP 'without changes.' Now Levin's warning has proven prophetic. Kennedy's ACIP moves were entirely predictable to anyone who has read his book 'Vax-Unvax.' If Cassidy believed Kennedy's assurances, he was a fool, and if he didn't, he's a disgrace to his office. Not all the ACIP appointments are terrible, and one could argue that the board is now better positioned to reestablish credibility with vaccine-skeptical conservatives, something Cassidy talked about in his floor speech. But I'm afraid I can't make that argument very convincingly. Two of his appointments, Vicky Pebsworth and Robert Malone, are known for their hostility to vaccines. Most of the rest seem to be experts in fields other than vaccination. Vaccination specialists, of course, tend to have a long paper trail of public disagreement with Kennedy's theories. I'm no believer in blind deference to experts. Science isn't an answer; it's a process, and sometimes that process spits out answers that have to be revised. But I agree with Cassidy that vaccines are one of the greatest public health achievements in humanity's history. The evidence is clear that they protect millions of Americans from diseases that can kill or cripple. So if it's a choice whether to trust my health to experts who might recommend a somewhat suboptimal vaccination schedule to score political points, or to experts selected by a guy who has casually suggested that the polio vaccine has killed more people than polio, well, that's not a hard decision. And it shouldn't have been hard for Republicans to spare us that decision, either. Instead they made the same mistake as that ACIP committee, only more so: They let politics get in the way of the job they'd been given by the American public. Before writing this column, I re-listened to a recording of that 2020 committee meeting. Almost five years on, it remains equal parts enraging and mystifying. During the brief discussion period — the committee had allocated a full 10 minutes for deciding who would live or die — the panel's members didn't seem to have much to say, other than 'equity good.' But each of them said it anyway, commending one another on their high ethical standards before voting to condemn thousands of innocent people to death. The speeches were wholly unnecessary, except as a signal to fellow experts, who were then caught up in the moral fervor of America's racial reckoning. Listening, I wondered whether any of them harbored private qualms at the time, even as they publicly declared their fealty to the politics of the moment. I wonder, too, whether any of them now wake up at night, blushing in shame and humiliation, as they remember what they did, and the pompous, self-congratulatory little speech they gave about it. And that's also the question I'd really like to ask Cassidy.

GoodRx (GDRX) Launches a New Subscription Service for Erectile Dysfunction Treatment
GoodRx (GDRX) Launches a New Subscription Service for Erectile Dysfunction Treatment

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

GoodRx (GDRX) Launches a New Subscription Service for Erectile Dysfunction Treatment

GoodRx Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:GDRX) is one of the 10 Best Small-Cap Growth Stocks to Buy According to Analysts. On June 10, GoodRx Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:GDRX) announced launching a new subscription service focused on erectile dysfunction (ED) treatment. The new service aims to innovate access to ED care by addressing common barriers such as high costs, social stigma, long wait times, and inconvenience. The key features of GoodRx Holdings, Inc.'s (NASDAQ:GDRX) new subscription service include an All-in-One Solution through which customers can book virtual consultations, get access to FDA-approved medicines, and also get discreet home deliveries. The subscription starts as low as $18 per month, with the final cost depending on the prescribed medication. We recognize that many men delay or entirely avoid treatment for ED due to stigma, costs, and the inconvenience of traditional healthcare pathways,' said Katelyn Pelak, VP and Head of Product at GoodRx Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:GDRX). A pharmacist assisting elderly customers with their GoodRX codes at a local pharmacy. Moreover, the company also released its latest study on ED, revealing nearly 1 in 3 men in the United States report difficulties with erections, but fewer than 14% use any treatment, largely due to insurance coverage gaps and social stigma. GoodRx Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:GDRX) is a leading US healthcare company that helps consumers save money on prescription medications by providing free access to drug price comparisons, digital coupons, and discounts at over 70,000 pharmacies nationwide. The company operates through a mobile app and website where users can get medications, access telemedicine services to consult doctors online and receive prescriptions without insurance. It is one of the best small-cap growth stocks to buy according to analysts. While we acknowledge the potential of GDRX as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: The Best and Worst Dow Stocks for the Next 12 Months and 10 Unstoppable Stocks That Could Double Your Money. Disclosure: None. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

The GOP's big bill would bring changes to Medicaid for millions
The GOP's big bill would bring changes to Medicaid for millions

Washington Post

time33 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

The GOP's big bill would bring changes to Medicaid for millions

WASHINGTON — Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has been clear about his red line as the Senate takes up the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act : no Medicaid cuts. But what, exactly, would be a cut? Hawley and other Republicans acknowledge that the main cost-saving provision in the bill – new work requirements on able-bodied adults who receive health care through the Medicaid program -- would cause millions of people to lose their coverage. All told, estimates are 10.9 million fewer people would have health coverage under the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. That includes some 8 million fewer in the Medicaid program, including 5.2 million dropping off because of the new eligibility requirements.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store