Why People Are Having Fewer Kids, Even If They Want Them
The global fertility rate has, on average, dropped to less than half what it was in the 1960s, according to the United Nations. Credit - Getty Images
People across the world have been having fewer and fewer children, and it's not always because they don't want them.
The global fertility rate has, on average, dropped to less than half what it was in the 1960s, the United Nations has found, falling below the 'replacement level' required to maintain the current population in the majority of countries.
Amid that historic decline, nearly 20% of adults of reproductive age from 14 countries around the globe believe they won't be able to have the number of children they want to, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the UN's sexual and reproductive health and rights agency, said in a report released this week. For most of them, the report found it isn't infertility keeping them from doing so. They pointed to factors including financial limitations, barriers to fertility or pregnancy-related medical care, and fears of the state of the world that they say are hindering them from making their own fertility and reproductive choices.
'There are a lot of people out there who are willing to have children—and have more children than they have—if the conditions were right, and the government's obligation is to provide those measures of well-being, of welfare, which enable good work-life balance, secure employment, reduce the legal barriers, provide better health care and services,' says Shalini Randeria, the president of the Central European University in Vienna and the senior external advisor for the UNFPA report. But she says policies that some governments are implementing—such as cutting Medicaid in the U.S. and enforcing restrictions on reproductive health and autonomy—are both a step backward for people's rights and 'counterproductive from a demographic point of view.'
Read more: Why So Many Women Are Waiting Longer to Have Kids
For the report, UNFPA conducted a survey, in collaboration with YouGov, of people in 14 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, South America, and Africa that, together, represent more than a third of the world's population.
'There is a gap between the number of children people would have liked to have had and the number they had,' Randeria says. 'For us, it was important to then figure out—by asking them—what it is that causes this gap.'
The most significant barriers survey respondents identified to having the number of children they desired were economic: 39% cited financial limitations, 19% housing limitations, 12% lack of sufficient or quality childcare options, and 21% unemployment or job insecurity.
The prices for all kinds of goods and services have climbed precipitously in recent years. Global inflation reached the highest level seen since the mid-1990s in July 2022, according to the World Bank Group. While it has declined since then, the current levels are still significantly above those seen before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Read more: Why Affordable Childcare Is Out of Reach for So Many People
Rising costs have hit both housing and childcare hard. In the U.S., for instance, the Treasury Department has found that housing costs have increased faster than incomes for the past two decades, surging about 65% since 2000 when adjusted for inflation. And research has found that the cost of child care in the U.S. has shot up in recent years, surpassing what many Americans pay for housing or college.
The current housing crisis is impacting 'every region and country,' the United Nations Human Settlements Programme said in a report last year, estimating that between 1.6 billion and 3 billion people around the world do not have adequate housing.
People cited other factors getting in the way of them having as many children as they want as well, including barriers to assisted reproduction and surrogacy.
Several countries—including France, Spain, Germany, and Italy—have banned surrogacy. The UNFPA report also points out that many countries restrict or ban access to assisted reproduction and surrogacy for same-sex couples. In Europe, for instance, only 17 out of 49 countries allow medically-assisted insemination for people, no matter their sexual orientation or gender identity, according to the report.
The UNFPA notes that, as global fertility rates are declining, some governments are taking 'drastic measures to incentivize young people to make fertility decisions in line with national targets.' But the report argues that the 'real crisis' 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.'
According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, 40% of women of reproductive age around the world live under restrictive abortion laws. Many countries—including Brazil, the Philippines, and Poland, among others—have severely restricted abortion. In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the landmark ruling Roe v. Wade, striking down the constitutional right to abortion. Since then, more than a dozen states have enacted near-total bans or restricted abortion. There have been many reports of pregnant people being denied critical care because of state laws restricting abortions, and many women have said they don't feel safe being pregnant in states where abortion is banned.
And while a growing share of women around the world are having their family planning needs met, around 164 million still were not as of 2021, the UN found in a report released in 2022.
In addition to considering access to family planning a human right, the UN also notes that it is key to reducing poverty.
About 14% of respondents in the UNFPA report said concerns about political or social situations, such as wars and pandemics, would lead or have already led to them having fewer children than they had wanted. And about 9% of respondents said concerns about climate change or environmental degradation would lead or had already led to them having fewer children than they had desired.
Read more: Terrified of Climate Change? You Might Have Eco-Anxiety
Violence and conflict have been on the rise around the globe in recent years. The period between 2021 and 2023 was the most violent since the end of the Cold War, according to the World Bank Group, and the numbers of both battle-deaths and violent conflicts have climbed over the past decade.
That violence has contributed to years of rising displacement: More than 122 million people across the world have been forcibly displaced, the UN's refugee agency reported Thursday, nearly double the number recorded a decade ago.
The impact of the global pandemic has been even more widely felt, and is unlikely to fade from anyone's memory any time soon as COVID-19 continues to spread, develop new variants, and take a toll on people whose recovery from the virus can take months, or even years. Even beyond COVID, outbreaks of infectious diseases are becoming more commonplace—and experts predict that, in the years ahead, the risk of those outbreaks escalating into epidemics and pandemics will only rise.
In a 2024 UN Development Programme survey, which statistically represents about 87% of the global population, about 56% of respondents said they were thinking about climate change on a daily or weekly basis. About 53% of the respondents also said they were more concerned about climate change now than they were a year before. A third of respondents said that climate change is significantly affecting their major life decisions.
'I want children, but it's becoming more difficult as time passes by,' a 29-year-old woman from Mexico is quoted as saying in the report. 'It is impossible to buy or have affordable rent in my city. I also would not like to give birth to a child in war times and worsened planetary conditions if that means the baby would suffer because of it.'
Contact us at letters@time.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Twin federal proposals threaten provider taxes, key source of Medicaid funding for states
Republican efforts to restrict taxes on hospitals, health plans, and other providers that states use to help fund their Medicaid programs could strip them of tens of billions of dollars. The move could shrink access to health care for some of the nation's poorest and most vulnerable people, warn analysts, patient advocates, and Democratic political leaders. No state has more to lose than California, whose Medicaid program, called Medi-Cal, covers nearly 15 million residents with low incomes and disabilities. That's twice as many as New York and three times as many as Texas. A proposed rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, echoed in the Republicans' House reconciliation bill, could significantly curtail the federal dollars many states draw in matching funds from what are known as provider taxes. Although it's unclear how much states could lose, the revenue up for grabs is big. For instance, California has netted an estimated $8.8 billion this fiscal year from its tax on managed care plans and took in about $5.9 billion last year from hospitals. California Democrats are already facing a $12 billion deficit, and they have drawn political fire for scaling back some key health care policies, including full Medi-Cal coverage for immigrants without permanent legal status. And a loss of provider tax revenue could add billions to the current deficit, forcing state lawmakers to make even more unpopular cuts to Medi-Cal benefits. 'If Republicans move this extreme MAGA proposal forward, millions will lose coverage, hospitals will close, and safety nets could collapse under the weight,' Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said in a statement, referring to President Donald Trump's 'Make America Great Again' movement. The proposals are also a threat to Proposition 35, a ballot initiative California voters approved last November to make permanent the tax on managed care organizations, or MCOs, and dedicate some of its proceeds to raise the pay of doctors and other providers who treat Medi-Cal patients. All states except Alaska have at least one provider tax on managed care plans, hospitals, nursing homes, emergency ground transportation, or other types of health care businesses. The federal government spends billions of dollars a year matching these taxes, which generally lead to more money for providers, helping them balance lower Medicaid reimbursement rates while allowing states to protect against economic downturns and budget constraints. New York, Massachusetts, and Michigan would also be among the states hit hard by Republicans' drive to scale back provider taxes, which allow states to boost their share of Medicaid spending to receive increased federal Medicaid funds. In a May 12 statement announcing its proposed rule, CMS described a 'loophole' as 'money laundering,' and said California had financed coverage for over 1.6 million 'illegal immigrants' with the proceeds from its MCO tax. CMS said its proposal would save more than $30 billion over five years. 'This proposed rule stops the shell game and ensures federal Medicaid dollars go where they're needed most — to pay for health care for vulnerable Americans who rely on this program, not to plug state budget holes or bankroll benefits for noncitizens,' Mehmet Oz, the CMS administrator, said in the statement. Medicaid allows coverage for noncitizens who are legally present and have been in the country for at least five years. And California uses state money to pay for almost all of the Medi-Cal coverage for immigrants who are not in the country legally. California, New York, Michigan, and Massachusetts together account for more than 95% of the 'federal taxpayer losses' from the loophole in provider taxes, CMS said. But nearly every state would feel some impact, especially under the provisions in the reconciliation bill, which are more restrictive than the CMS proposal. None of it is a done deal. The CMS proposal, published May 15, has not been adopted yet, and the reconciliation bill is likely to be altered significantly in the Senate. But the restrictions being contemplated would be far-reaching. A report by Michigan's Department of Health and Human Services, ordered by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, found that a reduction of revenue from the state's hospital tax could 'destabilize hospital finances, particularly in rural and safety-net facilities, and increase the risk of service cuts or closures.' Losing revenue from the state's MCO tax 'would likely require substantial cuts, tax increases, or reductions in coverage and access to care,' it said. CMS declined to respond to questions about its proposed rule. The Republicans' House-passed reconciliation bill, though not the CMS proposal, also prohibits any new provider taxes or increases to existing ones. The American Hospital Association, which represents nearly 5,000 hospitals and health systems nationwide, said the proposed moratorium on new or increased provider taxes could force states 'to make significant cuts to Medicaid to balance their budgets, including reducing eligibility, eliminating or limiting benefits, and reducing already low payment rates for providers.' Because provider taxes draw matching federal dollars, Washington has a say in how they are implemented. And the Republicans who run the federal government are looking to spend far fewer of those dollars. In California, the insurers that pay the MCO tax are reimbursed for the portion levied on their Medi-Cal enrollment. That helps explain why the tax rate on Medi-Cal enrollment is sharply higher than on commercial enrollment. Over 99% of the tax money the insurers pay comes from their Medi-Cal business, which means most of the state's insurers get back almost all the tax they pay. That imbalance, which CMS describes as a loophole, is one of the main things Republicans are trying to change. If either the CMS rule or the corresponding provisions in the House reconciliation bill were enacted, states would be required to levy provider taxes equally on Medicaid and commercial business to draw federal dollars. California would likely be unable to raise the commercial rates to the level of the Medi-Cal ones, because state law constrains the legislature's ability to do so. The only way to comply with the rule would be to lower the tax rate on Medi-Cal enrollment, which would sharply reduce revenue. CMS has warned California and other states for years, including under the Biden administration, that it was considering significant changes to MCO and other provider taxes. Those warnings were never realized. But the risk may be greater this time, some observers say, because the proposed changes are echoed in the House-passed reconciliation bill and intertwined with a broader Republican strategy — and set of proposals — to cut Medicaid spending by close to $800 billion. 'All of these proposals move in the same direction: fewer people enrolled, less generous Medicaid programs over time,' said Edwin Park, a research professor at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy. California's MCO tax is expected to net California $13.9 billion over the next two fiscal years, according to January estimates. The state's hospital tax is expected to bring in an estimated $9 billion this year, up sharply from last year, according to the Department of Health Care Services, which runs Medi-Cal. Losing a significant slice of that revenue on top of other Medicaid cuts in the House reconciliation bill 'all adds up to be potentially a super serious impact on Medi-Cal and the California state budget overall,' said Kayla Kitson, a senior policy fellow at the California Budget & Policy Center. And it's not only California that will feel the pain. 'All states are going to be hurt by this," Park said. Wolfson writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism. Sign up for our Wide Shot newsletter to get the latest entertainment business news, analysis and insights. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Twin federal proposals threaten provider taxes, key source of Medicaid funding for states
Republican efforts to restrict taxes on hospitals, health plans, and other providers that states use to help fund their Medicaid programs could strip them of tens of billions of dollars. The move could shrink access to health care for some of the nation's poorest and most vulnerable people, warn analysts, patient advocates, and Democratic political leaders. No state has more to lose than California, whose Medicaid program, called Medi-Cal, covers nearly 15 million residents with low incomes and disabilities. That's twice as many as New York and three times as many as Texas. A proposed rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, echoed in the Republicans' House reconciliation bill, could significantly curtail the federal dollars many states draw in matching funds from what are known as provider taxes. Although it's unclear how much states could lose, the revenue up for grabs is big. For instance, California has netted an estimated $8.8 billion this fiscal year from its tax on managed care plans and took in about $5.9 billion last year from hospitals. California Democrats are already facing a $12 billion deficit, and they have drawn political fire for scaling back some key health care policies, including full Medi-Cal coverage for immigrants without permanent legal status. And a loss of provider tax revenue could add billions to the current deficit, forcing state lawmakers to make even more unpopular cuts to Medi-Cal benefits. 'If Republicans move this extreme MAGA proposal forward, millions will lose coverage, hospitals will close, and safety nets could collapse under the weight,' Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said in a statement, referring to President Donald Trump's 'Make America Great Again' movement. The proposals are also a threat to Proposition 35, a ballot initiative California voters approved last November to make permanent the tax on managed care organizations, or MCOs, and dedicate some of its proceeds to raise the pay of doctors and other providers who treat Medi-Cal patients. All states except Alaska have at least one provider tax on managed care plans, hospitals, nursing homes, emergency ground transportation, or other types of health care businesses. The federal government spends billions of dollars a year matching these taxes, which generally lead to more money for providers, helping them balance lower Medicaid reimbursement rates while allowing states to protect against economic downturns and budget constraints. New York, Massachusetts, and Michigan would also be among the states hit hard by Republicans' drive to scale back provider taxes, which allow states to boost their share of Medicaid spending to receive increased federal Medicaid funds. In a May 12 statement announcing its proposed rule, CMS described a 'loophole' as 'money laundering,' and said California had financed coverage for over 1.6 million 'illegal immigrants' with the proceeds from its MCO tax. CMS said its proposal would save more than $30 billion over five years. 'This proposed rule stops the shell game and ensures federal Medicaid dollars go where they're needed most — to pay for health care for vulnerable Americans who rely on this program, not to plug state budget holes or bankroll benefits for noncitizens,' Mehmet Oz, the CMS administrator, said in the statement. Medicaid allows coverage for noncitizens who are legally present and have been in the country for at least five years. And California uses state money to pay for almost all of the Medi-Cal coverage for immigrants who are not in the country legally. California, New York, Michigan, and Massachusetts together account for more than 95% of the 'federal taxpayer losses' from the loophole in provider taxes, CMS said. But nearly every state would feel some impact, especially under the provisions in the reconciliation bill, which are more restrictive than the CMS proposal. None of it is a done deal. The CMS proposal, published May 15, has not been adopted yet, and the reconciliation bill is likely to be altered significantly in the Senate. But the restrictions being contemplated would be far-reaching. A report by Michigan's Department of Health and Human Services, ordered by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, found that a reduction of revenue from the state's hospital tax could 'destabilize hospital finances, particularly in rural and safety-net facilities, and increase the risk of service cuts or closures.' Losing revenue from the state's MCO tax 'would likely require substantial cuts, tax increases, or reductions in coverage and access to care,' it said. CMS declined to respond to questions about its proposed rule. The Republicans' House-passed reconciliation bill, though not the CMS proposal, also prohibits any new provider taxes or increases to existing ones. The American Hospital Association, which represents nearly 5,000 hospitals and health systems nationwide, said the proposed moratorium on new or increased provider taxes could force states 'to make significant cuts to Medicaid to balance their budgets, including reducing eligibility, eliminating or limiting benefits, and reducing already low payment rates for providers.' Because provider taxes draw matching federal dollars, Washington has a say in how they are implemented. And the Republicans who run the federal government are looking to spend far fewer of those dollars. In California, the insurers that pay the MCO tax are reimbursed for the portion levied on their Medi-Cal enrollment. That helps explain why the tax rate on Medi-Cal enrollment is sharply higher than on commercial enrollment. Over 99% of the tax money the insurers pay comes from their Medi-Cal business, which means most of the state's insurers get back almost all the tax they pay. That imbalance, which CMS describes as a loophole, is one of the main things Republicans are trying to change. If either the CMS rule or the corresponding provisions in the House reconciliation bill were enacted, states would be required to levy provider taxes equally on Medicaid and commercial business to draw federal dollars. California would likely be unable to raise the commercial rates to the level of the Medi-Cal ones, because state law constrains the legislature's ability to do so. The only way to comply with the rule would be to lower the tax rate on Medi-Cal enrollment, which would sharply reduce revenue. CMS has warned California and other states for years, including under the Biden administration, that it was considering significant changes to MCO and other provider taxes. Those warnings were never realized. But the risk may be greater this time, some observers say, because the proposed changes are echoed in the House-passed reconciliation bill and intertwined with a broader Republican strategy — and set of proposals — to cut Medicaid spending by close to $800 billion. 'All of these proposals move in the same direction: fewer people enrolled, less generous Medicaid programs over time,' said Edwin Park, a research professor at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy. California's MCO tax is expected to net California $13.9 billion over the next two fiscal years, according to January estimates. The state's hospital tax is expected to bring in an estimated $9 billion this year, up sharply from last year, according to the Department of Health Care Services, which runs Medi-Cal. Losing a significant slice of that revenue on top of other Medicaid cuts in the House reconciliation bill 'all adds up to be potentially a super serious impact on Medi-Cal and the California state budget overall,' said Kayla Kitson, a senior policy fellow at the California Budget & Policy Center. And it's not only California that will feel the pain. 'All states are going to be hurt by this,' Park said. Wolfson writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Veterinarians issue warning after making alarming discoveries inside stray animals: 'Extremely harmful'
Though cows — revered in Hinduism for associations with Mother Earth and nourishment — are sacred to many people in India, local officials are concerned that human trash is causing harm to free-roaming bovines and other stray animals that eat garbage while foraging for food. Speaking with Central India's The Hitavada, city veterinarians Vinod Dhoot and Gauri Fiske, of Nagpur, raised the alarm about health risks to animals that eat improperly dumped food and garbage. Their concerns focused on plastics in the trash that stray animals consume alongside food waste. The doctors also noted that some foods are inappropriate for animals. "People often throw leftover food outside in single-use plastic bags," Dhoot told the news outlet. "Stray animals end up eating both the food and the plastic. Leftovers like chapatis and rice with high carbohydrates, when consumed in large quantities by dogs or cows, lead to acidic indigestion. In milk-producing animals, this also affects their milk production." The doctors noted that plastics can build up in cow stomachs over time. "Polythene remains in the rumen for a long time, often until the animal dies," Dhoot explained. Garbage can also contain objects that cause animals immediate injuries and infections. "Sometimes, while eating waste, they accidentally swallow sharp objects like needles, nails, or screws," Dhoot said. In the report, Fiske highlighted the risks of sanitary products, saying, "Stray dogs often come in contact with these, and it is extremely harmful for them." Fiske blamed the problems on increased waste in the city, poor waste management and regulation of stray animals, and a lack of citizen responsibility, among other factors. The problem of stray animals eating trash isn't limited to Nagpur — and it's connected to broader issues with waste plastics that are a concern for human health, as well. In an article titled "Inside India's plastic cows: How sacred animals are left to line their stomachs with polythene," The Independent documented an estimated 60,000 cows that roam Delhi, with some consuming around 110 pounds of plastic. Do you worry about how much food you throw away? Definitely Sometimes Not really Never Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Yet it's not just stray animals that are troubled by plastic trash. According to the United Nations, people produce about 507 million tons of plastic annually, with less than 10% of this getting recycled and 22% becoming litter. Plastic doesn't fully degrade in the environment (at least not on a meaningful time scale), as it breaks into microplastics that are now found even in the remotest parts of the planet. Plastic production and disposal also contribute to heat-trapping pollution that warms the planet. Though risks to human health are still being researched, plastics are ingested by people as well as by animals. They've been found in our blood and various parts of our bodies. In The Hitavada report, the Nagpur vets advocated for greater local awareness of the effects of litter and waste. They argued that people can dispose of trash more responsibly and can reduce food waste while also reporting affected animals to officials or organizations that care for strays. To counter the negative effects of plastic waste worldwide, individuals can find ways to use less plastic and support international efforts such as the U.N.-led work on a global plastics treaty. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
