NPR⁠84%

710,000 fewer babies were born last year in U.S. compared with two decades ago ⁠15%

By Brian Mann⁠0%

4/9/2026, 6:45:39 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Pessimism Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 46.2% saturation with 324 hits. Analysis detected 2,146 faulty-reasoning hits from 702 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 31.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠15% (17,454 of 20,370 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 85.70% of the article peer group.

Women in the U.S. gave birth to roughly 710,000 fewer children last year compared with the nation's peak in 2007, according to preliminary data released this week by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 
Lead researcher Brady Hamilton, a demographer with the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, said the latest one percent drop in "general fertility" from 2024 to 2025 is part of a long-running downward trend. 
"Since 2007, there's been a decline in the general fertility rate [in the U.S.] of 23%," Hamilton told NPR. 
The impact of that change in real numbers is sizable: In 2007, there were 4,316,233 babies born. 
Last year, even though the nation's population as a whole is larger, there were only 3,606,400 newborns. 
There's no consensus over why women and couples have shifted their behavior so significantly. 
Some experts point to economic factors, others say cultural influences, and better access to education and contraception for women are driving the change. 
"[This study] does not provide information about the decisions people were making and the factors they were taking into consideration as they were thinking about starting a family or increasing their family size," Hamilton said. 
Whatever the causes, many demographers and economists see the apparent shift toward smaller families and fewer children as a significant concern for the nation and its labor force, especially as immigration into the U.S. has also plunged under the Trump administration. 
A report published earlier this year by the Congressional Budget Office found that because of these combined trends, the nation's population is likely to age more rapidly and also grow far less, with roughly 8 million fewer residents in the U.S. by 2055 than once predicted. 
"The population [of people in the U.S.] age 24 or younger is projected to decline in each of the next 30 years," the CBO's authors concluded. 
The downward fertility trend in the U.S. reflects an even more dramatic shift in much of the world. 
In East Asia, Europe and even many South American countries, the total fertility rate has plunged far below what's known as the "replacement" level. 
That means not enough children are being born to maintain a stable population without significant levels of immigration. 
In the U.S., too, the total fertility rate is now well below replacement level. 
But some economists say it's unclear whether the trend toward fewer children reflects a permanent national shift. 
One possibility, according to economist Martha Bailey, head of the California Center for Population Research at the University of California, Los Angeles, is that U.S. women are delaying motherhood and will have more children later in life. 
"We're seeing big drops in fertility rates for young women, teenagers and women in their 20s," Bailey said. 
"What's not yet clear is whether or not those same women will go on to have children later on." 
A CDC study published in March of last year found fertility rates rising among women in their 30s and 40s, though not fast enough to offset drops among younger women. 
Bailey said it makes sense to have a policy discussion around ideas that might make it easier for couples to choose to have children, or to have more kids during their lifetimes. 
"People are having the number of children they want and that they can afford at a time that makes the most sense for them," she said. 
"What I don't think anyone is in favor of is a Handmaid's Tale type policy regime, where we're trying to talk families into having children they don't want." 
One silver lining in this data is a sizable drop in the rate of teenagers giving birth to children, which fell by 7% in 2025. 
Public health officials say the decline in children and teens having children represents major progress. 
"What is actually affecting the birth rates are likely lower rates of teen pregnancy overall, which is in the context of higher use of contraception and lower sexual activity for youth, and then also continued access to abortion care," said Bianca Allison, pediatrician and associate professor at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, in an interview with NPR. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.8%Brian Mann: 3.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Confirmation Bias5.8%This article: 11.0%Brian Mann: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.6%Anchoring Bias11.0%This article: 8.4%Brian Mann: 2.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.8%Availability Heuristic8.4%This article: 5.1%Brian Mann: 1.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic5.1%This article: 0.0%Brian Mann: 1.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 12.8%Brian Mann: 1.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.4%Overconfidence Bias12.8%This article: 14.1%Brian Mann: 5.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.1%Framing Effect14.1%This article: 0.0%Brian Mann: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.4%Brian Mann: 1.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Status Quo Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Brian Mann: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 13.4%Brian Mann: 1.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Optimism Bias13.4%This article: 20.9%Brian Mann: 2.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Pessimism Bias20.9%This article: 30.3%Brian Mann: 8.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.3%Negativity Bias30.3%This article: 3.7%Brian Mann: 1.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Self-Serving Bias3.7%This article: 7.0%Brian Mann: 1.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error7.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Mann: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Mann: 1.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Mann: 1.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Brian Mann: 2.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Halo Effect2.1%This article: 0.0%Brian Mann: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Mann: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%Brian Mann: 1.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.7%Recency Bias2.7%This article: 2.0%Brian Mann: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Primacy Effect2.0%This article: 2.4%Brian Mann: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Brian Mann: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 4.0%Brian Mann: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Straw Man4.0%This article: 46.2%Brian Mann: 5.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.1%Appeal to Authority46.2%This article: 7.3%Brian Mann: 1.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%False Dilemma7.3%This article: 0.0%Brian Mann: 0.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Mann: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.2%Brian Mann: 4.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 4.4%Hasty Generalization13.2%This article: 0.0%Brian Mann: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Mann: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.5%Brian Mann: 2.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.6%Appeal to Emotion8.5%This article: 0.0%Brian Mann: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 25.8%Brian Mann: 2.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)25.8%This article: 0.0%Brian Mann: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.0%Brian Mann: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.4%Burden of Proof5.0%This article: 4.6%Brian Mann: 0.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Appeal to Nature4.6%This article: 5.0%Brian Mann: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Composition/Division5.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Mann: 5.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Mann: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.4%Brian Mann: 1.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.4%This article: 0.0%Brian Mann: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Mann: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Mann: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 5.3%Brian Mann: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Special Pleading5.3%This article: 0.0%Brian Mann: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.0%Brian Mann: 0.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.3%Unattributed Quote5.0%This article: 4.0%Brian Mann: 0.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection4.0%This article: 5.8%Brian Mann: 3.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.1%Biased Writer Voice5.8%This article: 4.6%Brian Mann: 0.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.0%Indoctrination4.6%This article: 0.0%Brian Mann: 0.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Brian Mann: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Brian Mann: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

702 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers48%attributed speech368writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageBrady Hamilton • 34 words • 0.0% coverageBrady Hamilton • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageBrady Hamilton • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageCongressional Budget Office • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageMartha Bailey • 37 words • 0.0% coverageMartha Bailey • 18 words • 0.0% coverageMartha Bailey • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageMartha Bailey • 32 words • 100.0% coverageMartha Bailey • 26 words • 0.0% coverageMartha Bailey • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageBianca Allison • 60 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Bianca Allison

100%flagged-word coverage
60 attributed words18% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-11.1 ptsWriter: 11.1%Bianca Allison: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -11.1 ptsWriter: 11.1%Bianca Allison: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.