Why People Are Having Fewer Kids, Even If They Want Them
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
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Will health insurance pay for Covid vaccines this fall?
If you want a Covid shot this fall, will your employer's health insurance plan pay for it? There's no clear answer. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime anti-vaccine activist, has upended the way Covid vaccines are approved and for whom they're recommended, creating uncertainty where coverage was routine. Agencies within HHS responsible for spelling out who should get vaccinated aren't necessarily in sync, issuing seemingly contradictory recommendations based on age or risk factors for serious disease. But the ambiguity may not affect your coverage, at least this year. 'I think in 2025 it's highly likely that the employer plans will cover' the Covid vaccines, said Dr. Jeff Levin-Scherz, a primary care doctor who is the population health leader for the management consultancy WTW and an assistant professor at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. They've already budgeted for it, 'and it would be a large administrative effort to try to exclude coverage for those not at increased risk,' he said. With so much in flux, it's important to check with your employer or insurer about coverage policies before you roll up your sleeve. Here's what we know so far, and what remains unclear. How have the recommendations changed? What used to be straightforward is now much murkier. Last year, the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech Covid vaccines were recommended for anyone at least 6 months old. This year, the recommendation by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is narrower. Although the vaccines are broadly recommended for adults 19 and older, they are no longer recommended for healthy pregnant people or for healthy children 6 months through 17 years old. Kennedy announced the changes in a video in May, citing safety risks for young people and pregnant people as justification. But his claims have been widely disputed by experts in vaccines, pediatrics, and women's health. An analysis by found that the secretary 'misrepresented scientific research to make unfounded claims about vaccine safety for pregnant people and children.' In addition, recently announced changes to the vaccine approval framework have further chipped away at eligibility. Moderna announced July 10 that the Food and Drug Administration had fully approved its Spikevax Covid vaccine — but approval is restricted to adults 65 and older, and for people from 6 months through 64 years old who are at increased risk of developing a serious case of Covid. Two other Covid vaccines expected to be available this fall, Novavax's Nuvaxovid and Moderna's mNexspike, are also restricted. They are approved for people 65 or older and those 12 to 64 who have underlying health conditions that put them at higher risk of developing severe Covid. Notably, Pfizer's Comirnaty Covid vaccine is still approved or authorized for people 6 months of age and older without any restrictions based on risk factors for Covid — at least for now. But the FDA could change that at any time, experts said. Increasing restrictions 'is definitely the direction they are moving,' said Jen Kates, a senior vice president at KFF who authored a KFF analysis of vaccine insurance coverage rules. KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. HHS did not provide an on-the-record comment for this article. How might these changes alter my insurance coverage for the vaccine? That's the big question, and the answer is uncertain. Without insurance coverage, people could owe hundreds of dollars for the shot. Most private health plans are required by law to cover recommended vaccines, whether for Covid, measles, or the flu, without charging their members. But that requirement kicks in after the shots are recommended by a federal panel — the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices — and adopted by the CDC director, according to the KFF analysis. The committee hasn't yet voted on Covid vaccine recommendations for this fall. Its next meeting is expected to occur in August or September. Still, employers and insurers can opt to cover the vaccines on their own, as many did before the law required them to do so. But they may require people to pay something for it. In addition, the narrower recommendations from different HHS agencies might result in some health plans declining to pay for certain categories of people to get certain vaccines, experts said. 'I don't think an employer or insurer would deny coverage,' Kates said. 'But they could say: You have to get this product.' That could mean a 45-year-old with no underlying health conditions raising their covid risk might have to get the Pfizer shot rather than the Moderna version if they want their health plan to pay for it, experts said. In addition, up to 200 million people may qualify for the vaccines because they have health conditions such as asthma or diabetes that increase their risk of severe disease, according to a commentary published by FDA officials in the New England Journal of Medicine. Health care professionals can help people determine whether they qualify for the shot based on health conditions. Tina Stow, a spokesperson for AHIP, which represents health plans, said in a statement that plans will continue to follow federal requirements for vaccine coverage. What are the options for people who are pregnant or have children they want to have vaccinated? Many parents are confused about getting their kids vaccinated, according to an Aug. 1 KFF poll. About half say they don't know whether federal agencies recommend healthy children get the vaccine this fall. Among the other half, more say the vaccine is not recommended than recommended. Meanwhile, Kennedy's recommendation that healthy children not get vaccinated has a notable caveat: If a parent wishes a child to get a Covid vaccine and a health care provider recommends it, the child can receive it under the 'shared clinical decision-making' model, and it should be covered without cost sharing. Some policy experts point out that this is the way care for kids is typically provided anyway. 'Outside of any requirements, vaccines have always been provided through shared decision-making,' said Amanda Jezek, senior vice president of public policy and government relations at the Infectious Diseases Society of America. There's no similar allowance for pregnant people. However, even though Kennedy has stated that Covid vaccines are no longer recommended for healthy pregnant people, pregnancy is one of the underlying medical conditions that put people at high risk for getting very sick from Covid, according to the CDC. That could make pregnant people eligible for the shot. Depending on the stage of someone's pregnancy, it could be difficult to know whether someone should be denied the shot based on their condition. 'This is uncharted territory,' said Sabrina Corlette, co-director of Georgetown University's Center on Health Insurance Reforms. How will these changes affect access to the vaccine? Will I still be able to go to the pharmacy for the shot? 'If far fewer are expected to be vaccinated, fewer sites will offer the vaccinations,' Levin-Scherz said. This could be an especially notable hurdle for people looking for pediatric doses of a covid vaccine, he said. In addition, pharmacists' authority to administer vaccines depends on several factors. For example, in some states they can administer shots that have been approved by the FDA, while in others the shots must have been recommended by the ACIP, said Hannah Fish, senior director of strategic initiatives at the National Community Pharmacists Association. Since ACIP hasn't yet recommended covid shots for the fall, that could create a speed bump in some states. 'Depending on the rules, you still may be able to get the shot at the pharmacy, but they might have to call the physician to send over a prescription,' Fish said. What do these changes mean long-term? It's impossible to know. But given Kennedy's vocal skepticism of vaccines and his embrace of long-disproven theories about connections between vaccines and autism, among other things, medical and public health professionals are concerned those views will shape future policies. 'The recommendation changes that were made with respect to children and pregnant women were not necessarily made in good science,' Corlette said. It's already a challenge to convince people they need annual covid shots, and shifting guidelines may make it tougher, some public health experts warn. 'What's concerning is that this could even further depress the uptake of the covid vaccines,' Jezek said. KFF Health News is 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. This article was originally published on Solve the daily Crossword


American Military News
an hour ago
- American Military News
Video/Pic: Trump demands drug companies lower prices
President Donald Trump sent 17 pharmaceutical companies letters on Thursday and demanded that the companies lower prices for Americans. The president warned that the 'unacceptable burden' of prescription drug prices will 'end' with his administration. During a press briefing on Thursday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, 'The president signed an executive order earlier this year to solve the problem of exorbitant pharmaceutical pricing.' 'According to recent data, the prices that Americans have been paying for brand-name drugs are more than three times the price other similarly developed nations pay,' Leavitt added. 'The president is determined to solve this problem and took further action today. He has signed 17 letters to pharmaceutical companies' CEOs.' .@PressSec reads one of the letters sent by @POTUS today to the CEOs of pharmaceutical companies: "Moving forward, the only thing I will accept from drug manufacturers is a commitment that provides American families immediate relief from the vastly inflated drug prices…" — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 31, 2025 Leavitt also shared the letter Trump wrote to the CEO of Eli Lilly and Company. In the letter, Trump warned Eli Lilly and 16 other pharmaceutical companies that the 'unacceptable burden' of brand-name drugs costing 'up to three times higher on average' for Americans than for citizens of other countries 'ends with my administration.' Trump told the pharmaceutical companies, 'Most proposals the Trump administration has received to resolve this critical issue promised more of the same shifting blame and requesting policy changes that would result in billions of dollars in handouts to industry.' The president added, 'Moving forward, the only thing I will accept from drug manufacturers is a commitment that provides American families immediate relief from the vastly inflated drug prices and an end to the free ride of American innovation by European and other developed nations.' READ MORE: Video: Trump order against 'Big Pharma' aims to reduce drug prices While Trump explained that a collaborative effort to reach 'global pricing parity' would be most effective for pharmaceutical companies, the U.S. government, and U.S. patients, he warned that his administration will 'deploy every tool in our arsenal to protect American families' if pharmaceutical companies refuse to take action. In addition to the letter sent to Eli Lilly and Company, Trump sent letters to AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi. In the letters, Trump gave the companies 60 days to extend 'Most-Favored-Nation' pricing to Medicaid and provide 'full portfolios' of drugs for Medicaid patients, guarantee Most-Favored-Nation pricing for new drugs, negotiate with 'foreign freeloading nations' and return 'increased revenues abroad' to patients in the United States, and allow Americans to directly purchase drugs at Most-Favored-Nation prices. Today, @POTUS sent letters to 17 drug manufacturers outlining steps they must take to bring down prescription drug prices. If they refuse to step up, the Administration will use every tool to protect Americans from continued abusive drug pricing practices. Letter to Eli Lilly: — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 31, 2025


Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
California Removes 900,000 People From Health Care Plan
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Hundreds of thousands have been removed from a health care plan in California over the course of two years, according to data from KFF, a nonprofit health policy research and news organization. About 900,000 Americans were disenrolled from Medicaid in the state as part of the unwinding process happening nationwide after Medicaid coverage was expanded following the COVID-19 pandemic. Newsweek has contacted the California Department of Public Health via email for comment. Why It Matters The unwinding process has resulted in significant drops in Medicaid enrollment across the U.S. There is now growing concern about the rising population of those without health insurance and the wider impacts this could have, such as worsening health outcomes, increasing strain on emergency services and rising medical costs. The worry has been amplified by the recent passing of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill, in which funding cuts, a focus on "waste, fraud and abuse" and work requirements are in store for Medicaid. Many have voiced concern that the measures will result in millions losing health coverage. File photo: A doctor walks with a young boy through a hospital. File photo: A doctor walks with a young boy through a To Know In California, there were 14,285,643 covered by Medicaid in March 2023, but by March 2025, that number was 13,392,566, KFF data shows. This was because during the pandemic, some states expanded Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), causing nationwide enrollment levels to increase. Federal rules forced states to keep most Medicaid enrollees on the program, even if their eligibility status changed, until March 2023, when they were then allowed to start rolling recipients off the program. This marks a change of about 900,000, a decline that was smaller than other highly populated states like Texas, Florida and New York. In March 2025, the number of people with Medicaid coverage in California was still higher than pre-pandemic levels, by 16 percent. The reason why Medicaid coverage is unwinding at different rates in states is because "states approached the process of reviewing the eligibility of their Medicaid beneficiaries with fundamentally different strategies," Michael Sparer, professor and chair of the Department of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, told Newsweek. He said that Florida and Texas began the review process "as fast as they could and immediately declared ineligible those beneficiaries who did not promptly respond to review notices." "There is clear evidence that many beneficiaries who were still eligible lost coverage simply because they did not timely navigate the administrative hurdles to recertification," he added. Meanwhile, he said that New York and California "were far more deliberate in how they approached the review process, thus the number who've lost their eligibility via this process is far fewer." What People Are Saying Michael Sparer, professor and chair of the Department of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, told Newsweek: "Medicaid enrollment surged during the pandemic for several reasons, including increased unemployment combined with a requirement that in exchange for additional federal funding, states could not recertify beneficiary eligibility until the "public health emergency" was declared over. Put simply, millions signed up during the pandemic and their eligibility could only be reviewed beginning in the spring 2023. "There is reason to be quite concerned about how this has played out and also what it suggests may happen when Medicaid work requirements, which create their own set of administrative hurdles, are implemented. First, persons who are eligible for coverage should not lose coverage. Bad health outcomes will follow. Second, persons who are no longer Medicaid eligible should be guided to other options, such as subsidized ACA marketplace coverage. Finally, the variation in how states conduct Medicaid eligibility reviews leads to unfortunate inequities." What Happens Next As the unwinding continues, more reductions in enrollment are expected in California and across the country. With millions already having lost health coverage, concerns remain about access to care for low-income individuals and families.