According to a recent online article in U.S. News and World Report, “… one of the great strengths of the U.S. economy, especially compared to Europe and Japan, is a relatively high birth rate.” This statement is pretty clear: procreation equates to production. Thus, why–or rather, for whom—could birthrate be a problem? Isn’t the angst about fertility hiding the real difficulties faced by population?
Is a falling birthrate a big problem?
Others in the media have also warned that if women don’t have higher numbers of children, the economy could suffer. New York Times columnist Ross Douthat compared the decreasing American birthrate to France’s higher one: “America has no real family policy to speak of at the moment, and the evidence from countries like Sweden and France suggests that reducing the ever-rising cost of having kids can help fertility rates rebound.” But while benefits such the ones in France obviously could help those rates rebound, they aren’t the key to economic growth. [Read more...]
The big news from the release of 
Guest blogger Paige Schilt is a dyke mama, a “low-femme” nerd, an activist, and a part-time professor of Feminist Studies. She holds a Ph.D. in English and Cultural Studies from the University of Texas at Austin and has published scholarly articles on queer culture at the intersections of race and class. She lives in Austin with her partner, Katy Koonce, and their son, who is named after a certain country music legend.
In a recent article actor Jim Caviezel said “I always thought if I adopted that I wouldn’t have the same feeling [as I would] if they were genetically my own children. Nothing could be further from the truth.” He goes on to say the adoption of his children “challenged him to speak out more on pro-life issues.” This makes me wonder what his original motivations for adopting were.
