For Some Women, Recession Means Having Fewer Children

By Rob Stein
The recession is apparently prompting more women to try to delay having babies, according to the first survey aimed at documenting the effects of the economic downtown on childbearing.

Nearly half of working-class women want to put off childbearing or to have fewer children, according to the survey, which was commissioned by the Guttmacher Institute, a private, nonprofit reproductive-health research organization.

The study, conducted by Knowledge Networks, involved a nationally representative sample of 947 women ages 18 to 34 with household incomes of less than $75,000, and it was conducted in July and August.

“These are women who might not have health insurance or may have lost their health insurance, and so might be most stressed,” said Sharon Camp, Guttmacher’s chief executive and president.

“The recession is putting many women and their partners between a rock and a hard place,” Camp said. “They want to avoid an unplanned pregnancy more than ever, but for many of them, the ability to afford the birth control they need is getting harder than ever.”

Significant findings from the survey are after the jump:

-- 44 percent of the women reported that, because of the economy, they want to reduce or delay childbearing. Most of these women want to get pregnant later (31 percent), want fewer children than planned (28 percent) or now do not want any more children (7 percent);

-- More than half the respondents (52 percent) said they were financially worse off than they were a year ago;

-- Nearly three out of every four women reported worrying more about money;

-- Among women with children, 57 percent reported worrying more about taking care of their kids;

-- 64 percent of women agreed with the statement, “With the economy the way it is, I can’t afford to have a baby right now”;

-- About a third (29 percent) agreed with the statement, “With the economy the way it is, I am more careful than I used to be about using contraception every time I have sex”; and

-- Nearly half of those who want no more children reported that, because of the economy, they are thinking more about sterilization.

At the same time, the survey found that financial problems were making it harder for women to use good contraception. The survey found:

-- Nearly one in four women reported having put off a gynecological or birth-control visit in the past year, to save money;

-- 23 percent reported having a harder time paying for birth control than in the past;

-- 8 percent of women reported that they sometimes did not use birth control in order to save money; and

-- Among women using the birth-control pill, 18 percent reported inconsistent use as a way to save money.

Comments

Somehow sterilization got cheaper than using birth control correctly?

"- Nearly half of those who want no more children reported that, because of the economy, they are thinking more about sterilization."

7 percent said they didn't want any more children, so 3.5 percent think they can find the money for sterilization (is this free under Medicaid? Why would this be a possible economic option?) Especially if 23 percent reported having a hard time paying for birth control in the past (doctor visit: say tops $100; prescription: tops $25--again sterilization would cost what? In the thousands?)

And "inconsistent use as a way to save money"--yup, right up to that delivery room and labor charge!

Happy to say these 947 women aren't representative of the rest of the US--unless US women have suddenly turned very stupid.

Posted by: mil1 | September 23, 2009 12:29 AM | Report abuse

Having fewer children is what needs to happen. We cannot continue to fill the world with humans and eliminate so many other species. I want a whole planet, not one filled with humans and then electronic remembrances of what used to be.

Children are MUCH more consuming of money, time, and energy these days, perhaps inevitably, since they must compete with so many others for resources.

Not having children, or having only one, leaves time, resources, and energy to put into making the world a better place rather than frantically trying to propel one's offspring to the top of the heap.

Posted by: Thrush | September 23, 2009 4:19 AM | Report abuse

Good lord, it's about time! For decades now people have been having children they cannot afford to raise. Somehow they've gotten the idea that their children are society's burden. Curb your ego, kids. The world has plenty of people, plenty of children. It will do fine if you don't add to that surfeit just to make sure your genes stay in the gene pool.

Posted by: gasmonkey | September 23, 2009 7:10 AM | Report abuse

This message apparently hasn't gotten through to all the fat little latinas who are always pregnant, pushing strollers, and dragging toddlers around. They keep cranking 'em out like there's no tomorrow.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | September 23, 2009 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Doesn't this story prove that women have a right to their body and reproductive organs? If they can shut their reproduction operation down during an economic downturn, why can't they prevent the number of abortions during good times. It seems that women are the best source to prevent abortions and not the pill, not the Pope, not the Presidential funding for abortions,tec.
When we read about the battles between pro-life - pro-choice, its always about everyone being responsible for the abortion controversy, and not the woman herself, She is alway portraid as the victim - out there all by herself with noone to understand her wishes.
This story shows that if "she" takes care of "herself", we might not have so large of an abortion problem and we could stop blaming the Pope, the President, and "her" husband for all the abortions.

Posted by: AlLemon | September 23, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse