On January 27, the Spanish prime minister appointed Edelmira Barreira Diz to be the “Commissioner for the Demographic Challenge.” The “sex tsar,” as the media has dubbed her, will be responsible for addressing Spain’s depressed fertility rate and relieving the socioeconomic implications of an aging population. Spain is one of many European countries that have begun to recommend that their citizens have more children. Italy, Denmark, and Sweden have all launched fertility campaigns as well. While many have championed immigration as a means of easing Europe’s demographic dilemma, few governments can open their borders without facing backlash from an increasingly xenophobic European public. By sidestepping immigration, fertility campaigns represent an implicitly ethnocentric response to Europe’s aging populations.

A decreasing fertility rate is considered an important trait of economic development. European fertility rates have been dropping for decades and, as a consequence, the age of the average European is climbing. Many experts fear Europe’s growth-oriented economies are reaching an impasse. As retirees begin to make up a larger percentage of the overall population, there will be proportionally fewer young people to pick up the slack. The economic challenges these long-term trends potentially pose are beginning to loom large for many European officials.

While there is debate on whether or not the ratio of workers to retirees holds bearing over economic performance, governments throughout Europe are seemingly behaving as though it does. During the Euro-crisis, the continent’s aging population was often mentioned as a factor possibly hindering the recovery. The fact that the European Union and individual European states are working to reduce the average age of their respective populations is indicative of their belief that youth is key to ensuring long-term economic stability.

Immigrants are often pegged as quick and effective supplements to an aging labor force. However, with anti-immigrant sentiments are flaring, any argument in favor of immigration is bound to cause fervent controversy. By encouraging fertility, governments can address concerns about an aging population and avoid acknowledging the merits of immigration.

In doing so, fertility campaigns hark back to a time when fascist European governments demanded their citizens give more children to the state. Like campaigns of the past, modern efforts ignore the question of immigration and instead encourage the cultivation of a new generation of citizens who will one day contribute to continued economic growth. While seemingly tame, fertility campaigns are a resurgent trend that implicitly enforce nationalistic notions of who is valuable and who is not. Far right groups remain particularly concerned with fertility. They see high rates of domestic fertility as a source of national strength and the fertility of immigrants as a threat to the social fabric. Last year, Germany’s right wing party, Alternative for Germany, leaked a manifesto outlining policies that would incentivize German women to have three or more children.

European governments are unwilling or unable to address their perceived aging problem with policies that would upset the vociferous anti-immigrant faction. While these contemporary fertility campaigns are related in comparatively innocuous terms, they work to emphasize the value of citizens and minimize, or entirely ignore, the value of immigrants.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fertility Campaigns Fight Population Shifts but Reinforce Anti-Immigrant Sentiments appeared first on Law Street.

A report recently released by the National Center for Health Statistics revealed some good news for our nation’s population growth for the first time since the beginning of the Great Recession. According to the study, the number of babies being born and the fertility rate increased by one percent–the first birth rate increase since 2007.

Growing birth rates are very important for a nation for a number of reasons, and the recent surge in births also points to several positive indicators, such as greater financial security. Read on to learn about the fuss about the birth rate, what it means for America, and what we need to consider about population growth moving forward.

A History of Fertility

To start, it is important to understand the terminology associated with birth rates. This begins with Total Fertility Rates (TFRs). This measures the average number of children a woman will have over the course of her life. Another term to understand is replacement level. The replacement level is the TFR required to maintain zero population growth, basically the number of births needed to equally replace the adults who are having babies. The United States’ replacement level is roughly 2.1 births per women. It is higher than two because it factors in the unfortunate truth that some people will die before they reach adulthood and can reproduce.

Around the turn of 20th century, the fertility rate in the United States was over three. The rate then dropped precipitously following the Great Depression, but that trend somewhat reversed leading into World War II, and the TFR continued to stay above replacement levels until the 1970s. There was a slight drop in the rate in this era, during the oil crisis. However, when the economy began to rebound again, so did the nation’s TFR, which continued at or above replacement levels until the Great Recession. The video below shows the correlation between birth rates and the economy:

Based on this data, it seems obvious that the number of births in the U.S. is tied to the success of the economy. But a more nuanced explanation is also required. For example, even when birth rates cratered during the Great Depression, they still remained higher than the birth rates following the uptick of the 1980s and 1990s. Essentially, the economy plays an important role, but current culture does too.

Falling Birth Rates

The recent low birth rates in the U.S. are not unique. In fact low birth rates might be the clearest predictor of a country’s level of development. In several European countries and Japan, the birth rate is 1.5 or lower, meaning below replacement levels. So, why is this happening and what do these shrinking birth rates mean? First let’s analyze the “why.” One of the common threads between these countries, besides a higher standard of living, is the improved status of women.

More Access to Education

One of the major factors in dictating how many children a woman is likely to have is how educated that woman is. It has been repeatedly shown that women who are exposed earlier to education and continue with their studies have lower birth rates. Conversely, in other nations in which this is not true, such as Eritrea on the eastern horn of Africa, birth rates are much higher at 4.6. This stands in stark contrast to highly educated Japan’s birth rate of 1.4.

Having Children Later

While the recent data did indicate that American women had more children last year, it also revealed something else interesting. Most of the women having those children were older, in the age groups of 30-34, 35-39, and even 40-44. On the other hand, women in the age bracket spanning 20-24 saw their number of births continue to decline.

Although having children later is not the taboo it once was, having a baby after the age of 40 still carries with it an added weight of potential health risks. But thanks to the fact that older woman are often healthier, more prepared financially and mentally, and are generally better educated, many of these concerns can be off-set.

Immigration

Following the “why” is the “what”: what do shrinking birth rates mean? One of the most important is that low birth rates can have a dramatic impact on immigration. Namely, in countries with low birth rates like Japan or Germany, immigration is needed to simply maintain the current size of the population. Additionally, since many of these countries will start or have already started to have a disproportionately older population, immigration can provide a needed youth infusion.

Who is Going Pay for All This?

There is a lot riding on how these countries either maintain or increase their populations. Specifically, developed nations need people to pay for the wide-reaching entitlement programs enjoyed by older citizens as they retire, such as Social Security in the U.S. It becomes harder for the population to support these programs when the number of people paying into them shrinks. As populations grow older, the number of people depending on them will continue to increase. With this is mind, countries with low birth rates either need to accept immigrants or find new ways to boost their populations naturally.

The Future of Babies

How are countries trying to up their birth rates?

While these countries grapple with declining birth rates and the need for more immigration, to quote a poem by Dylan Thomas, they, “do not go gentle into that good night.” Indeed, many of these countries already have plans in place to reverse their falling birth rates.

In Japan nearly $30 million has been designated for encouraging young, single people to meet and eventually get married. In Russia, the government directly gives couples up to $12,500 for having a second child or adopting. Many European countries meanwhile, focus on benefits after the baby is born, providing lavish maternity leave or child care. The United Sates is actually an outlier on this front, as it does not offer guaranteed maternity leave and really only provides minor tax breaks to women having children. This may explain in part why older, more secure women are the ones increasingly having children in the US.

Assistance from Technology

Technology is also playing a greater role in the number of births each year. In the United States for example, approximately 2,000 more babies were born in 2013 than in 2012 through in vitro fertilization, when an egg is directly impregnated in a medical procedure. However, there are various kinds of fertility treatments–combined they accounted for 1.5 percent of all births in the U.S. in 2013.

Private companies are also stepping into the proverbial baby-making arena. Both Apple and Facebook are offering programs that will pay to have their female workers’ eggs frozen. The idea is that once these women are at a point in their career where family seems more accessible or appropriate they can then use their frozen fertilized eggs to have children.

This approach has received mixed reviews however. While some laud the efforts as providing an avenue through which women interested in pursuing a career and a family can still hope to travel, others see it differently. To the second group, this approach does nothing to address the reasons why women feel compelled to choose. Additionally the health risks associated with having children from frozen eggs versus unfrozen are no less diminished in older women.

Conclusion

Moderating population size is a tricky task. At times it has been predicted that the growing population is unsustainable and that we are headed for disaster. Conversely, people are currently concerned about not having enough children and the subsequent dangers that would present to society.

In the United States, the birth rate has been falling more or less steadily for the last one hundred years and now hovers right around replacement levels. While there seems to be optimism following last year’s uptick in births, it follows on the heels of several years of consecutive declines that put the U.S., like many of its developed contemporaries, below replacement levels. It is still unclear if the recent increase is sustainable.

Perhaps what the declining birth rates have revealed most clearly is the changing role of women and the continued changes necessary for women to have children and still be able to pursue a professional career. The importance of this issue can be showcased by both national and private efforts to address it. Still, as of right now, the issue remains unresolved and a remedy is unclear. Even with birth rates recently back on the rise, in the future the concerns may change from the number of mouths to feed to whether or not we even have enough people to help feed them.

Resources

Primary

United Nations: Total Fertility Rate

World Bank: Fertility Rate, Total (births per woman)

Additional

Time: Rising Birth Rates a Good Sign for the Economy

Deseret New National: Can Government Incentives Reverse Falling Birth Rates?

Population Reference Bureau: World Population Data Sheet 2012

Earth Policy Institute: Education Leads to Lower Fertility and Increased Prosperity

Time: Women Keep Having Kids Later and Later

Yale Global Online: The Choice: More Immigrants or Less Citizens?

Genius: Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night

Health Day: In Vitro births Continue to Rise in the U.S.

CNN: Egg-Freezing a Better Deal for Companies Than for Women

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Falling Fertility: The Impact of Declining Birth Rates appeared first on Law Street.

Sofia Vergara’s ex fiancé, Nick Loeb, is suing her for the rights to their frozen embryos.

Before the actress and Loeb separated they went through the process of medically creating and freezing embryos with the intention of using a surrogate to bring one or more of those embryos to term.

During this process, the couple decided to split up and a biological child was never brought into the world.

Vergara has since moved on and is now engaged to actor Joe Manganiello. Loeb, on the other hand, has publicly lobbied to regain ownership of the frozen embryos that were created while he was in a relationship with Vergara. He intends on using a surrogate to bring the embryo to term; however, Vergara does not want the embryo to result in a child. According to Loeb:

We signed a form stating that any embryos created through the process could be brought to term only with both parties’ consent. The form did not specify–as California law requires–what would happen if we separated. I am asking to have it voided.”

Loeb, creator of the Crunchy Condiment Company, has used his ex-fiance’s notoriety to catapult his own case into the pop-culture stratosphere. His main argument for why he should be allowed the rights to the embryos he made with his ex? Women have the power to bring a pregnancy to term even if the man objects, so he should be allowed to bring his unborn child into the world and raise it as he sees fit.*

(*Probably a flawed argument, considering most natural pregnancies are not preceded by legally binding contracts.)

But what happens if a couple warring over embryonic rights does not have any star power?

The topic of frozen embryo ownership isn’t just a celebrity issue. In the United States alone, 600,000 eggs are frozen every year. If freezing eggs is such a common practice, shouldn’t contracts regarding legal rights to frozen eggs be pretty standard? In America…not exactly.

Consider our British brothers and sisters who have fairly concrete laws regarding the process of freezing eggs:

In the U.K. for a couple to go through such treatment, they’d have to sign all the consent forms. If the couple split up, if one party withdraws the consent, the other party can’t use it at all.

In other words, if Vergara and Loeb were having this squabble in England, chances are that Loeb’s request to void the contracts would not be granted. Perhaps the realm of embryonic rights would become less of a gray area if the United States were to adopt the U.K.’s policy wherein consent must unequivocally come from both parties.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post True Hollywood Story: Embryo Edition appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Last week lawmakers in Utah passed HB 249, which “allows a person conceived through assisted reproduction access to non-identifying medical history of the donor from the fertility clinic.” This is a huge deal that has gotten zero attention. Maybe a couple of articles in some random news sites; the Salt lake Tribune and USA Today have covered it, but nothing that has grabbed the country’s attention.

I know who both of my biological parents are (they did it the old fashion way), but my dad was adopted and there have been so many questions about his biological parents’ medical history. When filling out any medical forms there are always plenty of questions about my parents’ and grandparents’ medical histories that I sometimes just can’t answer because there isn’t much known on my dad’s side. There is a certain kind of frustration behind that because I could be facing health risks that are passed on genetically without knowing anything about it.

I’m a strong believer that having too much information is better than not having any information at all, especially when it comes to your health!

Utah’s new law gives people a better idea of what they are genetically predisposed to while still maintaining a certain level of anonymity for the donor.

USA Today discusses the lack of interest that legislators have in “assisted reproduction,” claiming that legislators are afraid to get their hands dirty because of the doors that could be opened into a deeper conversation about conception, abortion, and embryos. I know, I know, no one wants to have a continuous debate about those topics because it seems like each side is beating a dead horse, but there is something to be said about the fact that there are children out there who have no idea about one side of their genetic traits.

Currently countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Australia all heavily regulate many areas of reproductive technology, and many scholars around the world claim that the U.S. does not. Like somehow we have allowed this medical venture to fall by the wayside.

In my opinion the government does not need to have its hands in every single cookie jar unless it is completely necessary. There are already enough regulations set by the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, the American Medical Association, and the boards that license every doctor. It isn’t harmful for Utah’s legislature to step in and give people a legal right to know about their medical history. It’s impossible to get any information out of a doctor about someone else’s medical history and this just allows people to know what could possibly be in their future or what could affect their own children.

This legislation does open the door to other issues; donor-conceived offspring could want to have full access to all of the information about their donor. Sometimes people just want to know where they really came from, and sometimes the donor wants to know their offspring.

Sperm banks should do a full work up and have a detailed medical history about the person donating their eggs or sperm. I get that the process is meant to be quick and helpful for those who can not conceive without a little medical intervention, but in all reality it isn’t just sperm and eggs. These pieces of biology become human beings. This is the major process of creating a life. If you are going to create a life you should know all there is to know about the counterpart helping to create it!

I will leave you with a kick ass and somewhat relevant moment from Legally Blonde to lighten the mood!

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post People Born Via Assisted Reproduction Can Now Access Medical History appeared first on Law Street.

Twenty-something women of the world, are you married yet? Because according to Susan Patton, a.k.a. The Princeton Mom, you should be.

In her new book, Marry Smart: Advice for Finding THE ONE, Patton urges young, college attending women to spend their undergrad years husband hunting. According to her, finding a mate before graduation is imperative, because otherwise, your eggs will dry up in your ovaries and you’ll die alone with your seven cats. Or something like that.

Princeton Mom is all kinds of fascinating, and not just because she’s depressingly anti-feminist. Let’s run down the top five reasons why Susan Patton should be your new conservaturd celebrity obsession, mmkay?

1.) Lady is a tiger.

As a Princeton graduate, and a mother of two more, Patton is completely obsessed with orange and black. Her Upper East Side apartment is dripping with it — she’s got tiger tails hanging on the walls, orange and black craft projects strewn about, and she’s currently dreaming of a second wedding on the Princeton campus complete with orange roses.

If she wasn’t busy having New York Magazine features written about her and making appearances on the Today Show, I’d say Patton peaked during her college years. But maybe this tiger is just finding her stripes?

2.) Patton is recently divorced, which is totally a bummer.

She prefers not to talk about her former husband, although he “went to a college of almost no name recognition.” Ouch. Anyway, as it turns out, she frittered away her undergrad years at Princeton, you know, actually getting an education, and then wound up marrying whoever she happened to be dating at 31 in a race against the fertility clock.

I feel like it’s not a coincidence that that didn’t work out, no? Husband hunters, keep that in mind while you’re tracking down marriageable sperm donors. Marrying for the sake of your fertility timeline does not guarantee wedded bliss.

3.) The Princeton Mom is not COMPLETELY anti-feminist.

As a young woman, she eschewed immediate marriage and motherhood in favor of getting a top-notch education and developing her career. She even went so far as to legally emancipate herself from her “women don’t need to be educated” parents so she could attend Princeton.

Points, Princeton Mom. Feminist points.

4.) But don’t get too excited. She’s still pretty anti-feminist.

She doesn’t think date rape is a thing, and she thinks it’s a woman’s responsibility to keep herself out of situations where she might be violated. After all, we can’t expect men to act responsibly! Penises have a mind of their own, clearly. She totally freaked out Savannah Guthrie with this one.

Oh Mama Patton, I was rooting for you for a minute there.

5.) The Princeton Mom might be a tiger, but she’s also a cougar.

Embracing her newly found singledom, she’s dating multiple men at once, at least two of them Princeton grads. Free of the pressure of biology, she’s dating men who are fun and sexy — not potential sperm donors — and she’s having an awesome time doing it.

She just doesn’t really think YOU should be doing that, because, tick tock ladies. Those eggs of yours WILL NOT last forever.

So what do we make of the Princeton mom? Well, she’s a beacon of anti-feminist nonsense, the kind of self-help guru who sets women back a few generations.

She’s also kind of a badass. She’s unapologetic in her opinions, she’s going after it with all she’s got, and she’s feeling awesome about it.

So you do you, Princeton Mom! You be your fierce, tiger self.

The rest of you, don’t listen to her craze-tastic advice unless you’re inventing some kind of drinking game out of her TV appearances. In that case, please share.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Andrew_Writer via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 5 Reasons Why Princeton Mom Is Your New Anti-Feminist She-ro appeared first on Law Street.