An analysis by Elizabeth Gregory highlights the complex implications of abortion bans on both women and broader societal dynamics. Senator JD Vance’s 2021 comments critiquing the childlessness of public figures such as Vice President Kamala Harris, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aimed to emphasize a traditional family structure by promoting a conservative pronatalist agenda. Vance’s remarks pointedly targeted women, people of color, and LGBT individuals who are progressively gaining political influence.
Despite their intention to boost birth rates, abortion bans and related measures have not led to the expected rise in fertility rates. Research shows that the U.S. fertility rate continues to decline, influenced by increased contraceptive vigilance, sterilization among young women, and higher numbers of people engaging in LGBT relationships—natural contraceptives by themselves. Alongside these, some health risks in states with abortion bans have made couples hesitant to start families.
The 2023 fertility data presents a complex picture, showing declines in all states, including those with abortion bans. Despite the legal challenges, many individuals still manage to obtain abortions, thereby contributing to the overall decrease in fertility rates.
On the economic front, the analysis critiques the conservative economic model, which often leaves families in poverty. Contrastingly, a proposed family-support infrastructure could include universal sliding-scale childcare, paid family leave, and public after-school programs—policy shifts that could bolster birth rates if increased fertility is indeed a policy goal.
Additionally, the postponed parenthood trend has facilitated greater civic and economic participation by women. The shift has enabled many women to complete education, secure career opportunities, and gain economic independence before having children. This trend aligns with historical legal perspectives, such as the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, recognizing the impact of reproductive control on women’s socioeconomic status.
JD Vance’s comments on family policies suggest a preference for traditional caregiving structures, which some see as a move to limit investments in robust public childcare systems. However, the opposition underlines that a care economy—one that supports families through equitable and inclusive policies—would yield both economic and social benefits, counteracting the declining birth trend by creating conditions conducive to family growth.
The broader implication of these trends is a call for leaders who support comprehensive family policies, ensuring equitable opportunities for all individuals regardless of gender. Only through such inclusive strategies can society potentially reverse fertility declines and build a supportive environment for all families.
