Skip to comments.The Most and Least Fertile States in the U.S.
Posted on 05/05/2014 12:48:49 AM PDT by Slings and Arrows
The most fertile states in the nation
Do you live in one of the most fertile states? We used the Centers for Disease Control's total fertility rates to determine the most fertile parts of the United States:
1. Utah: 2.374 children born per woman
2. South Dakota: 2.269
3. Idaho: 2.193
4. Alaska: 2.185
5. North Dakota: 2.122
6. Nebraska: 2.119
7. Kansas: 2.118
8. Hawaii: 2.095
9. Texas: 2.075
10. Oklahoma: 2.039
The least fertile states in the nation
Is your home state resistant to multiple children? These are the states (inclusive of the District of Columbia) with the lowest total fertility rates:
1. Rhode Island: 1.593 children born per woman
2. New Hampshire: 1.605
3. D.C.: 1.608
4. Vermont: 1.613
5. Massachusetts: 1.632
6. Connecticut: 1.665
7. Maine: 1.678
8. Oregon: 1.742
9. Florida: 1.769
10. New York: 1.773
(Excerpt) Read more at fool.com ...
Conservatives are out reproducing the left.
The only exception is Hawaii, which now belongs to China anyway, LOL.
Hawaii is a bit of puzzler. Maybe the gorgeous climate makes folks romantic.
Tribal culture actually is very family oriented in Hawaii,
and as you say, the climate has an influence, as well as the food.Too bad they are raving leftists for the most part.
Our daughter was told she would never be able to get pregnant again after having her son, due to severe endometriosis.
In 2012, our daughter and son-in-law finally came here to northern ID to see our place. We had been driving the 1000 miles to pick up our grandson, then almost 10 years old, every summer. (How else is a Californian boy going to learn to properly shoot, reload ammo and the like?)
Our newest grandson will be 2 years old on the 14th. It must be something in the clean water, air or food? laughing....
Florida seems to be middle of the road but if it is just measured by female population and not age specific then it could be skewed because of so many retirees.
It’s the potatoes.
The food? What are they eating—chocolate, oysters, and rhinoceros horns?
ALL of those Red England states fall into the ‘least fertile’ category...a beautiful thing when you consider how far left the population is. One would think with the harsh winters they would be more fertile...
Gee, maybe there’s a problem with those gay marriages after all.
There’s a pretty close (not perfect) correlation between high average personal income and low birth rate.
On a state-by-state basis? If so, is cost of living factored in?
The food? What are they eatingchocolate, oysters, and rhinoceros horns?>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nothng so exotic.
Poi and fish.
Combined they are a natural “Afrodieselack!”
LOL...could be. You may have seen where Red Hampshire's fag Episcopalian bishop is 'divorcing' his 'husband'...oh, noes!
Education level as well. Perhaps more so.
That Robinson affair is something that could even make Red Hampshire blush.
It should, but it won’t...Red Hampshire is cool with sodomite ‘marriage’, abortion, open primaries and other abominations.
If conceptions were the basis for the counting then the state rankings might be different—lots of honeymoons and vacations in Florida.
You’ve got to do more than produce children; you’ve got to EDUCATE them to become conservative. And I mead education in the old fashioned sense of the word; church, civics, history. etc.
Into what? Birth rate or personal income? Irrespective of cost of living, the correlation I noted is true. Birth rate is inversely correlated with personal income and that’s been true for a long time. The rich get richer and the poor get children.
“Conservatives are out reproducing the left.”
I wouldn’t assume that; a lot of those babies born in the farm states are probably Mexican. Maternity wards in hosptials in “white” neighborhoods here in NJ are full of Latino babies.
Are you sure that’s not Tom Cruise in drag?
“ALL of those Red England states fall into the least fertile category...a beautiful thing when you consider how far left the population is. One would think with the harsh winters they would be more fertile...”
It isn’t a “beautiful thing” when you consider that at least 75% of those babies are Latino (in my limited experience); these states are permanently in the “D” column as a result. Anglos complain they can’t afford to breed here (in part because of how much they cough up to pay for those who do).
There is something good that can be said for clean water, clean air, and good food; healthy surroundings also influence good, clean habits as well.
The data is misleading, it is based on births and excludes abortions.
Jeb B is smiling.
Statistically, in the US, because of the economic meltdown in 2008, the rate has fallen, including Hispanics. It does appear that as the economy has improved, the falling trend has leveled off.
But the big and long picture tells a different story.
Of the 7 billion on the earth there are 1 billion in the Americas, 1 billion in Europe and Russia, 1 billion in Africa and 4 billion in Asia.
By 2050 Africa will add a 2nd billion and Asia will add a 5th billion for a total of 9 billion.
By 2100 Africa will add a 3rd and 4th billion for a total of 11 billion.
You can find the national fertility rates at the CIA Factbook, the World Bank, and the UN. The CIA Factbook lists these national fertility rates in descending order.
The other issues that track with fertility rates are poverty rates, extreme poverty rates, educational rates(including females), and health rates.
As for the individual US states and political affiliation, the GOP is a coalition of poor states and rich people while the democrats are a coalition of rich states and poor people.
The rich states will provide for the poor people more birth control, education, welfare, and healthcare.
The poor states will provide for the poor people less birth control, education, welfare, and healthcare.
Hawaii is the outlier
Lots of Mormons in Hawaii
While several on here have remarked about the relationship between a state’s politics & fertility I think it is probably more relevant to look at the relationship between state’s faith & fertility.
Sadly, Florida is more of a retirement state than Liberal, but it’s definitely “purple.”
My wife and I have been trying to get pregnant for several years with no luck. She just turned 40 this year. I’m beginning to think my chances at progeny are gone in this world. C’est la vie.
In Texas it is some dims and illegals having kids at a rabbits pace.
Only 7 states beat the estimated replacement rate of 2.1.
Mrs. Kidd did her part here in Connecticut with a rate of 4.0
Doesn’t help to “out reproduce” them if you send your kids to be discipled by them.
Since the CDC did this study, are humans now considered a disease?
A valid point ... among many reasons it appears culture — such as a high value placed on family and children — is a major if not the most relevant factor.
Wisely said. That MUST be remedied.
Are you sure thats not Tom Cruise in drag?>>>>>>>>>
I could probably imagine that if I were gay, which I am not.
But the big and long picture tells a different story.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well then , do you not feel then the need to procreate?
....Oh you got it, as one Mr. Obama has proven!
If Texas rating was based upon how many babies are spit out like wet watermelon seeds from Illegals on welfare the “fertility rate” would be 68.7%.
Yes, and a M Stanton Evans ( Google him ) article was the topic on the Mark Levin Show this time last year and Mark talked about it at length.
The Article noted Reproduction Rates are in Favor of the Conservative Movement if the GOP would reach out to those that share our valves, and yes it is a diverse lot, and we need to ask everyone like Reagan, come walk with us with our Vision of and for America.
A link to a re-post of the IBD article below...
Oops, not share our valves but values :-)..
The Motley Fool is describing the data incorrectly in refering to fertility rate as “children born per woman”. The fertility rate is “Fertility rates are births per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years; total fertility rates are sums of birth rates for 5-year age groups multiplied by 5; birth rates by age are births per 1,000 women in specified age group estimated in each area.” as noted in the header of the chart they used (burried in a 87 page govt report). They extrapolated the total fertility rate to a rate of babies born on average to one person. although they dig deep into the data, the govt does not keep track of that info.
Interestingly the report shows that although the total number of births had declined over the last couple of years, the number of black and Hispanic birth have declined even more precipitously.
Hispanic births are down 100,000 from a couple of years ago from 1 million per year to 907,000 per year and black birth went from 627,000 to 583,000. The number of total birth in the US peaked at 4,316,233 in 2007 and in 2012 there were 3,952,841.
The best news is that the teen birth rate declined 6%.
...crap, you don’t think?
Naa, I’m a conservative.