As the Democrats move to solidify their position as anti-child and pro-abortion, here's a story pointing out just one of the myriad of detrimental effects of such a worldview.

From Bloomberg, with my emphases and comments:

Americans Having Fewer Babies Crimping Consumer Spending

 By Steve Matthews - Aug 21, 2012 4:11 PM ET

 Debra Mollen, 41, a psychology professor in Denton, Texas, said she and her husband don’t plan to have children as they strive to pay down their mortgage and save for retirement. [I do hope they don't regret it when they're old, retired and alone in that mortgage-free house.]

“Children are really expensive,” Mollen said, and the 2008 financial crisis shows the importance of building a nest egg. “Retirement is not an option for a lot of folks.”

Mollen isn’t alone, as Americans have had fewer babies each year since the 2008 financial meltdown, with births falling to a 12-year low in 2011, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. The low birth rate and reduced immigration resulted in the smallest gain in population since World War II, which may hurt spending on everything from Huggies diapers to pregnancy kits, child care and education. [Which makes me wonder: the EU countries have a birth rate below replacement level and the Eurozone is in crisis. Are these factors related? I wouldn't be surprised.]

“Consumption bumps up when families have children,” said Dean Maki, chief U.S. economist at Barclays Plc in New York, who worked at the Federal Reserve from 1995 to 2000, and researched household finances. “The fact we are seeing fewer births is something of a drag on consumer spending. To the extent this turns out to be a persistent trend, it is something to be worried about.” 

The population increased by 0.92 percent, or 2.8 million people, to 311.6 million from the end of the decennial population count on April 1, 2010, to July 1, 2011, the slowest rate over a similar period since the mid-1940s, the Census Bureau said.

‘Risk Aversion’

The number of births fell to 3.96 million in 2011, and it may fall again this year to 3.94 million, forecaster Demographic Intelligence predicted in July. “A culture of risk aversion among young adults” is behind the drop, the Charlottesville, Virginia-based firm said. [Really? Did someone put "risk aversion" in the same sentence with a culture of young adults who have been taught that sex is a recreational sport?]

“Population is a very strong motivation for consumer spending,” said Chris Christopher, director of U.S. and global consumer economics research at IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts. “Weak population growth due to fewer children will play itself out in years to come.”

 ....

As most U.S. parents know, having a child is costly. A middle-income family having a baby in 2011 will spend about $234,900 over 17 years for things like food, shelter, transportation and child care, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said in June. [I swear they make up these numbers just to scare people into popping the pill. This works out to $13,817.65 per year or $1151.47 per month. Given how bloody expensive health insurance is (mine went up 17% this year, thanks to Obamacare),

Household purchases rose at a 1.5 percent rate from April through June, down from a 2.4 percent gain in the prior quarter and the weakest increase in a year, according to the Commerce Department. Purchases added 1.05 percentage points to last quarter’s 1.5 percent pace of economic growth, which was down from 2 percent from January through March.

“To the degree that family formation is being suppressed, we should be concerned,” said Neal Soss, chief economist at Credit Suisse in New York. “That holds back housing. It holds back all the spending associated with housing. Family formation is a very important motivator of economic growth.”
 
....

Read the rest at Bloomberg.