"Much of that cohort was able to work from home, which gave parents more time and flexibility to deal with the life changes and demands that pregnancy and a new baby bring."
I guess it's indelicate to say that when a man and woman are both stuck at home, more babies will be conceived. People who were unattached during the lockdown were probably less likely to find a mate, though.
It would be inaccurate to assume an increase in frequency of sex will lead to more babies, in the age of access to very effective birth control.
Many (most I assume?) choose when to have or try to have children.
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/uninten...
> In 2008, women reported that more than half of all pregnancies (51%) were unintended. By 2011, the percentage of unintended pregnancies declined to 45%. That is an improvement, but some groups still tend to have higher rates of unintended pregnancy. For example, 75% of pregnancies were unintended among teens aged 15 to 19 years.
I imagine this has continued to trend downwards since 2011, especially amongst women who had the option of remote work (more educated, more lucrative careers, higher degree of financial freedom, less religious, etc).
When people actively want not to have children, they tend to be fastidious about using their contraceptives as intended, but they're less careful when they are less opposed to the idea.
Even if someone gets pregnant earlier than they had actually "planned," many are quickly delighted after the first bout of surprise and the slight stress of moving up the related plans, though this is not always captured in surveys.
There's a vast range from "we cannot have children at all" to "we are intentionally doing every single thing possible to conceive" and many people end up in the "eh if it happens it happens" middle somewhere.
Or a couple who has already had their desired amount of kids would not end up with more kids even though they are having more sex due to them using birth control.
Whereas a 30 to 35 year old couple who was already planning on babies in the next couple years would have opted out of birth control to take advantage of the increased time being spent at home.
If all else stays the same but the amount of sex goes up, the number of babies will also go up.
Are the 25yo couples who are having more sex making other changes to decrease likelihood of pregnancy? Realistically? Probably not. They probably use their birth control the same way they always have, since it previously worked fine for the amount of sex they were having before. They don't necessarily think, "Oh, I'm increasing the odds that I'll get hit by the failure rate," especially if the way they've been using it has been "successful" for years.
https://americanpregnancy.org/unplanned-pregnancy/birth-cont...
Even the pill is listed at 9%, which is low, and of course, abortion is the last resort to completely prevent a birth.
For couples who are finished having children, a vasectomy also basically has a 0% failure rate.
Nine out of every hundred is a LOT to start out with. And if the "average amount of otherwise potentially procreative sex" part increases by, say, 11%, you get one new pregnancy out of every hundred.
Not being combative but as someone who isn't up to snuff on this subject can you provide some examples? I haven't seen examples of this so I'd like to read more.
In 2020 there was a SCOTUS decision allowing employers to refuse insurance coverage for contraception for their employees for "religious or moral" reasons, aka "we don't like it". https://www.npr.org/2020/07/08/889112788/the-supreme-court-a...
At least twelve states have laws allowing institutions and healthcare professionals to simply refuse to provide contraception if they want. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/refusing-pro...
Meanwhile, the push to classify some methods (morning-after pill & IUDs), which may prevent fertilized eggs from implanting, as "abortifacients" and therefore subject to the abortion bans now active in many states, has been going on for years but is picking up steam. Missouri's abortion ban in particular, now active, defines pregnancy as a fertilized egg, implanted or not.
It seems like the solution to that would be to pick a different insurance plan (Obamacare marketplace has no plans that restrict contraceptive coverage) or go through one of the hundreds of organizations like Planned Parenthood. Since any employee is free to pick an Obamacare plan by law, does that not ensure contraceptive coverage is always available?
Might sound a bit too cynical for this site, but plenty of people decided to get a dog in 2020. Why shouldn't they choose to have a baby for the same reasons?
For a little more cynicism, that fits with their finding that the "boom" was most pronounced for first-time parents, aka the ones that weren't stuck home with their kids...