We built abundance and lost the thing that matters



We have built a world overflowing with noise, convenience, and endless choice, yet something essential has slipped out of reach. You can sense it in the restless mood of the country, the anxiety among young people who cannot explain why they feel empty, in the angry confusion that dominates our politics.

We have more wealth than any nation in history, but the heart of the culture feels strangely malnourished. Before we can debate debt, or elections, we must confront the reality that we created a world of things, but not a world of purpose.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

What we are living through is not just economic or political dysfunction. It is the vacuum that appears when a civilization mistakes abundance for meaning.

Modern life is stuffed with everything except what the human soul actually needs. We built systems to make life faster, easier, more efficient — and then wondered why those systems cannot teach our children who they are, why they matter, or what is worth living for.

We tell the next generation to chase success, influence, and wealth, turning childhood into branding. We ask kids what they want to do, not who they want to be. We build a world wired for dopamine rather than dignity, and then we wonder why so many people feel unmoored.

When everything is curated, optimized, and delivered at the push of a button, the question “what is my life for?” gets lost in the static.

The crisis beneath the headlines

It is not just the young who feel this crisis. Every part of our society is straining under the weight of meaninglessness.

Look at the debt cycle — the mathematical fate no civilization has ever escaped once it crosses a threshold that we seem to have already blown by. While ordinary families feel the pressure, our leaders respond with distraction, with denial, or by rewriting the very history that could have warned us.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

We have entered a cultural moment where the noise is so loud that it drowns out the simplest truths. We are living in a country that no longer knows how to hear itself think.

So people go searching. Some drift toward the false promise of socialism, some toward the empty thrill of rebellion. Some simply check out. When a culture forgets what gives life meaning, it becomes vulnerable to every ideology that offers a quick answer.

The quiet return of meaning

And yet, quietly, something else is happening. Beneath the frustration and cynicism, many Americans are recognizing that meaning does not come from what we own, but from what we honor. It does not rise from success, but from virtue. It does not emerge from noise, but from the small, sacred things that modern life has pushed to the margins — the home, the table, the duty you fulfill, the person you help when no one is watching.

The danger is assuming that this rediscovery happens on its own. It does not.

Reorientation requires intention. It requires rebuilding the habits and virtues that once held us together. It requires telling the truth about our history instead of rewriting it to fit today’s narratives. And it requires acknowledging what has been erased: that meaning is inseparable from God’s presence in a nation’s life.

RELATED: A nation without trust is a nation on borrowed time

Denis Novikov via iStock/Getty Images

Where renewal begins

We have built a world without stillness, and then we wondered why no one can hear the questions that matter. Those questions remain, whether we acknowledge them or not. They do not disappear just because we drown them in entertainment or noise. They wait for us, and the longer we ignore them, the more disoriented we become.

Meaning is still available. It is found in rebuilding the smallest, most human spaces — the places that cannot be digitized, globalized, or automated. The home. The family. The community.

These are the daily virtues that do not trend on social media but that hold a civilization upright. If we want to repair this country, we begin there, exactly where every durable civilization has always begun: one virtue at a time, one tradition at a time, one generation at a time.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn’s FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

North Dakota Supreme Court overturns lower court judge: Pro-life ban reinstated after leftist attempt to block law



In response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, then-North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (R) stated, "This decision is a victory for the many North Dakotans who have fought so hard and for so long to protect the unborn in our state."

The law 'protects unborn children throughout gestation from abortion, except to prevent the death of the mother as well as other exceptions.'

While Burgum was ultimately right in claiming victory, his celebration was premature as it pertained to the Roughrider State. It was not, after all, until Friday when abortion was formally and finally banned in the state.

Quick background

The overturning of Roe triggered a 2007 law making it a Class C felony to perform an abortion in North Dakota, except to save the life of the mother or in the case of rape or incest.

Just prior to the law taking effect, the abortionists from the Red River Women's Clinic who moved their abortion clinic from Fargo to Minnesota successfully sued to get an injunction.

Months after South Central Judicial District Court Judge Bruce Romanick blocked the law, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled that the abortion ban would remain blocked while the legal battle over the law's constitutionality proceeded.

Jon Jensen, chief justice on the court, noted that the abortionists had "demonstrated likely success on the merits that there is a fundamental right to an abortion in the limited instances of life-saving and health-preserving circumstances, and the statute is not narrowly tailored to satisfy strict scrutiny."

Republican state Sen. Janne Myrdal, the former head of ND Choose Life, subsequently introduced a similar piece of legislation, which repealed and replaced the 2007 law. Myrdal's Senate Bill 2150 passed the North Dakota House and Senate in landslide votes and was ultimately ratified by Burgum in April 2023.

Desperate as ever to keep abortion legal, the abortionists behind the initial challenge filed an amended complaint asking that the same judge who previously gave them an injunction would deem the ban unconstitutional under the North Dakota Constitution.

RELATED: 'Abortion Is Everything' book for kids calls killing unborn children 'human superpower'

Photo by © Ralf-Finn Hestoft/CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images

Romanick proved happy to oblige them, stating on Sept. 12, 2024, that the law was "void for vagueness" and that it was violative of the North Dakota Constitution, which supposedly recognizes a fundamental right to choose abortion before viability.

The state kept pressing the issue in court — North Dakota Attorney General Drew H. Wrigley (R) appealed Romanick's decision — and prevailed.

Victory at last

The North Dakota Supreme Court reinstated the abortion ban on Friday. While three of the five justices deemed the ban "unconstitutionally vague," the state constitution requires at least four justices to agree in order to find a law unconstitutional.

In his dissent, which was joined by Jensen, Justice Jerod Tufte said that the state district court erred both in concluding the law was unconstitutionally vague and in concluding that the state constitution protects a right to abortion broad enough to conflict with Senate Bill 2150.

Pro-abortion activists were apoplectic over the codification of the people's will on the matter of abortion in North Dakota.

"This decision is a devastating loss for pregnant North Dakotans," Meetra Mehdizadeh, senior attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. "As a majority of the Court found, this cruel and confusing ban is incomprehensible to physicians."

Tammi Kromenaker, executive director of the Red River Women's Clinic, complained that "making it illegal just makes it harder" to get abortions.

Pro-live activists, alternatively, were overjoyed.

Ingrid Duran, the National Right to Life's director of state legislation, welcomed the decision, noting that the law "protects unborn children throughout gestation from abortion, except to prevent the death of the mother as well as other exceptions."

Myrdal, the Republican who introduced the legislation, reportedly said that she is "thrilled and grateful that two justices that are highly respected saw the truth of the matter, that this is fully constitutional for the mother and for the unborn child and thereafter for that sake."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Something has gone terribly wrong': Marriage is in 'disastrous' decline — perhaps because of women



The marriage rate has been in decline for decades, dropping from 10.6 per 1,000 people in 1980 to 6.1 in 2023. Last year, American adults were less likely to be married than at nearly any other time since the Census Bureau began logging marital status in 1940, with married couples heading only 47.1% of U.S. households.

The apparent aversion to marriage is bad news for American children, who perform better in school and are far less likely to end up in prison or depressed when raised by married parents, as well as for American adults who tend to see better health outcomes, be happier, and live longer when espoused.

'Devaluing marriage and motherhood has consequences.'

Recent Pew Research Center analysis of survey data from the University of Michigan suggests that this decline may continue — especially if young women's growing resistance to marriage goes unremedied.

Whereas 20 years prior, 80% of 12th graders said that they were most likely to choose marriage in the long run, only 67% of 12th graders polled in 2023 indicated that they want to get married someday. Another 24% said they don't know if they'll get married, up from 16% in 1993.

This drop appears to have been largely driven by shifting views among girls.

In 1993, 83% of girls and 76% of boys said that they wanted to get married. In 2023, only 61% of girls said they wanted to get married — a drop of 22% — while 74% of boys indicated they wanted to ultimately tie the knot.

RELATED: Family or fallout — experts assess the threats now facing the nuclear family

Photo by STRINGER/AFP via Getty Images

Pew indicated that there was also a precipitous drop in the percentage of 12th graders who indicated they wanted to have kids if they marry.

Whereas in 1993, 82% said they wanted to have kids, in 2023, only 73% indicated they wanted to welcome new life into this world. Even more dramatically, the percentage of those who said they would "very likely" want to have kids if married dropped from 64% in 1993 to 48% in 2023.

"It's almost like decades of devaluing marriage and motherhood has consequences," wrote the Alabama Policy Institute.

Katy Faust, founder of the children's advocacy group Them Before Us, stated, "More than almost anything else trending, this terrifies me. Because of the nature of our bodies women have historically pursued marriage more. What kind of disastrous, antihuman messaging are young women being flooded with to return these kinds of results?"

RELATED: Domestic extremist or: How I learned to stop worrying and love the mom

Photo by Lambert/Getty Images

Dr. Brad Wilcox, professor of sociology at the University of Virginia and director of the National Marriage Project, said the anti-nuptial trend among young women and adolescent girls was "disastrous."

Wilcox underscored that this trend reflects a particularly raw deal for women, highlighting a recent YouGov survey of U.S. women, ages 25 to 55, fielded by the Institute for Family Studies and the Wheatley Institute, which found that married women with children are:

  • more likely (19%) to report being "very happy" than both unmarried women with children (13%) and unmarried women without children (10%);
  • more likely (47%) to report that life has felt enjoyable most or all of the time in the past 30 days than both unmarried women with children (40%) and unmarried women without children (34%);
  • less likely (11%) to report being lonely most or all of the time in the past 30 days than both unmarried women with children (23%) and unmarried women without children (20%);
  • more likely (51%) to receive physical affection than both unmarried women with children (29%) and unmarried women without children (17%); and
  • more likely (28%) to report their lives have a clear sense of purpose than both unmarried women with children (25%) and unmarried women without children (16%).

Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet said of the Pew report, "Something has gone terribly wrong."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump’s Desire For More American Babies Is Good. His Newest IVF Plan Is Not

President Donald Trump’s newest plan to expand IVF is a prime example of good intentions gone wrong.

‘Make Assassinations Great Again’: Leftist Demonstrators Call For Murder Of Trump

We now live in a society where the left not only accepts but celebrates throngs of haters carrying signs calling for murder.

Author Of Children’s Classic Love You Forever Plans Assisted Suicide

As Robert Munsch faces his waning days, I pray he will remember the message of his own book and have a change of heart.

Reckless hate cannot win: Christ has already broken it



Moments after announcing Charlie Kirk’s death on Fox News’ “The Five,” Dana Perino, normally composed and unflappable, fought back tears. Her voice trembled as she pleaded for what she called a “circuit breaker,” something to break the rising current of fury now running through our culture.

Her words were not political. They were profoundly human. And they named what many feel: The world is burning too hot, and we are running out of ways to cool it down.

There is only One who has ever absorbed the full current of hatred and did not pass it on.

We’ve all sensed that current. It hums beneath politics, families, neighborhoods, even churches. Rage lurks like a storm, waiting for the next spark. Perino wasn’t just mourning a death. She was begging for relief from the relentless voltage of hate.

But no human circuit breaker exists. History proves it. Every attempt to interrupt the current — revolutions, reforms, resolutions — eventually fails. We reset the breaker, and the current surges again. Because the overload isn’t out there in the systems. It’s in here, in the human heart.

There is only One who has ever absorbed the full current of hatred and did not pass it on. Jesus Christ didn’t just defuse tension. He took the lightning bolt straight into Himself. The cross was the great interruption, where perfect love bore the full load of human rage and divine justice in one cataclysmic strike.

Stephen, the first Christian martyr, saw it. As he was about to be stoned, he gazed into heaven and declared he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God. That proclamation didn’t calm his killers. It enraged them.

Truth always incites the fury of hell.

We don’t make Jesus “Lord of our life.” He already is Lord, whether we acknowledge Him or not. And Scripture says that one day, “every knee will bow … and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” (Philippians 2:10-11). Some will bow in gratitude. Others will be brought to their knees by the rod of iron (Revelation 19:15). But all will bow.

Which means this: Hatred will not burn itself out. It will not abate. The closer Christ’s light comes, the more ferociously darkness will fight it.

King Théoden, in Peter Jackson's “The Two Towers,” voiced the dread many feel: “What can men do against such reckless hate?”

Aragorn’s reply was simple and defiant: “Ride out and meet them.”

Charlie Kirk did just that. He rode out and met the storm head-on.

But greater still, Christ did that. He rode out from heaven into the teeth of our hatred and took the full charge of it upon Himself. The cross was not retreat. It was the countercharge that broke the power of darkness forever.

Centuries later, Martin Luther stood before the full weight of church and empire, knowing they could kill him for refusing to recant. He said simply: “Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.”

He wasn’t fearless. He was anchored. And as the storm closed in around him, he gave the church its battle hymn:

The body they may kill;
God’s truth abideth still.

Luther never believed the hate would abate. He simply knew it could not win. And that is where we must stand as well.

We do not stand with bravado. We stand with scars. We stand, not by denying the darkness, but by fixing our eyes on the One who already absorbed its full blast and still stands.

He doesn’t only stop the current from destroying us. He rewires the entire system. What was corroded, He makes new. What was dead, He makes alive. He is not just the breaker. He is the pure current, the very life of God now flowing through those who belong to Him.

I have lived long enough to see what hate does when it is unleashed. It devours not just its targets but its hosts. It corrodes from within. And it will not stop on its own. Hate is never satisfied. It must be interrupted.

RELATED: Why Charlie Kirk’s assassination will change us in ways this generation has never seen

Photo by Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune/Getty Images

That interruption has already come. The current has already been broken. And the one who bore it all now reigns, and one day, so will we.

We, like Aragorn of “The Lord of the Rings,” and like Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA, are only shadows of that greater warrior, Christ, who rode out to meet the fury and shattered it at the cross.

And our response to Him is not with clenched fists, but with lifted eyes and steady voices:

Lead on, O King eternal,
We follow, not with fears;
For gladness breaks like morning
Where'er Thy face appears.
Thy cross is lifted o’er us;
We journey in its light;
The crown awaits the conquest;
Lead on, O God of might.

The hate will not abate. Charlie knew this.

But God’s truth abideth still.

And our King rides before us.

Trump defends religious faith, says Tim Kaine 'should be ashamed' for equating the Declaration of Independence to Iran



President Donald Trump torched Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia over his recent remarks undermining the importance of faith in our country's founding.

Kaine recently argued that our natural rights come from the government and not from God, directly contradicting the Declaration of Independence. Kaine went on to say that the simple notion that our inalienable rights come from God is "extremely troubling," comparing this core founding principle to Iran's theocratic regime.

'It is the tyrants who are denying our rights.'

"The notion that rights don't come from laws and don't come from the government, but come from the Creator — that's what the Iranian government believes," Kaine said in a committee hearing Wednesday. "It's a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Shia [sic] law, ... and they do it because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their Creator."

"The statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling," he continued.

RELATED: Tim Kaine shockingly compares the Declaration of Independence to Iran's theocratic regime: 'Extremely troubling'

Trump takes a shot at Democrat Senator Tim Kaine: "The ineffectual senator from Virginia stated that the notion that our rights come from our Creator is extremely troubling. This is advocated by a totalitarian regime. It is tyrants who are denying that our rights come from God." pic.twitter.com/3h3uVy0RvG
— TheBlaze (@theblaze) September 8, 2025

Kaine's comments were promptly met with outrage on the right, most recently with Trump calling him "ineffectual" and saying he "should be ashamed of himself."

"As everyone in this room understands, it is the tyrants who are denying our rights and the rights that come from God," Trump said during a speech at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., on Monday.

"It's this Declaration of Independence that proclaims we're endowed by our Creator with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," Trump added. "The senator from Virginia should be ashamed of himself."

RELATED: John Thune to use Democrats' own 'nuclear option' to defeat Senate confirmation blockade

Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

Trump went on to defend the notion of God-given rights in spite of Kaine's comments, saying we will "never apologize for our faith."

"We will never surrender our God-given rights. We will defend our liberties, our values, our sovereignty, and we will defend our freedom," Trump said.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

FDA blasts 'politically motivated' criticism over review of SSRI health risks during pregnancy



The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is pushing back against criticism from medical establishmentarians over the agency's willingness to take a closer look at the health risks posed by antidepressants, specifically selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, during pregnancy.

Various health organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, accused FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, his agency, and the participants in an expert panel discussion that Makary hosted last month of disseminating "inaccurate" information and of making "outlandish" claims.

'Adolescents exposed to SSRIs in utero exhibited higher anxiety and depression symptoms than unexposed adolescents.'

An FDA spokesperson defended the agency's discussions with experts on the topic, suggesting to Blaze News that the critiques of the agency's expert advisory process were "politically driven."

Dr. Jay Gingrich, professor of developmental psychology at the Columbia University Medical Center, noted during the July 21 panel discussion that while expectant mothers suffering depression have long been prescribed SSRIs, it was not until recently that any substantial research was undertaken to determine whether these drugs improved outcomes in the mothers' offspring.

JAMA Medical News confirmed that no randomized clinical trials have been undertaken, due partly to ethical concerns. Despite the absence of such trial data, 6%-8% of pregnant women are reportedly prescribed SSRIs in the United States.

After observing in rodent trials that the mice born of female mice exposed to SSRIs exhibited "stark changes in behavior" and "changes in the brain," Gingrich explored with Finnish researchers whether SSRI exposure in the womb was similarly consequential for human children and found that it was.

RELATED: 'It's immoral': RFK Jr. axes Biden vax reporting requirement, targets doctors' 'hidden incentives'

Farrukh Saeed/Getty Images

A study co-authored by Gingrich and published earlier this year in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Communications provided further confirmation of negative impacts, revealing that "adolescents exposed to SSRIs in utero exhibited higher anxiety and depression symptoms than unexposed adolescents and also had greater activation of the amygdala and other limbic structures when processing fearful faces."

The study concluded that "SSRIs are a common therapeutic strategy in perinatal maternal emotional disorders, however the present cross-species data and prior studies on single species indicate that we need more mechanistic understanding of how pharmacological factors like SSRIs impact early brain development and later result in maladaptive behaviors."

'The public needs better information, and the FDA must strengthen the warnings.'

Dr. Adam Urato, chief of maternal-fetal medicine at MetroWest Medical Center in Massachusetts, told his fellow panelists that he has observed in recent years women increasingly taking antidepressants during pregnancy, in many cases thinking SSRIs "don't affect the baby or cause complications."

"These drugs alter the mom’s brain. Why wouldn't they affect the baby’s?" said Urato. "We can see it on prenatal ultrasound. The ultrasound studies show SSRI-exposed fetuses have different movement and behavior patterns. After birth the newborn babies can have jitteriness, breathing difficulties, and higher rates of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit."

"The public needs better information, and the FDA must strengthen the warnings," Urato underscored. "For example, there's currently no warning regarding preterm birth or preeclampsia. The postpartum hemorrhage warning needs to be strengthened. But perhaps the major shortcoming is that the label doesn't make clear that SSRIs alter fetal brain development."

The concerns raised by Gingrich, Urato, and the other panelists evidently ruffled some feathers at organizations that champion the use of SSRIs during pregnancy.

Steven Fleischman, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, rushed to complain, stating shortly after the conclusion of the panel discussion that it "was alarmingly unbalanced and did not adequately acknowledge the harms of untreated perinatal mood disorders in pregnancy," adding, "Robust evidence has shown that SSRIs are safe in pregnancy and that most do not increase the risk of birth defects.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' current practice guidelines reportedly recommend SSRIs as a first-line pharmacotherapy for mothers between the time of conception and up until a year after the baby's birth.

Fleischman told JAMA Medical News last week that the panel may "incite fear and cause patients to come to false conclusions that could prevent them from getting the treatment they need."

'Commissioner Makary has an interest in ensuring policies reflect the latest gold-standard science and protect public health.'

Marketa Wills, CEO of the American Psychiatric Association, echoed Fleischman in a July 25 letter to Makary, stating, "We are alarmed and concerned by the misinterpretations and unbalanced viewpoints shared by several of the panelists."

"The inaccurate interpretation of data, and the use of opinion, rather than the years of research on antidepressant medications, will exacerbate stigma and deter pregnant individuals from seeking necessary care," wrote Wills.

In addition to stating that "the overall evidence suggests that individuals can and should take SSRIs prior to or during pregnancy, when they are clinically indicated for treatment," Wills claimed that "recent meta-analyses have found no association between prenatal SSRI exposure and overall risk of birth defects."

The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine similarly complained, suggesting that the panelists made "unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims."

RELATED: RFK Jr. pulls plug on mRNA jabs because they 'pose more risks than benefits'

Dobrila Vignjevic/Getty Images stock photo

Other groups similarly outraged by the discussion of possible downsides to drugs characterized as safe and effective include Postpartum Support International, the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry, and the Massachusetts General Hospital for Women's Mental Health.

An FDA spokesperson told Blaze News, "The claim that the FDA’s expert advisory process is 'one-sided' or politically driven is insulting to the independent scientists, clinicians, and researchers who dedicate their expertise to these panels."

"FDA expert panels are roundtable discussions with independent panels of scientific experts that will review the latest scientific evidence, evaluate potential health risks, explore safer alternatives, and individual experts may offer their recommendations for regulatory action," continued the spokesperson. "This initiative is part of the FDA’s broader efforts to apply rigorous, evidence-based standards to ingredient safety and modernize regulatory oversight, thoroughly considering evolving science and consumer health."

The spokesperson noted that "Commissioner Makary has an interest in ensuring policies reflect the latest gold-standard science and protect public health" and stated that suggesting "his engagement on women’s health signals a desire to manipulate outcomes is politically motivated and undermines the serious work being done to improve care for millions of women."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

American fertility rate hits all-time low as Dems clamor for foreign replacements



A study published last year in the Lancet revealed that fertility rates have declined in all countries and territories since 1950 and that "human civilization is rapidly converging on a sustained low-fertility reality."

The fertility rate references the average number of children born to a woman in her lifetime if she were to experience the age-specific fertility rates of a given year.

In 1950, the global fertility rate was 4.84. In 2021, it was 2.23. By the end of this century, it is expected to drop to 1.59 globally — a rate that Britain, Europe, and a number of Asian countries such as South Korea have long been well below.

This trend is catastrophic, especially for those hoping to bequeath their nations to native-born persons as opposed to imported multitudes and for those keen more broadly to stave off a global population collapse. After all, the fertility rate necessary for a population to maintain stability and replenish itself without requiring replacement by foreign nationals is 2.1.

The United States set a fertility record last year — in the wrong direction.

New data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveal that U.S. fertility rates dropped to an all-time low in 2024, with 1.599 children being born per woman. By way of comparison, the latest reported fertility rates in Australia, England and Wales, Canada, and China are 1.5, 1.44, 1.26, and 1.01, respectively.

The data released on Thursday indicates that birth rates — the number of births per 1,000 females — dropped for women aged 15-34 between 2023 and 2024 while rising for women aged 40-44, signaling that some women are delaying having kids.

'The number of births has declined 16%; the GFR is down 22% from 2007 to 2024.'

RELATED: Baby wars: Trump voter birth rate outpacing Democrat voters in record numbers

TanyaJoy/iStock/Getty Images Plus

"U.S. birth certificate data show that, from 2023 to 2024, the number of births increased by 1%, while the [general fertility rate] declined 1%," the CDC stated. "From 2007 (the most recent high) to 2023, the number of births has declined 16%; the GFR is down 22% from 2007 to 2024."

Last year, there were only 3.62 million births registered in the United States — 429,880 fewer births than reported in the U.S. in 2000 and 370,452 fewer births than in 2010, and only 1.5 million more than the known number of illegal aliens who stole over the southern border into the homeland last year.

The U.S. has been on a downward trend for centuries, interrupted only by the mid-20th-century baby boom which saw a fertility rate of 3.7 at its zenith.

The new record was set under the Biden administration, which championed the slaughter of the unborn and the effective sterilization of vulnerable populations while enabling millions of foreign nationals to steal into the country — a demographic substitution that one Democrat referred to as a "replenishment" of the population and critics have long referred to as the "great replacement."

The Trump administration has taken a different tack, not only protecting children from sterilization at the hands of gender ideologues and tackling chemicals linked to infertility, but promoting pro-natalist and pro-family policies.

Vice President JD Vance said in his address to pro-life advocates at the 52nd annual March of Life in January, "I want more babies in the United States of America; I want more happy children in our country; and I want beautiful young men and young women who are eager to welcome them into the world and eager to raise them."

RELATED: Netflix rebooting 'Captain Planet' to push pagan climate propaganda on new generation of kids

ullstein bild via Getty Images

With this aim, the Trump administration got Trump accounts — the baby bonus program that has the federal government contribute $1,000 to each qualifying child after the birth — passed in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and has taken steps to reduce the cost of in vitro fertilization.

'They start seeing humans as a plague, a blight on the surface of the earth.'

Such policy efforts, the impact of which are not immediately clear but have not produced great results abroad, have enraged the likes of failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who said earlier this year of conservatives' supposed plan for America: "It's all in there. Return to the family, the nuclear family, return to being a Christian nation, return to, you know, producing a lot of children."

"[It's] sort of odd because the people who produce the most children in our country are immigrants, and they want to deport them," Clinton added.

Clinton is hardly the only Democrat who figures that immigration is the answer to low American birth rates.

Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, suggested while stumping for Kamala Harris last year that "America is not having enough babies to keep our populations up, so we need immigrants that have been vetted to do work."

Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) said in 2022 that the answer to declining birth rates was amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens.

"We're short of workers; we have a population that is not reproducing on its own with the same level that it used to," Schumer said. "The only way we're going to have a great future in America is if we welcome and embrace immigrants — the Dreamers and all of them — 'cause our ultimate goal is to help the Dreamers but get a path to citizenship for all 11 million or however many undocumented there are here."

Elon Musk, among those who have raised the alarm about the risk of population collapse, claimed last year in an interview with Tucker Carlson that the "civilizational suicide" under way in the West was caused in part by climate alarmism.

"The environmental movement in the extreme is fundamentally misanthropic and anti-human," Musk told Tucker Carlson in an interview. "They start seeing humans as a plague, a blight on the surface of the earth — that earth would be this paradise if only the humans weren't here."

Morgan Stanley analysts told investors in 2021 that the "movement to not have children owing to fears over climate change is growing and impacting fertility rates quicker than any preceding trend in the field of fertility decline."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!