By Jessica Jernigan, Policy Intern

Published Date: 4/30/26

During a recent appearance on Fox News, the network’s senior medical analyst had this to say about record-low fertility rates in the United States: 

We still have 3.6 million births a year, but the problem is teens and young adults. From ages 15-19 the fertility rate is down 7% and it’s down 70% over the last two decades, meaning we’re telling people that are young not to have babies, to wait until they’re in a more stable life situation, until they’re more financially secure, maybe they haven’t found the right partner.

This statement attracted a lot of attention in mainstream media—and for good reason. While politicians, activists, educators, and everyday citizens may disagree about which policies are most effective at reducing teen pregnancy, helping adolescents prevent unintended pregnancies has been a shared goal across the political spectrum for more than half a century. 

Dr. Marc Siegel doesn’t explain why it’s a problem that teenagers aren’t having enough babies during this interview, but he’s voicing an argument that is increasingly common among extremists who see the downward trend in birthrates as a threat to the economic and geopolitical health of the United States. From this perspective, teen pregnancies, even if girls and young women don’t want to become pregnant, are seen as  a solution to their manufactured population crisis. The latest report from The Heritage Foundation, “Saving America by Saving the Family,” offers a detailed look at this worldview. You can read SIECUS’s full analysis of this document here, but one of its core arguments is that the federal government should take an active role in reshaping culture, gender roles, education, and public policy to boost population growth. This includes hijacking sex ed to teach girls and young women that their primary role should be to get married and have many, many children—”for the good of the country.”

But, if Siegel and other pronatalist alarmists are genuinely concerned about the economic and social implications of lower fertility and slowing population growth in the US, they may find some comfort in a recent United Nations report suggesting that declining populations don’t have to spell disaster—as long as countries are willing to adapt. One of the central findings of “The Real Fertility Crisis” is that most people around the world actually want to have more children than they do. At first glance, that might seem to back up Heritage’s argument that something is going wrong with family formation. But the UN and Heritage disagree sharply on both the cause of the problem and what to do about it.

These two visions couldn’t be more different. The Heritage Foundation refuses to acknowledge structural inequalities as legitimate barriers to family formation, proposes restricting access to abortion and contraception, and pushes traditional gender roles. The UN starts from the opposite premise: That people will have the families they want when they have economic security, gender equality, and social support. One vision narrows people’s options; the other expands them.

This is exactly the perspective that drives comprehensive sex education. Rather than discouraging young people from having families, sex ed gives them the tools to make informed, intentional choices. That’s not a threat to family formation. It’s what healthy family formation actually looks like.