this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2026
565 points (97.0% liked)

politics

29428 readers
2164 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Fox News Senior Medical Analyst Marc Siegel made some eyebrow-raising comments lamenting that birth rates are down among teenagers aged 15 to 19.

On Thursday, the National Center for Health Statistics reported that the U.S. fertility rate fell to another record low. The agency reported that the number of births per 1,000 women of childbearing age declined from 53.8 in 2024 to 53.1 last year. The latest figure represents a continuation of a decades-long decline in fertility rates.

Siegel joined Friday’s edition of America’s Newsroom, where Dana Perino said that while the continuing trend is not surprising, “the numbers might feel a little shocking.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MrSelfDestruct25@fedinsfw.app 214 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 59 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

If you watch the video, it's much less strange in context (in fact, it's not strange at all, although the guy himself is a religious crackpot). The reason he mentions "15 to 19" at all is because that's a specific demographic in a statistic that he used, among other things, to suggest that people are having kids much later than they used to, but he doesn't specifically talk about declining teen pregnancy like it's a bad thing. Like seriously, watch the video; I don't know what the fuck Mediaite is doing with this headline except for ragebait. I genuinely thought there would be even a little hint of weirdness, but no?? Somebody else please watch the clip and tell me what they think is wrong with it re: teen pregnancies.

The clip is 2:08 long; I encourage anyone who thinks this is bullshit apologia to watch it. I'm legitimately shocked that I'm having to defend something someone said on Fox News. The whole time watching it I was wondering when they were going to get to the shocking, deranged part.

(Side note: the host looks like a bootleg Rhea Seehorn.)


Edit: The Mediaite transcript of the quote below is wrong in a subtle but, I think, very important way. Please see edit in comment below.

[–] Jerb322@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago (2 children)

So calling it a "problem" was just a poor choice of words?

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago

maybe people who had living wages would be able to afford more kids..... but something tells me they won't address that. they'll simply take away birth control and abortion.

fucking ghouls

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

(Edit: Please see edit first for where I just realized this disconnect between reading and viewing might be coming from.)

Yeah, I really think it is. It's more evident if you watch the whole video (and I really think you should). I think he was implicating 15 to 19 rates as partial evidence that ages of pregnant women are climbing – but not problematic unto itself. Later in the video, he makes the claim that people are gravitating to waiting until they're into their 30s to have kids. I.e. the "problem" isn't that underage teens are getting pregnant less; a drop in teen pregnancies is just used as a symptom of the reasons people are waiting until late 20s, 30s, or never to have kids.

Points that he makes throughout the segment are things like advances in medical technology making late pregnancies much more viable, and that certainly isn't targeted at teen pregnancies.

Keep in mind that I have zero respect for this guy and would have no reason to doubt he would support teen pregnancies as "god's will" or whatever the shit: the cover of his book shown in the segment tells it all. Even through that lens, I just don't see it as anything more than a poor choice of words that can be easily quoted without the full surrounding context. I don't blame anyone who comes away from this thinking I'm wrong; he's earned not having a slip-up taken charitably.


EDIT: We weren't even talking about the same "it" here. Something I just noticed reading that again (and maybe why I didn't think it was fucked-up watching it): that Mediaite version of the quote gets it wrong in a subtle but very important way. The real quote is: "But the problem is teens and young adults. [keeping in mind 18 and 19 are teens] From ages 15 to 19 – the fertility rate is down seven percent [...]" Notice that there's a full stop in there. That's the way he says it. "Teens and young adults" in a healthy-ish sense of pregnancy (I don't think pregnancies at 18 are a great idea, but you do you, queen) would, to me, refer to 18 to 25-ish. Whereas the lack of a full stop (that's definitely present in his speech) implies "teens and young adults" means "15 to 19 exclusively". That distinct cut-off actually changes the meaning of what he's saying.

  • In the segment: "teens and young adults" having pregnancies later is the problem. Here's 15 to 19 to show that we're having pregnancies later, and here are some social factors that could explain that which I'll then use to argue is similar in young adults.
  • In the subtly malformed quote: "15 to 19" having pregnancies later is the problem.

The "it" I was talking about was having them so close together. The "it" you were talking about was having 15 to 19 being a problem.

[–] Stormy@thelemmy.club 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I appreciate everything you've done so far here- I mean no offense in saying this, but is there any chance you'd accept that maybe, you're viewing it through a green lens?

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I really tried not to. I even paused the segment when it showed his book to find out it was talking about "healing through God" – which to me grossly crosses a line for what a medical doctor should be doing. I didn't go into the video thinking "this is bullshit"; I went into it because that's standard practice I have for reading "person says X"-type articles like this. That's why I was in such disbelief.

I don't even like his rhetoric about how waiting for stability is some problem in need of solving because young people need to sacrifice their lives for ~~the greater good~~ muh birthrate.

In sum, I think this guy's a shithead. What I don't think is that this guy is advocating for 15-year-olds getting pregnant like the headline and the ever-convenient typo in the quote suggest.

[–] OpenStars@piefed.social 1 points 1 week ago

The media spin machine works on both sides.

Capitalism needs to constantly be fed, or the entity dies (reporter, newsroom, media company, etc.).

Unfortunately, it often turns to more unethical means to accomplish its goals - even here on the Threadiverse.

Just imagine why so many people vote conservative: they listen to false reporting, and after digging in GREAT depth, find out that the left has lied. Until they learn that the right ALSO lies, they are vulnerable... and also quite justified in their claims that the other side has lied to them. It's juvenile stuff, which somehow also predates humanity itself.

The spin-masters have harnessed this natural law and turned it to their own gain.

[–] Rug_Pisser@piefed.zip 7 points 1 week ago

Mediaite posting rage bait headlines? Surely not!