Average Age Of US Women Giving Birth Increases To Nearly 30: CDC
The average age of women giving birth in the United States is now close to 30 years, with the percentage of first births falling among young females, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a June 13 National Vital Statistics report.
The mean age at birth for all mothers increased from 28.7 in 2016 to 29.6 in 2023, according to the report. For first births, the average age rose from 26.6 years to 27.5 during this period.
The percentage of first births rose by 12.6 percent in women aged 30-34 and by 25 percent for women aged 35 and above.
In contrast, the percentage of first births among women aged 20-24 declined by 9 percent, and for those younger than 20 by 26 percent.
'Higher maternal age is linked to smaller family size on average and may carry different health risks and benefits compared with younger maternal age,' the CDC said.
'The findings of this analysis suggest that U.S. women may be continuing to delay motherhood,' it added. 'Motherhood is increasingly delayed across most races and Hispanic-origin groups.'
Asian mothers saw the largest increase in average age at first birth of 1.4 years. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander mothers had the smallest increase at 0.4 years.
A 2023 study published by PubMed Central showed that women were delaying childbearing due to factors such as education, participation in the labor market, and shifting personal preferences.
'Access to safe, efficient, and reversible pregnancy prevention methods' has also contributed to delayed childbearing in women, it said.
Click here to read more…
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Insider
2 days ago
- Gulf Insider
Average Age Of US Women Giving Birth Increases To Nearly 30: CDC
The average age of women giving birth in the United States is now close to 30 years, with the percentage of first births falling among young females, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a June 13 National Vital Statistics report. The mean age at birth for all mothers increased from 28.7 in 2016 to 29.6 in 2023, according to the report. For first births, the average age rose from 26.6 years to 27.5 during this period. The percentage of first births rose by 12.6 percent in women aged 30-34 and by 25 percent for women aged 35 and above. In contrast, the percentage of first births among women aged 20-24 declined by 9 percent, and for those younger than 20 by 26 percent. 'Higher maternal age is linked to smaller family size on average and may carry different health risks and benefits compared with younger maternal age,' the CDC said. 'The findings of this analysis suggest that U.S. women may be continuing to delay motherhood,' it added. 'Motherhood is increasingly delayed across most races and Hispanic-origin groups.' Asian mothers saw the largest increase in average age at first birth of 1.4 years. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander mothers had the smallest increase at 0.4 years. A 2023 study published by PubMed Central showed that women were delaying childbearing due to factors such as education, participation in the labor market, and shifting personal preferences. 'Access to safe, efficient, and reversible pregnancy prevention methods' has also contributed to delayed childbearing in women, it said. Click here to read more…
Gulf Insider
3 days ago
- Gulf Insider
Why Have Any COVID-19 Vaccines, 2025?
Five years on, SARS–CoV–2 is a ghost. It's not the beast it was (or was purported to be); yet (as of this last 'flu season') young medical students were still required to get the 'jab.' The current iteration of coronavirus, Omicron, LP.8.1–feels like a cold now, nothing more – moreover, its epitope is not even included in the 'bivalent' Covid vaccine handed out, 2025. Prior to 2003's SARS, coronaviruses were just that: colds, the kind you shook off with soup and sleep. No one demanded shots. No one cared. So why are we still doing this? The numbers, the past, the plain truth say it's hollow—a rule for the sake of rules. Back in 2020, the virus (or the overreaction to it) hit like a storm. Hospitals were packed. People died–350,000 in the US, mostly old, mostly sick – either 'from' or 'with' coronavirus. Kids? They were fine. The American Academy of Pediatrics counted 112 deaths under 18 by December—0.005% of cases; however, those children had problems: diabetes, obesity, and bad lungs. Healthy ones sneezed and moved on. Medical students, in their 20s, were close behind. The CDC pegged that age group's mortality rate at 0.02%–1,200 out of 6 million cases. Two percent landed in hospitals; near zero needed ICUs. There was no real danger for them, 2020 – and beyond. Now it's 2025. The virus hasn't vanished, but it's weak. Immunity—from shots, or from previously having contracted one or another of the Covid variant strains–covers essentially everyone. The current Omicron virus is no monster. It's a nuisance– moreover, it's likely conflated with background 'common cold' coronavirus. Omicron showed up in 2021, spread like crazy, but didn't hit hard. My 2022 piece 'Is it Time to Accept That Omicron is not COVID-19?' noted it was not even genomically and offspring of Covid-19—just another coronavirus, like the ones that give you a runny nose. The current version is much weaker. So what's the reason for medical students' 'booster' mandates' continuation? The shots aren't harmless. Myocarditis hits young guys–1–10 per 100,000 mRNA doses, says a 2022 JAMA study. Medical schools, in particular, should know better. They should move away from anachronistic, lockstep, doctrinaire mandates. In February 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order prohibiting federal funding for educational institutions that mandate Covid–19 vaccines for in–person attendance. Medical schools reliant on federal funds may reconsider these pointless mandates, paeans to outdated orthodoxy.
Gulf Insider
4 days ago
- Gulf Insider
Fired Harvard Epidemiologist Named to CDC Vaccine Panel
World-renowned infectious-disease epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff — who was fired from Harvard Medical School last year after refusing the COVID vaccine — just got a new gig. Kulldorff has been named a member of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices. Kulldorff, who had refused the COVID vaccine because of his infection-acquired immunity, lost his appointment at a Harvard-affiliated hospital in the early days of the COVID era, and in March of 2024 was officially terminated as a med school faculty member. Since the COVID lockdowns began five years ago this month, Kulldorff argued that tactics such as social distancing, masking children, vaccines after infections, and other extreme measures were not the best course of action to fight the virus. He co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration, which called for sensible tactics that would allow the globe to reach 'herd immunity' and has been signed by nearly 1 million scientists worldwide. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in announcing the new members of the panel last week on X, wrote that his selections signify a 'major step towards restoring public trust in vaccines.' Kennedy wrote he retired the 17 current members of the committee and is repopulating ACIP with eight new members 'committed to evidence-based medicine, gold-standard science, and common sense.' 'They have each committed to demanding definitive safety and efficacy data before making any new vaccine recommendations. The committee will review safety and efficacy data for the current schedule as well,' Kennedy stated. MassLive reported that in 2021, 'Kulldorff posted on X that 'thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should.'' 'COVID vaccines are important for older high-risk people and their care-takers,' he wrote. 'Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Nor children.' According to the New York Times , after Kennedy's announcement, some infectious disease and vaccine experts accused the health secretary of going back on his pledge not to pick so-called anti-vaxxers. 'When Mr. Kennedy fired the entire committee, known as the A.C.I.P., he cited financial conflicts of interest and said a clean sweep was necessary to restore public trust in vaccination,' the Times reported. As for Harvard's role in the controversy, writing in City Journal last year, Kulldorff argued that Harvard turned its back on him, open debate, and medical freedom. 'The beauty of our immune system is that those who recover from an infection are protected if and when they are re-exposed. This has been known since the Athenian Plague of 430 BC—but it is no longer known at Harvard,' he wrote. 'Three prominent Harvard faculty coauthored the now infamous 'consensus' memorandum in The Lancet, questioning the existence of Covid-acquired immunity. By continuing to mandate the vaccine for students with a prior Covid infection, Harvard is de facto denying 2,500 years of science.' Kennedy, in announcing Kulldorff, noted he is a biostatistician and 'a leading expert in vaccine safety and infectious disease surveillance.' '… Dr. Kulldorff developed widely used tools such as SaTScan and TreeScan for detecting disease outbreaks and vaccine adverse events. His expertise includes statistical methods for public health surveillance, immunization safety, and infectious disease epidemiology. He has also been an influential voice in public health policy, advocating for evidence-based approaches to pandemic response.' Also read: Early COVID-19 Vaccine Patent In China Raises New Questions For U.S. Investigators
