Axios has a story today on how the out-of-wedlock birthrate has stabilized and is the “new normal.” The article works very hard to make it sound like this is a great thing, with only one downside: Those grumpy conservatives don’t like it:
Why it matters: If having babies without being married becomes increasingly common, it could help stabilize falling fertility rates and avoid an aging, childless future, Michael Hermann, a senior adviser for economics and demography at UNFPA, told Axios. But it’s also likely to lead to more cultural friction, as social conservatives are unlikely to accept more births outside marriage. [emphasis mine]
Later on, there’s some acknowledgment that the conservative objection is more than merely aesthetic:
The other side: The trend causes concern for social conservatives. “There’s an abundance of evidence in the U.S. to indicate that children are better off with a married mother and father,” Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council, told Axios. He added that the increase in births outside of marriage “portends less stability for children.”
Still, this is the social-science equivalent of “Republicans pounce.” Sprigg is right. There is an enormous amount of research — and not just by social conservatives — about the downside of out-of-wedlock births. This framing makes it sound like conservatives are the only ones who really care, and if you don’t read all the way down, you’re left with the impression that the only downside is that conservatives will make a fuss about an otherwise beneficial social trend.