This is not news any family wants to read.  The last thing our recession-bound country needs are rising health care costs, particularly when we know these costs will be augmented dramatically should the Obama health care plan go into effect.

Buried within the Bloomberg article is a story that is underreported but finally seeping-out into the mainstream press: “Contributing to the rise in premiums are … fewer young and healthy people in the insurance pool.”  This assertion is being made by the respected insurance association president Karen Ignagni, but it is verified by cold data.  The Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics projects the following:

… by the end of the 2004 to 2014 period, most of the baby boomers will have turned fifty-five. Consequently, the age fifty-five and older segment of the labor force is expected to grow most rapidly, increasing by 11.3 million, or 49.1 percent. Because of the aging of the American population, this segment of the labor force will increase at almost five times the rate of the overall labor force (10 percent). The numbers of those twenty-five to fifty-four years of age in the labor force will grow by only 3.4 percent, a significantly lower growth than in the previous decade (8.8 percent). The growth rate of the youth labor force, workers between the ages of sixteen and twenty-four, will actually decrease between 2004 and 2014 by 0.5 percent.

What does this blizzard of mathematical factoids mean?  Simply that we have a shrinking number of people entering the laborforce, one that cannot sustain our so-called entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) and that is too small to infuse the insurance pool with enough youth and health to keep it fiscally viable.

My colleagues Pat Fagan, Henry Potrykus and I have explained this in detail in “Our Fiscal Crisis: We Cannot Tax, Spend, and Borrow Enough to Substitute for Marriage.”  We argue that our current economic slowdown, “coupled with the increased numbers of dependent citizens, makes closing the deficit impossible for President Obama or anyone else who uses the present welfare state as the economic model to be sustained. It cannot be. This reality arises from two facts: 1) We have proportionately fewer children … (and) up to 20 percent of these children are unequipped to compete in the modern economy because of a lack of essential skills formed within the intact married family.”

What’s the bottom line?  Husbands and wives need to have more children and truly parent those children if our economy is going to thrive.  However substantial our technology-driven productivity gains, they will not compensate for a steadily declining supply of capable, teachable young men and women.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, “the rate of population growth, referred to as the average annual percent change, is projected to decrease during the next six decades by about 50 percent, from 1.10 between 1990 and 1995 to 0.54 between 2040 and 2050. The decrease in the rate of growth is predominantly due to the aging of the population and, consequently, a dramatic increase in the number of deaths.”  In other words, we will have a larger population, but the rate of growth will slow to the point that existing citizens will live longer, not because of the size of our families.

For more on the crisis of America’s population and how it is grounded in the erosion of the family unit, visit the Marriage and Religion Research Institute at http://www.marri.frc.org/.  Families are more critical to our nation’s economy, more than education or technology.  As families fail, so fails our country.

The study, “For Kid’s Sake:  Repairing the Social Environment for Australian Children and Young People,” noted that Australia ranks high on social development, education, and economic well being.  However, there is something underlying:  Increased reports of child abuse and neglect, as well as an increase in mental health disorders.  These reports encompass all socioeconomic levels.

Why has this been occurring?  According to the study’s author, Patrick Parkinson, the increase in child abuse reports and mental health disorders can be attributed to one key factor:  The breakdown of the family.

“Living in a family other than that of the two biological parents before the age of 16 is well-documented as being associated with a wide range of adverse results for children’s well-being.

Some people consider that the reason for this is that the adults who form stable marriages tend to be more well-adjusted and better off economically, so it is not so much the question of family structures but rather the personal characteristics of the parents that is the deciding factor.

Although this might be true to some extent the report quoted research that said studies using sophisticated statistical controls, including genetic factors, point in the direction of family breakdown being a significant cause of problems for children, rather than it just being the quality of the adults.”

There is no doubt that the breakdown of the family has been a key contributor to the rise in mental illness and child abuse cases.  Poor family relationships, marital unhappiness, and divorce all have negative impacts on a child’s well being.  The statistics are alarming, and children in the United States are experiencing the same effects as well.

What can be done to prevent the breakdown of the family?  Parkinson suggests stronger marriage preparation and implementing and providing greater support for organizations that help families.

However, Parkinson is also forgetting one important point:  Encouraging families to attend religious services.  According to FRC’s Marriage and Religion Research Institute (MARRI), children who attend religious services weekly tend to be less depressed and that marriages tend to be stronger and happier when couples attend church together.  Perhaps the greatest way to combat the breakdown of the family is through faith.

Reading that story brought to mind how Woody Allen once described the perfect arrangement he had with Mia Farrow:  separate apartments on opposite sides of Central Park where they could see each other’s lights go off at night.  But we know how that ended.   (For those too young to remember:  Woody ended up having an affair with, and then marrying, his own stepdaughter, and in his defense famously said, “The heart wants what the heart wants.”)

Last week the London Telegraph reviewed another new social relationship trend:  people who are neither married nor in love (nor, in some cases, even acquainted) are apparently having children together through the use of in vitro fertilization.  Why?

The story leads with examples of homosexuals who wanted to have a child of their own partnering up with people of the opposite sex to share biological material.  But also interviewed was this single heterosexual woman, approaching the end of her fertile years, who explained:  “In a worst-case scenario I would seek an anonymous donor, but I’ve always thought a child needs a father.  At the very least I wanted a donor who would visit regularly.”

What kid wouldn’t want Daddy Sperm visiting regularly?  But why does little Johnny hide under the bed when the door bell rings?

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks posits that it is the breakdown of the family and, even more fundamentally, a turning away from its Judeo-Christian faith, that has created a moral crisis in the West of which the London riots are a symptom.

I do not agree with everything he says (when he calls the rioters “victims” and says it’s “not their fault,” that is a bridge too far for me), but his broader argument for the moral reinvigoration that a return to religion can bring to society, and its necessity in bringing about a common good, is persuasive.

An interesting quote from the end of the piece:

One of our great British exports to America, Harvard historian Niall Ferguson, has a fascinating passage in his recent book “Civilization,” in which he asks whether the West can maintain its primacy on the world stage or if it is a civilization in decline.

He quotes a member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, tasked with finding out what gave the West its dominance. He said: At first we thought it was your guns. Then we thought it was your political system, democracy. Then we said it was your economic system, capitalism. But for the last 20 years, we have known that it was your religion.

Did you know that only 45 percent of American children will grow up in an intact family?

Everyone wants to belong, but American family culture has become a culture of rejection. 55 percent of children in the U.S. will see their parents reject one another by the time they reach 18, either through divorce, separation, or choosing not to get married.

To add to the injustice, the misery of family brokenness is concentrated in specific areas; it’s most often inflicted on teens living in urban areas, with high-minority or less educated, less affluent populations.

Rather than being raised in a culture of belonging—a family where parents love and respect each other, and children feel safe, loved, and secure—these teens grow up with an example of marital brokenness and rejection, and the effects are profound.

Children who grow up in broken families are at greater risk of poverty or dependence on welfare, enjoy less academic achievement and social development, suffer more accidents and injuries, and have worse mental health, more behavioral problems, and worse relationships with their parents.

And the effects for individual communities and the nation as a whole are just as profound. The Index of Belonging and Rejection shows that the root of the problem is an improper understanding of the male-female relationship. We’ve forgotten what it means to belong.

As a culture, we need to restore the husband-wife relationship. Help end rejection. Foster belonging.

• “Judge blocks key parts of new Arizona abortion law,” Paul Davenport, Associated Press
• “Pentagon airs criticism of ‘don’t ask’,” Bryan Bender, The Boston Globe
• “Should Government Have E-Record of Every Woman Who’s Had an Abortion?,” Terence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com
• “Parents’ Rights Amendment Reaches 120 Co-Sponsors,” Christian Newswire
• “Panel votes to restore abstinence education money,” Associated Press
• “Why are fewer Americans identifying with a religion?,” Wayne Slater, The Dallas Morning News
• “Worker misconduct cases rise at science foundation,” Associated Press

In the end, protests against the Congress mostly fizzled, and the delegates focused on issues such as the problem of depopulation in the countries of Europe. The Congress featured the European premiere of “The Demographic Bomb” (a sequel to the film “Demographic Winter”), which had its world premiere at Family Research Council on June 17.

Peter Sprigg and Pat Fagan represented Family Research Council at the event, with Dr. Fagan making two presentations—one at a breakout session on day care, and one major address on “Family Diversity and Political Freedom”. He spoke of how the culture of the traditional family, based on lifelong monogamy, is now being challenged by a competing culture rooted in a sexual ideal that is in some sense “polyamorous,” in that it is built on the expectation of multiple sexual partners through the life course. Dr. Fagan explained some of the political implications of these competing cultures, and offered a suggestion as to how they might be able to co-exist in a free society by insuring that all parents, of any viewpoint, have greater control over the education and upbringing of their own children.

Although liberals claim to place a high value on “dialogue,” one of the few who actually came to the Congress to engage in it was a Dutch judge and U.N. official, Jaap Doek, who defended the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) and expressed dismay that the U.S. has failed to ratify it. Pro-family activists are concerned that the “rights” of children established by the treaty would undermine parental authority in the home, but Doek contended that it only imposes limits and obligations on the state, not upon parents.

Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, or C-FAM (and the husband of FRC’s Cathy Cleaver Ruse) offered a darker vision of the impact of the U.N. and international agreements. He delivered an address describing how radical elites have attempted to establish a “right” to abortion in international law. The “soft law” strategy involves inserting code words for abortion (such as “reproductive health”) in international documents and then asserting (falsely) that it is a matter of “customary international law.” The “hard law” strategy involves United Nations committees charged with monitoring compliance with actual international treaties and conventions. Although no “right to abortion” has ever been established in the text of such treaties, these committees will often tell member countries that they must protect such a “right” to be in compliance (for example, with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, or CEDAW). Ruse declared bluntly that such “new norms” are being forced upon nations undemocratically “through treachery, lies, deceit and raw power.”

At times it was striking how much people from different countries had in common. For example, at one session, an American state senator from Georgia, Nancy Schaefer, and a lawyer from Sweden, Ruby Harrold-Claesson, both decried the abuses sometimes engaged in by child protective services.

However, there was one notable difference evident in the way American conservatives and Europeans see “pro-family” policy. Most Americans take a more libertarian approach, believing that the best thing government can do for families is to stay out of their way. Yet it was evident that “pro-family” politicians from Europe and other countries see government intervention on behalf of the family as the best “pro-family” policy.  For instance, Andre Rouveot, the Dutch cabinet minister who addressed the Congress by video, touted the creation of his Ministry for Youth and Families as a great step forward. Yet most American conservatives do not see the creation of a federal Department of Education as something that improved American education. Australian Member of Parliament Kevin Andrews discussed efforts by some countries to provide child care and family leave as pro-family because they make it easier for working women to become mothers; whereas many Americans would argue what is needed is to make it easier for mothers to stay home.

The Congress ended with the adoption of the Amsterdam Declaration, which cited as its touchstone the statement in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, and is entitled to protection by society and the State.” Several countries are already in contention for the honor of hosting the next World Congress of Families, which has clearly established itself as the premier international gathering of pro-family scholars and activists.

• “Umbilical cord blood bill passes House,” Laura Bischoff, Dayton Daily News (June 3, 2009)
• “Hybrid hearts could solve transplant shortage,” Andy Coghlan, The New Scientist (June 3, 2009)
• “New York Catholic Bishops issue statement on same-sex marriage,” News 10 (June 3, 2009)
• “Children should be taught Christian values, says new Archbishop,” Jonathan Wynne-Jones, London Daily-Telegraph (June 4, 2009)
• “Britain is sleepwalking into euthanasia,” Dr. Peter Saunders, Christian Today (June 4, 2009)
• “Missing the Point on the Hate Crimes Bill,” Erik Stanley, Townhall (June 3, 2009)
• “Pigs could be a new source for stem cells, say researchers in China,” Staff, New York Daily News (June 3, 2009)
• “Researchers Restore Vision to Legally Blind With Stem Cells,” Jason Mick, Daily Tech (June 4, 2009)