Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Voters without kids are in the political spotlight – but they’re not all the same

Couple lying in tall grass

As many as 50 million to 60 million Americans may have decided that they don’t want to have kids.

Peathegee Inc/Getty Images

Jennifer Neal is a professor of psychology at Michigan State University. Zachary Neal is an associate professor of psychology at Michigan State University.

In the 2024 election cycle, voters without children are under the microscope.

Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance has said that “childless cat ladies” and older adults without kids are “sociopaths” who “don’t have a direct stake in this country.”

So it was notable that when pop star Taylor Swift endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris, she didn’t simply express her support and leave it at that. She also called herself a “childless cat lady.”


Politicians and others often use the word “childless” as an umbrella term for people who do not have children. But as social scientists who study people without children, we know that this doesn’t capture some important nuances.

Using large-scale demographic data, we’ve found that there are many types of nonparents – and each has its own set of political priorities.

The range of nonparents

Only about 3% of Americans are truly childless, or what the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calls “involuntarily childless.” Most Americans who do not have children are not childless. They are some other type of nonparent. Social scientists often distinguish several types of nonparents:

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

  • Childless people want children but cannot have them due to circumstances such as infertility.
  • Not yet parents are people who do not have children yet, but plan to in the future. They tend to be younger.
  • Undecided individuals aren’t sure whether they want to have children.
  • Child-free people have decided they do not want children now or in the future.

These distinctions matter. When nonparents are combined into a single group, they seem demographically and politically similar to everyone else.

But each type of nonparent is affected by political issues differently. And some issues are especially consequential for child-free people.

The ramifications of Dobbs

Take abortion rights. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson ended a constitutional right to an abortion. The ruling limited access to reproductive health care in several states and created uncertainty in others.

Some politicians have expressed concerns about the fallout of the Dobbs decision. They’ve pointed to the inability for some not-yet-parents to access reproductive care if complications arise during pregnancy. They’ve also raised the alarm that Dobbs will lead to limits on access to in vitro fertilization for childless couples.

But these concerns are relevant only for people who want to have children. There is usually little talk among politicians and pundits about the importance of reproductive rights for child-free people who do not want to have children.

The share of Michigan adults identifying as child-free rose from 21% before Dobbs to nearly 26% immediately afterward. This increase occurred during a time when there was significant confusion about access to abortion in Michigan because state laws were ambiguous and being challenged in the courts.

Since Dobbs, there has also been a dramatic increase in vasectomies and tubal ligations nationwide. Some of this increase is the result of child-free people now turning to surgery to avoid having children.

Child-free people are overlooked in other areas, too, such as tax policy and in the workplace.

Child-free people pay federal income taxes alongside parents. But both Republican and Democratic presidential platforms have placed a heavy emphasis on expanding the child tax credit, which directly benefits only people who have or will have children. Child-free people work alongside parents. But parental status isn’t a protected category, which could be why child-free people tend to work longer hours and have less leeway to take time off.

Will a new bloc emerge?

Nonetheless, child-free people are primed to play an important role in American politics for several reasons.

First, there are a lot of them.

How many Americans are child-free depends on how you ask them. Data from nationwide face-to-face interviews suggest that around 10% of Americans are child-free. But data from anonymous surveys in Michigan and nationwide peg it at closer to 20% to 25%. If that’s the case, it could mean as many as 50 million to 60 million Americans are child-free.

Second, their numbers are growing. A range of studies suggest that every year, more Americans are reporting that they simply never want to have children.

Third, politicians’ derogatory comments about “childless” people have gotten the attention of child-free people. And they’re starting to organize. For example, Shannon Coulter, the influential activist behind the nonprofit group GrabYourWallet, is bringing them together through the nonpartisan Alliance of Childfree Voters.

It’s too soon to know whether child-free people can be thought of as a distinct voting bloc. But in our research, we found that child-free people in the swing state of Michigan lean liberal. While there are similar numbers of liberal and conservative parents in the state, child-free people who identify as liberal outnumber conservatives 2 to 1.

Given their size, growth, organization and liberal leanings, it may be time for American politicians to think more carefully about how child-free people fit in.The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

Future of the National Museum of the American Latino is Uncertain

PRESENTE! A Latino History of the United States

Credit: National Museum of the American Latino

Future of the National Museum of the American Latino is Uncertain

The American Museum of the Latino faces more hurdles after over two decades of advocacy.

Congress passed legislation to allow for the creation of the Museum, along with the American Women’s History Museum, as part of the Smithsonian Institution in an online format. Five years later, new legislation introduced by Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.) wants to build a physical museum for both the Latino and women’s museums but might face pushback due to a new executive order signed by President Donald Trump.

Keep ReadingShow less
Fairness, Not Stigma, for Transgender Athletes

People running.

Getty Images, Pavel1964

Fairness, Not Stigma, for Transgender Athletes

President Trump’s campaign and allies spent $21 million of campaign spending on attack ads against transgender people. With that level of spending, I was shocked to find out it was not a top concern for voters of either party, but it continued to prevail as a campaign priority.

Opponents of transgender participation in sports continue to voice their opinions, three months into the Trump presidency. Just last month, the Trump administration suspended $175 million in federal funding to Penn State over a transgender swimmer. $175 million is a bit dramatic over one swimmer, or in the case of the entire NCAA, fewer than 10 athletes. Even Governor Gavin Newsom was recently under fire for sharing his views on his podcast. Others, like Rep. Nancy Mace, have also caught on to the mediagenic nature of transphobia right now. “You want penises in women's bathrooms, and I'm not going to have it,” she said in a U.S. House hearing last month. I had no clue who Nancy Mace was prior to her notorious views on LGBTQ+ rights. Frankly, her flip from being a supporter of LGBTQ+ rights to shouting “Tr**ny” in a hearing seems less like a change of opinion and more of a cry for attention.

Keep ReadingShow less
Unit Cohesion is a Pretext for Exclusion

The transgender flag on a military uniform.

Getty Images, Cunaplus_M.Faba

Unit Cohesion is a Pretext for Exclusion

In the annals of military history, the desire for uniformity has often been wielded as a sword against inclusion. This tendency resurfaced dramatically when President Donald Trump, shortly after taking office, signed an executive order, purportedly rooted in concerns about unit cohesion, that banned transgender individuals from serving in the armed forces. It was challenged and blocked by a federal judge on March 18, who described the ban as “soaked in animus and dripping with pretext.” On March 27, a second judge issued an injunction on the ban, calling it “unsupported, dramatic and facially unfair exclusionary policy” (the Trump administration asked the 9th Circuit to stay the ruling; they were denied on April 1). It turns out that the argument that introducing any minority into military ranks would disrupt unit cohesion is practically a cliché, with similar claims having been made against integrating black men, women, and then openly gay service members. It is a tale as old as time. But that’s just it–it’s just a tale. Don’t believe it.

The military top brass have, at times, insisted that the integration of minority groups would undermine the effectiveness of our armed forces, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Air Force General Henry Arnold wrote in 1941 that “the use of women pilots serves no military purpose,” only to have “nothing but praise” for them by 1944, after having served with them. Regarding integrating women into combat roles in 1993, Congress members argued that “although logical, such a policy would [erode] the civilizing notion that men should protect…women.” Of course, they also offered the even more convenient cover story that integration would be “disruptive to unit cohesion.” Similarly, although many claimed that “letting gays serve openly would ruin [unit cohesion],” the resistance was found to be “based on nothing” except “our own prejudices and . . . fears.” Dozens of studies conducted by the U.S. military and 25 other nations confirmed the presence of gay soldiers had no impact on unit cohesion. These results were ignored in “the service of an ideology equating heterosexuality with bravery and patriotism.” Unit cohesion is a simple—though thinly veiled—rationale.

Keep ReadingShow less
Banned Books Damn Our Children's Future

Two children reading in school.

Getty Images, Jim Craigmyle

Banned Books Damn Our Children's Future

April 2nd is International Children's Book Day. It is time to celebrate the transformative power of children's literature and mourn the spaces where stories once lived. The numbers are staggering: there were over 10,000 book bans in U.S. public schools during the 2023-2024 school year alone, affecting more than 4,000 unique titles. Each banned book represents a mirror taken away from a child who might have seen themselves in those pages or a window closed to a child who might have glimpsed a world beyond their own.

I'm a child of the 80s and 90s, back when PBS was basically raising us all. Man, LeVar Burton's voice on Reading Rainbow was like that cool uncle who always knew exactly what book you needed. Remember him saying, "But you don't have to take my word for it"? And Sesame Street—that show was living proof that a kid from the Bronx could learn alongside a kid from rural Kansas, no questions asked. These and other such programs convinced an entire generation that we could "go anywhere" and "be anything.” Also, they were declarations that every child deserves to see themselves in stories, to dream in technicolor, and to imagine futures unlimited by the accidents of birth or circumstance.

Keep ReadingShow less