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:

  • 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

White Books and Curriculum Damage Black Children

The rise of book bans and erasure of Black history from classrooms emotionally and systematically harms Black children. It's critical that we urge educators to represent Black experiences and stories in class.

Getty Images, Klaus Vedfelt

White Books and Curriculum Damage Black Children

When my son, Jonathan, was born, one of the first children’s books I bought was "So Much" by Trish Cooke. I was captivated by its joyful depiction of a Black family loving their baby boy. I read it to him often, wanting him to know that he was deeply loved, seen, and valued. In an era when politicians are banning books, sanitizing curricula, and policing the teaching of Black history, the idea of affirming Black children’s identities is miscast as divisive and wrong. Forty-two states have proposed or passed legislation restricting how race and history can be taught, including Black history. PEN America reported that nearly 16,000 books (many featuring Black stories) were banned from schools within the last three years across 43 states. These prohibitive policies and bans are presented as protecting the ‘feelings’ of White children, while at the same time ignoring and invalidating the feelings of Black children who live daily with the pain of erasure, distortion, and disregard in schools.

When I hear and see the ongoing devaluation of Black children in schools and public life, I, and other Black parents, recognize this pain firsthand. For instance, recently, my teenage granddaughter, Jaliyah, texted me, asking to visit the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington, D.C., because she had heard that the President planned to close it. For what felt like the millionth time, my heart broke with the understanding that too many people fail to rally on behalf of Black children. Jaliyah’s question revealed what so many Black children intuitively understand—that their histories, their feelings, and their futures are often treated as expendable.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pluralism or DEI - or Both - or None?

equity, inclusion, diversity

AI generated

Pluralism or DEI - or Both - or None?

Even before Trump’s actions against DEI, many in the academic community and elsewhere felt for some time that DEI had taken an unintended turn.

What was meant to provide support—in jobs, education, grants, and other ways—to those groups who historically and currently have suffered from discrimination became for others a sign of exclusion because all attention was placed on how these groups were faring, with little attention to others. Those left out were assumed not to need any help, but that was mistaken. They did need help and are angry.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two people in business attire walking into an office.

Dr. Valentina Greco reflects on how accent bias, internalized gatekeeping, and hidden prejudices shape academia—and how true change begins by confronting our own discomfort.

Getty Images, Marco VDM

How Do We Become the Gatekeepers?

“Do you have a moment?”

I turned and saw my senior colleague, Paul (not his real name), a mentor and sponsor, at my office door.

Keep ReadingShow less
So DEI doesn’t work. OK, what would be better?

Conceptual image of multiple human face shapes in a variety of colors illustrating different races

Getty Images

So DEI doesn’t work. OK, what would be better?

It is no secret that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs are under attack in our country. They have been blamed for undermining free speech, meritocracy, and America itself. The University of Virginia is the latest to settle with the government and walk away from its DEI initiatives rather than defend its programs or find a new solution.

Those who decry DEI say they do so in the name of meritocracy. They argue that those who benefit from DEI programs do so at the expense of other, more qualified individuals, and that these programs are weakening professions such as our military, science, education, and healthcare. But these arguments have it exactly backwards. DEI programs were never designed to give privilege to underrepresented people. They were put in place to chip away at discrimination and nepotism, both concepts that are antithetical to meritocracy.

Keep ReadingShow less