# debunk rise in birth rate 9 months after 9/11? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 7, 2002, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-rise-in-birth-rate-9-months-after-9-11/102266 "2002-04-07T03:43:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![rowrrbazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rowrrbazzle/32/414_2.png) [@rowrrbazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rowrrbazzle)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2002, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-rise-in-birth-rate-9-months-after-9-11/102266/1 "2002-04-07T03:43:14Z")
[http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/07/magazine/07PHENOM.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/07/magazine/07PHENOM.html) (free registration required) The article mentions a number of medical centers who are experiencing a dramatic increase in pre-natal treatment. The only allowances the article makes for skepticism are these passages: > [@](#): > > Doctors and nurses still exchange stories of past baby boomlets after citywide blackouts, blizzards and earthquakes. Some demographers dismiss such anecdotes as urban legend… > > Even if this spike in the birthrate turns out to be urban legend, the legend serves a purpose, according to Eric Klinenberg, professor of sociology at Northwestern University. ‘‘The story itself expresses a kind of wish we have for something productive and meaningful to come out of an event that undoes our world,’’ he says. Of course, because the supposed rise in birth rate after the NY blackout (which the NY Times reported somewhat credulously) was shown not to exist, I remain skeptical. So my question is: has anyone read a good analysis showing whether this is true or not? ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2002, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-rise-in-birth-rate-9-months-after-9-11/102266/2 "2002-04-07T05:23:48Z")
Eh, I’m not a statistician, but this–“Fuchs has 25 patients due this June, instead of her usual 15 to 20”–doesn’t sound like much of a demographic bulge to me. And this–“At the Elizabeth Seton Childbearing Center in Manhattan, women signed up for prenatal care last fall in record numbers”–only proves that more women felt like having prenatal care last fall, not that more women were pregnant. And this whole article is very carefully written to give you the _impression_ that there’s a baby boom on the way, but I don’t see it. I just see a lot of slanted writing, especially in this paragraph. > [@](#): > > Administrators at Long Island College Hospital say they expect up to 20 percent more deliveries than usual in May and June. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center in Brooklyn reports an increase of around 8 percent… And, as the paragraph goes on, notice how this next, negative, sentence is buried in between positive sentences: > [@](#): > > … **New York Methodist and Mount Sinai Hospitals report no change,** but Douglas Moss, an obstetrician affiliated with Mount Sinai, says his practice is up by a third for that time, and Lynn Friedman, another obstetrician affiliated with Mount Sinai, says her practice is up by 10 percent. Increases of 8%, 10%, and even 20% are not that big. And the guy with the 33% increase may just happen to be a really good OB/GYN and word-of-mouth on him is excellent, so his practice is up by a third. One obstetrician with a one-third increase in his practice is not a “baby boom”. You’d have to have numbers from all over the country that confirmed it, before you could say, “Yes, there was a post-9/11 baby boom”. And that won’t happen until later on this summer. One of the first things you learn when you take a statistics class in college is, “You can use statistics to prove anything you want.” ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2002, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-rise-in-birth-rate-9-months-after-9-11/102266/3 "2002-04-08T22:20:50Z")
A similar expansion was supposed to have occurred 9 months after the Ice Storm hit Montreal in 1998, but for aught I know it was the same statistic-jiggering. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2002, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-rise-in-birth-rate-9-months-after-9-11/102266/4 "2002-07-16T03:22:13Z")
My local paper, [www.fosters.com](http://www.fosters.com) , had an article claiming this yesterday, but about impending births rather than prenatal care. Their numbers are small to begin with, but when I thought about it, they’re claiming over a 20% increase at some hospitals. ---
**Author:** ![Tedster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4491bb/32.png) [@Tedster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tedster)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2002, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-rise-in-birth-rate-9-months-after-9-11/102266/5 "2002-07-16T04:20:19Z")
Our local hospitals have reported similar increases in births attributed to Sept. 2001 ---
**Author:** ![Zyada](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zyada/32/3028_2.png) [@Zyada](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zyada)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2002, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-rise-in-birth-rate-9-months-after-9-11/102266/6 "2002-07-18T13:21:41Z")
Here’s a news story saying the rise isn’t happening: [No Sign Yet of Post-Sept. 11 Baby Boom](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=594&ncid=594&e=4&u=/nm/20020717/hl_nm/attack_babyboom_dc_1) ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2002, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-rise-in-birth-rate-9-months-after-9-11/102266/7 "2002-07-18T15:36:54Z")
Our hospital in Madison, WI is expecting one, but hasn’t seen it. Our department was expecting a significant enrollment increase in prenatal education courses, and we haven’t seen that either. The article Zyada posted noted one doctor’s opinion that the “bump” may be delayed, because it typically takes several months for a couple to get pregnant once they start trying. ---
**Author:** ![Sivalensis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@Sivalensis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sivalensis)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2002, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-rise-in-birth-rate-9-months-after-9-11/102266/8 "2002-07-19T21:35:59Z")
i’ve heard that when people attend funerals, many times they have sex around then - i’m not sure i remember whether it was because of consolation or feeling more alive themselves or what. but i know that 9-11 could definitely be considered a big long funeral. i don’t have any stats to back any of this up, so it could have been a bogus source i heard that from. ---
**Author:** ![Sivalensis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@Sivalensis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sivalensis)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2002, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-rise-in-birth-rate-9-months-after-9-11/102266/9 "2002-07-19T21:42:19Z")
i’ve heard that when people attend funerals, many times they have sex around then - i’m not sure i remember whether it was because of consolation or feeling more alive themselves or what. but i know that 9-11 could definitely be considered a big long funeral. i don’t have any stats to back any of this up, so it could have been a bogus source i heard that from.