As part of the national push by natalists to roll back the clock on gender policy in the United States, recent articles about birth rates have started popping up in the country's paper of record. One of those articles, published just last week, was written by someone we've covered quite a bit on the show already. This week, Josh and June check it out alongside four other articles about birth rates in The New York Times to get a sense of how the issue is being framed, both in good and bad faith, as a matter of news and public opinion.

***WANT MORE ILL CONCEIVED? Every other week, we release B-side supplements to the main episodes where we read your e-mail responses and discuss things further. Come check us out at Patreon.com/illconceived!***

***WE WANT YOUR THOUGHTS FOR THE WORLD FAMOUS MAILBAG! Send an email with feedback about this week's episode to illconceivedpod@gmail.com***

EPISODE ART: The headquarters of The New York Times in midtown Manhattan

AUDIO CLIPS:

26:07 – The "Gen Z boss and a mini" TikTok that made a lot of men extremely angry

SOURCES:

“The Quest to ‘Make America Fertile Again’ Stalls Under Trump” by Caroline Kitchener
(The New York Times, January 13, 2026)
“The Birthrate Is Plunging. Why Some Say That’s a Good Thing.” by Sabrina Tavernise and Jeff Adelson (The New York Times, February 27, 2026)
“Women in Their 20s May Not Be Having Babies, but by 45 Most Probably Will” by Claire Kane Miller (The New York Times, April 9, 2026)
“A Conservative Role Model for Ending the Fertility Crisis” by Anenoma Hartocollis (The New York Times, July 8, 2026)
“The Population Bust Is Coming Sooner Than Anyone Is Prepared For” By Lyman Stone (The New York Times, July 11, 2026)