UK begs Brits to have more kids while tanking fertility rates

The British government is begging citizens to have more children as the country suffers from dangerously low fertility rates, caused by government initiatives.

A fertility rate of 2.1 births per woman—or 2.7 according to some estimates—is needed for a population to replace itself. The UK’s fertility rate in 2024 was just 1.44 babies per woman, down from 2.47 in 1946, meaning the British population is unsustainable. The average age has increased to 40.7 and is climbing.

In a recent article, British Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson warned about the “worrying repercussions” of the country’s plummeting fertility rates and urged women to have more children.

“I want more young people to have children, if they so choose; to realise the ordinary aspiration so many share, to create the moments and memories that make our lives fulfilling: having children, seeing them take their first steps, dropping them off at their first day at school, guiding them on their journey into the world of work or taking them to university for the first time,” Phillipson wrote.

“It’s why this Labour Government believes that support for families matters right from the start, and why I have made improving our early years system my number one priority…”

Phillipson blamed the falling birth rates on economic difficulties.

“A generation of young people have been thinking twice about starting a family; worried not only about rising mortgage and rent repayments, wary not only of the price of fuel and food but also put off by a childcare system simultaneously lacking in places and ruinously expensive,” she claimed.

But the education secretary failed to mention the government’s aggressive and successful attempts to stem the British population.

Abortion

Just last month, British Parliament passed a bill decriminalizing abortion up to birth. The new law, which protects mothers from criminal prosecution if they abort their pregnancies at any point, is in keeping with the government’s long-standing policy of protecting abortion at any cost. 

In 2020, for example, 44-year-old mother of three Carla Foster asked the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) for an abortion pill, falsely claiming she was just seven weeks pregnant when she was really at 28 weeks. She received the pill in the mail and ingested it, killing the baby. A judge later sentenced Foster to 28 months in prison. The ruling upset British health authorities, who fretted that such a punishment could deter other women from aborting their children.

British police arrest citizens for merely thinking forbidden thoughts near abortion facilities, which are protected by Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs). PSPOs prohibit “protesting, namely engaging in any act of approval or disapproval or attempted act of approval or disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means. This includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling.” That includes silent prayer.

Feminism as a depopulation tool

The British government also heavily promotes feminism. Women in higher education and careers have long been known to have lower fertility rates, with some even neglecting their born children for those pursuits. Tonia Antoniazzi, the MP who introduced the recently passed law to decriminalize abortion until birth, abandoned parenthood to pursue her political career.

"I'm now in a position where I feel it is time for me to focus on my career, but I do feel very selfish as well,” Antoniazzi said in 2017, when her son was just 13. "I feel guilty, if my son needs me or if he has issues, where am I? I'm in London and he is being looked after by his grandmother."

To the British government, feminism is not just a Leftist ideology. It is a tool to curb fertility rates. 

FP2030: Contraceptives and gender equality

In July 2012, the UK Department for International Development (DFID) attended a meeting with the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the United Nations Population Fund. The goal of the meeting was “to empower the voluntary use of modern contraception by 120 million additional women and girls in the world’s lowest-income countries by 2020.” Family Planning 2020 (FP2020) was formed.

FP2020 soon recruited over 130 governments, organizations, and corporations to join the cause. Drug companies like Pfizer and Bayer pledged to provide birth preventive products all around the world. 

As 2020 approached, FP2020’s founders evidently deemed it so successful that they renewed it for another decade and renamed the organization FP2030. Its globalist managers include North America and Europe Managing Director Monica Kerrigan, MPH, who previously worked for Planned Parenthood, the Gates Foundation, and USAID.

In 2021, FP2030 received $1.4 billion from government funding alone, with over $500 million annually from USAID.

When starting a birth prevention campaign in a target country, FP2030’s founding organizations first contact an official in that country’s Health Ministry. They present the official with a strategy containing high-impact practices (HIPs) for preventing births on a mass scale and provide them with the funds to execute it.

However, FP2030’s goal is not simply to make birth prevention devices available, but to convince women to take them. Therefore, any mass birth prevention strategy must “improve attitudes.” 

One of the main vehicles used for changing minds and attitudes towards birth prevention is mass media. In a 2016 High Impact Practices Partners’ meeting attended by FP2030 operatives, organizations were encouraged to “[u]se one or more mass media channels (radio, TV, print) to increase knowledge, improve attitudes and self-efficacy, and encourage social change to effect family planning.”

Another part of the strategy is using gender confusion ideology to prevent mass births. Whereas men and women naturally have children, masculinizing women and effeminizing men — contravening “gender norms” — is an effective way to stagnate a population.

“For FP2030, an intentional approach to gender equality makes our work more effective in advancing both family planning and gender equality,” says an FP2030 presentation titled “FP2030 Gender Strategy.”

The organization plainly states that “[g]ender norms . . . create barriers to FP access” and “[w]ith greater funding and scale, gender-transformative approaches will advance gender equality and accelerate progress on contraceptive access and use.”

In countries where birth prevention rates are stagnant, FP2030 says gender ideology, or “positive gender norms,” can be “more effective”: “In countries where contraceptive prevalence has plateaued, demand-side interventions promoting positive gender norms can be more effective than supply‑side approaches.”

Gender Strategy notes that feminist operatives are also very helpful in driving birth prevention.

Such gender confusion — where women are masculinized and men are effeminized — is also achieved by birth prevention drugs themselves. According to scientific evidence, women who take birth prevention pills are likely to find more effeminate men attractive and themselves less attractive. They are also more likely to be sexually dissatisfied and to cheat on their partners.

‍