Do falling birth rates matter in our AI future?

Some child care wins in Congress, and a look at abortion ban "clarification" laws

Hi all,

I have a story out today that I really enjoyed working on—it gave me the chance to dig into something that has long puzzled and bothered me.

There’s a lot of conversation these days about falling birth rates and the associated fear that we might not have enough workers in the future to support society.

There’s also a lot of conversation about AI—and the fear that tech automation could mean we won’t have enough jobs for people to do.

But these two discussions almost never intersect, even though they’re clearly intertwined. Does AI make declining birth rates less important? Will aging societies need fewer workers anyway? Who is actually examining these questions, and what do we know so far? I’ve been pressing people on questions like this over the past few weeks. I think you’ll find the story interesting.

—-

Last week I reported a story on how $16 billion in new child care spending got made it into Congress’s new tax package, and what child care advocates make of that funding, especially given the overall gutting bill. The story also explores the role of Alabama GOP Sen. Katie Britt in getting the child care investments into the final deal. This was not a cause Republicans were eager to champion even five years ago, and the shift reflects a lot of changing politics, leadership, and pressure—plus some real politicking from Britt.

Here are the top-line changes, and I think what’s clearly notable is how long it’s been since any of these programs were last updated:

(These kinds of programs are most likely to benefit middle and upper middle class parents, which is a drawback of refundable tax credits.) Advocates hope to expand investments in low-income child care programs later this year.

I’m always interested in stories about how policy actually gets done, like what happens between an idea being formed to getting it over the finish line. I approached this one with that mindset. Can read that full story here!

—

And lastly I had a story looking at a debate over whether abortion bans can be improved in ways to give doctors more legal reassurance to provide care in emergency situations, and the political stakes of doing so. This year there were at least 42 bills across 12 states that sought to "clarify" when physicians could provide emergency abortion care. It was one of the biggest legislative trends for reproductive rights of 2025, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Anti-abortion activists argue their bans are already clear, but say these new laws are necessary to combat "fear-mongering" about abortion bans on the political left.

Most abortion rights groups oppose these bills, and say they're nothing more than political cover for extremists. The bills have fueled intense arguments over whether incremental improvements are worth the risk of creating false confidence that major legal obstacles have actually been resolved. It’s a very tough issue, though I have to think if I were pregnant in Texas, I’d be relieved at least that under the new law doctors no longer need to worry whether a life-threatening risk was “imminent” enough to justify providing treatment. It’s hard to summarize this piece up in two paragraphs, so I’d recommend reading if you want to learn more. Can read that story here.

—

I appreciate everyone who reads this, and grateful since I know everyone has so much going on in their inboxes all the time. I have a few other things I’m finishing that I’ll be able to share soon!