Liberal cities, no kid(ding)

Liberal cities, no kid(ding)

Here’s a surprise. The nation’s most liberal cities are experiencing a shortage of children. San Francisco leads the way, followed by Seattle, then Boston, Honolulu, Portland (Ore.), Miami, Denver, Minneapolis, Austin, Atlanta… detect a trend?

All those hip, trendy DINKs (dual-income, no kids) in those Blue cities have made those cities too expensive for people who actually have kids to live in them. In Boston, the city requires certain employees, such as firefighters and police, to live within the city. But because it’s so expensive to live there, many of them have to moonlight just to make ends meet.

There’s nothing more sterile than a community without children. Have you ever been in one of those retirement communities where kids aren’t allowed? Picture perfect. Too perfect. There’s no life or vitality. The article refers to those cities as “vibrant” (oh, how I hate that word), but how they’re not vibrant, they’re lifeless.

Something else to consider: In liberal cities, where so many people are pro-abortion, is it any wonder that there aren’t any children? They are de-populating themselves, while pro-lifers, and especially faithful Catholics out-populate them. In the long run, we win every time. It’s called the Roe Effect.