"Cohabitation is no place for children" writes nationally-syndicated columnist Michael Gerson.

In a piece that appeared yesterday in the Washington Post, Gerson makes the case that Brad Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, and others have made. Namely, children do best in two-parent, stable, married families. For Gerson, Wilcox, and many others, they would underscore the married part.

Let's take his argument in bites.

• Being a 20-something at present is different in important ways from previous decades.
• Two markers of this change are earlier sexual activity and later age of marriage.
• In the absence of what Brad Wilcox calls the traditional "courtship narrative"--dating, marriage, children--many young people have adopted a different life choice: cohabitation.
• Gerson concedes that the link between sex and marriage is a thing of the past. However, he believes that the connection between marriage and having children remains absolutely essential.

A gross oversimplification to be sure, but you get the point. Gerson also notes:

• Marriage is "the most effective institution to bind two parents for a long period in the common enterprise of marriage."
• Age of marriage matters too---Gerson calls the early to mid-20s the "marital sweet spot" for marital longevity and happiness.
• Citing research by Wilcox, Gerson says "serial cohabitation trains people for divorce...cohabitation by engaged couples seems to have no adverse effect on eventual marriage."

That's a lot to chew on. We are anxious to hear what you think. Put you comment shoes on and get busy.

I had the great good fortune to attend yesterday's White House event during which President Obama spoke movingly of the critical role that a father plays in the lives of his children and the important support and companionship a father offers to his children's mother.  He spoke, as always, with a deep authenticity and commitment that were palpable, and all of us were touched by his message and by his own personal story, which made him a most compelling messenger.  Many in the room were leaders of the fatherhood field -- men who run programs, do related research, exhort their peers to see fatherhood as a privilege as well as a responsibility, and others leaders, too. 
 
I asked myself repeatedly what the connection was between my 40+  year interest in pregnancy planning and prevention, and the remarkable collection of people in the East Room.  The answer, I hope, is obvious, and it is simply that children are more likely to have present, engaged fathers when pregnancy is undertaken deliberately and  is based on a commitment between the two parties to each other and to the decades required to raise a child in this complex society.  I actually think this connection is quite obvious, although  yesterday no one mentioned the importance of exercising great care in becoming a father in the first place.  Understandably, the main emphasis was being the best dad you can be to the children you already have.
 
Interestingly, no attention was given to why so many children are growing up without a father actively involved in their lives.  Consider for example the fact that almost 40 percent of births are now to unmarried women; for babies born to women 20 to 24, the percentage is 60. Now it is true that some of these unmarried mothers will marry the fathers of these children  --  perhaps after several years of living together -- but that is often not the case and these children often spend some or all of their growing up years in father-absent homes. I wonder how many national leaders will talk about this particular challenge when the Father's Day speeches crank up to fever pitch this Sunday.
 
I mentioned this to a reporter last week -- that advocates of father involvement  rarely address non-marital child-bearing -- and he said, "I never really thought about that..."   But I think President Obama has. And I think the rest of us should too.  Are fathers just nice if they happen to be around?  Or should we tell the truth, as the President did today, which is that children can make it without fathers (he being the shining example), but that the preferred scenario is committed parents raising children together.  And one of the best ways to move in that direction is to ask both men and women to think hard about starting  a family -- when, with whom and under what circumstances.
 
So, my one friendly suggestion to the Administration as it embarks on a national conversation about responsible fatherhood and healthy families is to include explicit attention to pregnancy planning and prevention. This entails personal responsibility on the part of men and women (along with responsible policies on the part of the public and private sector), which in turn will contribute to less non-marital childbearing, a greater chance that children will grow up with  present and involved fathers, and stronger families.

Vision, a blog which provides "In-depth coverage of current social issues," certainly stayed true to that description in its exploration of the topic of teen pregnancy in the Spring 2009 Issue. Vision interviewed the National Campaign's Chief Program Officer, Bill Albert, to produce "Teens, Parents, and Teen Parents" and also published two other pieces relating to the topic: "Stork Realities," whose punny name speaks for itself; and "Teen Pregnancy: The Tangled Web," a thoughtful look at the complexities of teen pregnancy in the United States and throughout the world.

With the powerful statistics that accompany the issue of adolescent pregnancy and childbearing in our society, it's easy to get lost in numbers rather than focus on the individuals who are affected by this problem. Bill notes in his interview, "We're often very good at issuing reports. We're not very good at telling stories." To better understand and clearly represent an issue as complex as teen pregnancy it is necessary to see stories and individual experiences as complementary to statistics and reports. Indeed, more stories of teens' experiences with pregnancy and parenting might be just what other teens need to hear to fully comprehend the weight their sexual decisions can have on their present and future realities.

My cousin became a single mom last year. I don't know the other 1,714,642...

Families are diverse. I get that. I experience this diversity among my friends, neighbors, colleagues and family members. Any one of us can look within our own circle of humanity and see families of all shapes and sizes--one parent, two parent, married, unmarried--who are wonderfully dedicated to their children (or not), and who are thriving (or struggling) at a particular point in time. And whenever the media or the wonks wring their hands over the declining numbers of married parent families, I hear about someone's sister who became president of a bank while raising her son on her own (and doing just fine thank you very much), or the friend who got tired of waiting for Mr. Right and conceived through sperm donation, or the neighbor couple who aren't really sure enough to tie the knot but are very good parents to their baby girl.

These personal stories are offered as a counterpoint to national statistics that warn of increased risks to child well-being as married parent families become a thing of the past. But one does not negate the other--both the personal stories and the national statistics are likely true.

We will always find among us parents with enough resilience to overcome adversity, but the national data tell us that, on average, raising children outside of a stable two parent family increases the adversity that parents will need to overcome. I believe in embracing all children and their families, but we also need to acknowledge that some paths into parenthood are more perilous than others--for both parents and their children.

Please note this day.

The fact that four of ten births in the United States are now out-of-wedlock did not warrant a mention in the New York Times--- the one-time newspaper of record; the newspaper that promises "all the news that's fit to print." The Times had plenty-o-space for a front-page thumb sucker on the thriving economy of Norway (!), there was space for an article on two women switched at birth, there was even space for a lawsuit brought by some disgruntled students because they didn't get the inaugural experience they expected.

Children? Families? Poverty? Fatherhood? No room for you.

To be fair, the Times did have an online piece on the report on nonmarital childbearing that was written by terrific Stephanie Ventura from the National Center for Health Statistics. I guess that reporting significant increases in nonmarital childbearing is now relegated to the ether rather than dead tree land. Pity.

I'm left to wonder...given this indifference from a media table-setting outlet like the Times, why should we be surprised at our nation's exceedingly high rate of unplanned pregnancy?

P.S. If you do want to read a good story on this issue, please read Rob Stein's piece in The Washington Post; or Mike Stobbe of the Associated Press.

A recently released study on marriage and the impact of childbearing on marriage determined that after the birth of their first child, couples experience a sudden decrease in marital quality. While couples without children also experience declines in marital quality over time, the decline is much more gradual. The overall conclusion from the research is that becoming parents is a particularly challenging time for couples--probably not surprising findings for most parents or couples.

Now imagine how the data on relationship quality would look if it turned out that the pregnancy was unplanned--or if the couple wasn't married when they found out they were about to become parents. Couples in these situations are more likely to break up than married couples who plan their pregnancy. Clearly, becoming a parent can be very rewarding, but it isn't easy. Parents will be better suited for this adventure if they decide to plan when they are ready (or not ready) for the challenging task of raising a child together.