Here's an organically written summary of the paper. This is a plain vanilla regression analysis on the US GSS, which is a large poll of Americans done every ye

Here's an organically written summary of the paper. This is a plain vanilla regression analysis on the US GSS, which is a large poll of Americans done every year since the 1970s. Being a study of demographics it defines fertility to mean the number of children a couple has or doesn't have for any reason, a number which is driven primarily by people's decisions and not biological ability. It shows only two things: • The correlation between politics and fertility changes over time. It becomes really pronounced in the 1980s-1990s but during the baby boom years there is no link. • It only applies to white Americans. Black Americans show no such correlation. However the study cites a paper claiming that black Americans don't understand the terms liberal and conservative well, and suggests that may be the cause of the divergence (a data quality issue not a real difference in fertility). N.B. the title of the paper is deceptive. It claims a causal link but the paper itself admits the study is correlational and cannot establish causality. Misleading titles or abstracts are normal in academic social studies, unfortunately. They cite other papers showing the same correlation holds in Europe. Rest of the world isn't considered. It's surprising this paper got any attention and I'm not sure it'll get published in the end (it's early access). Regressions on US GSS are easy to do and many of them have been done before, there is nothing really new here.