I find this whole article rather suspect. For example, people have always had premarital sex. (http://books.google.com/books?id=knN9HzkY1pEC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq

I find this whole article rather suspect. For example, people have always had premarital sex. (http://books.google.com/books?id=knN9HzkY1pEC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=premarital+pregnancy+rates+america+nineteenth+century&source=bl&ots=33AKmshrTb&sig=ae-VOz3pg4fbFvzq1Be0TrxtZ-s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Y1xuVMb2D5GuogSh0YHgDw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=premarital%20pregnancy%20rates%20america%20nineteenth%20century&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=knN9HzkY1pEC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA...) And the author simply asserts, without any proof, that children from divorced families do worse. Really? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-divorce-bad-for-children/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-divorce-bad-for... I stopped reading halfway through on the assumption that the author was a Republican, and lo and behold, she's with the Hoover Institute. Thought-provoking article, but given the assumptions made and how they clash with the facts as I know them, I don't buy any of it.