Bro-Natalists Are Ruining America
Elon Musk & JD Vance want you to have more babies
We have to talk about this absolutely batshit New York Times piece—the headline alone turned my stomach: “White House Assesses Ways to Persuade Women to Have More Children.”
“Persuade” is a polite way to put it, given that forced birth is the law of the land in half the country! But this isn’t just about abortion bans: Since Trump took office, the country has been handed over to a newly emboldened bro-natalist cabal—men like Elon Musk and JD Vance, desperate to increase the birthrate, whether women like it or not.
Here are just a few of the ideas the Times reports are being tossed around at the White House:
A “National Medal of Motherhood” to women with six or more children;
Reserving 30% of government fellowships for those who are married with children;
State-funded education programs teaching women and girls about their menstrual cycle, “so they can better understand when they are ovulating and able to conceive”;
$5,000 cash as a ‘baby bonus’.
First of all, it’s telling that this administration will do anything other than what families really need. If the Trump administration was actually interested in supporting parents, they’d be pushing for paid parental leave, subsidized childcare, and an end to laws that make it deadly for people to give birth.
But Republicans don’t care about making the world better, safer, or healthier for American families and children—they just want women to have more babies. What happens after that? They couldn’t care less.
Actually, scratch that—because the administration’s “baby boom” push isn’t just about boosting the birthrate. It’s about reasserting a rigid, traditional vision of American family life: one where parents are straight, women are submissive, and the bro-natalists in charge get to pretend it’s all for the good of the nation.
As Times reporter Caroline Kitchener points out, the White House has an ideologically-specific definition of ‘family’: Straight married couples with children. Consider what that means for some of the administration’s proposals: If 30% of fellowships (like the Fulbright) are reserved for married parents—and the administration only recognizes straight marriages—they’d be creating a deliberately discriminatory quota, excluding LGBTQ people from prestigious awards and funding.
Imagine how many other government marriage promotion programs they could use to leave certain families behind.
And then there’s the ‘menstrual cycle’ classes. Emma Waters, the Heritage Foundation policy analyst behind this White House proposal, says that the government-funded program wouldn’t just be for adults—but part of sex education lessons taught in school.
Just so we’re clear: Instead of teaching kids about birth control and sexual health, the government would fund programs that teach little girls how to get pregnant.
If you think that’s hyperbole, please remember that the Heritage Foundation doesn’t have a problem with young girls giving birth: In 2023, I reported that the group had shifted away from decrying teen pregnancies—instead decrying the “non-marital teen birth rate.”
But here’s the thing I can’t stop thinking about: What policy proposals is the administration working on that they haven’t told the Times about?
A couple of final thoughts:
If we’re looking for a point of weakness for this movement, it’s IVF. There’s a clear divide between bro-natalists pushing for more fertility treatments and religious conservatives who oppose IVF altogether. It’s a point of tension, and Democrats should take advantage of that.
This administration’s birthrate policies basically come down to benevolent coercion. They can’t force all American women and girls to give birth, so they’re slickly pretending that these moves are in women’s best interest. (It reminds me of the insidious cultural campaign against birth control—making young women think hormonal contraception is bad for them so they won’t be too pissed when Republicans start restricting it.) The hypocrisy is clear to us, but Democrats would do well to have a proactive vision of family and family support that they’re sharing with voters.
Bro-natalists are bad fathers—personally and politically. There’s a reason all these policies focus on convincing women to give birth, and say little about men. That’s because conservatives only see fathers as bread-winners, decision-makers, and disciplinarians. Once again, that’s a place we can push back with our own positive vision. One where men are more than just punishing sperm donors.
Reading that article yesterday doubled my personal commitment to my bisalp scheduled next month.
"Donald Trump wants me to get pregnant? That makes me double want to make sure that can NEVER happen again"
Meanwhile, they love to lean in to the idea that anyone seeking abortion is somehow being "coerced". The only coercion I see is their incredible delusional pressure to procreate. As a childfree woman I can tell you I've only ever been pressured & persuaded to have babies. By my mom, by strangers, etc. Childfree people aren't trying to persuade people into, or out of, anything. We're just trying to live our lives.
And freedom of speech means getting up in people's faces while they're trying to get medical care, possibly even slamming their hands in doors (call back to one of your articles Jessica) & literally standing there while they pass out, but we can no longer even say the word abortion online w/o getting into trouble. What the actual all-encompassing fuck?!
This fills me with so much rage and vitriol. Information that actually helps people do better & live their lives better is being squashed, censored, & restricted while people continue to deny that there's a fucking problem in this (once briefly) free nation.