Latest news with #NationalMedalofMotherhood
USA Today
29-05-2025
- Health
- USA Today
The White House wants women to have more babies. They're ignoring part of the problem — men.
The White House wants women to have more babies. They're ignoring part of the problem — men. Show Caption Hide Caption Has the pronatalism movement gone mainstream? The Trump administration is considering a baby bonus. Is it enough to encourage people to have more kids? America's birth rate has been on a steady decline since 2007, and pronatalists − both in and outside the White House − are determined to raise it. But how? President Donald Trump and his administration have reportedly begun wading through various proposals aimed at reversing America's declining birthrate. Per the New York Times, some ideas that have been floated include scholarships for married people and parents, a one-time $5,000 cash "baby bonus" for mothers and government-funded education on menstruation and ovulation. One pronatalist activist also proposed that mothers of six or more receive a 'National Medal of Motherhood." And calls for women to bear more children aren't just inside the White House – they've infiltrated the cultural zeitgeist. Trad wives, or 'homestead creators,' are making waves on social media for romanticizing the nuclear family unit that Trump and Vice President JD Vance have lauded. But when partners struggle to conceive, the burden is rarely distributed evenly between men and women. Still, fertility experts say we're missing a key component of the conversation – male infertility. Research shows that for heterosexual couples trying to conceive, when the cause of infertility can be attributed to a known factor, it's a roughly 50-50 split between male and female factors. The male partner was found to be solely responsible in about 20% of infertility cases, and a contributing factor in another 30-40% of all cases. Male and female infertility factors often coexist, yet a high number of men do not undergo testing before their female partner begins IVF, according to Dr. Neel Shah, the Chief Medical Officer at Maven Clinic, a virtual clinic for women's and family health. 'Our healthcare system generally seems better designed for men than for women, but men are more reluctant to engage with it in the first place,' he says. 'It's relatively common for women to go through entire fertility journeys, and the men to never be tested. But when you don't treat the couple as a unit, the burden is disproportionately on one person.' 1 in 6 people are affected by infertility, but women often carry the burden According to a 2025 report released by Maven Clinic that surveyed 1,000 women struggling with infertility, 65% said they felt that the burden of fertility lay almost entirely with them, not with their partner. 'In the design of the healthcare system, but even more broadly, socially, we have unfortunately put the entire burden on women,' Shah says. 'They're the ones who get tested first. They bear the most emotionally. But the science is very clear, infertility is just as likely to be caused by male factors as female ones.' Characterizing fertility solely as a woman's issue is part of a 'broader cultural misunderstanding,' limits the accessibility of fertility care and contributes to the feelings of shame some women experience when struggling with infertility. Trump wants a baby boom. Is his 'pronatalism' agenda missing the point? Men are more reluctant to do fertility testing Women have biological markers, such as their menstrual cycle, that serve as a checkpoint for reproductive health. Men, on the other hand, don't have an obvious, visual indicator for sperm health. To test male infertility, doctors can look at the concentration of sperm and motility, meaning how active the sperm are. This usually involves going to a clinic and producing a semen sample, which Shah says many men are reluctant to do. 'Men like having things to do and appreciate being able to support their partners,' he says. 'But in many cases ... they're not being engaged in a way that makes them comfortable.' In some cases when male infertility is a contributing or sole factor, in-vitro fertilization (IVF) is still necessary. However, it should be done using intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), which involves injecting a single, healthy sperm into an egg. 'It's the world's tiniest surgery,' Shah says. Some factors contributing to male infertility are lifestyle-based; things like wearing tight underwear and sitting in hot tubs actually can decrease sperm count. Other factors, such as taking testosterone, can work as a contraceptive, just like estrogen in women. 'Men think they're taking testosterone to make themselves more virile, but it's doing the opposite,' Shah explains. Women want parental leave, greater financial incentives to raise the birth rate In a video with over 330,000 views, a pair of parents expressed their shock at some of the White House's suggestions for raising the birth rate. "Obviously no women were involved in this council that's coming up with these ideas," a man says in the video, as his wife reads him some of the proposals and they react to each one. She laments, 'Not like, free health care or, I don't know, paid maternity leave." Jennifer Sciubba, a demographer and the author of the book "8 Billion and Counting: How Sex, Death, and Migration Shape Our World," previously told USA TODAY the reasons for America's declining birthrate are vast and complex. For starters, more people feel they simply can't afford to have families amid economic uncertainty and rising housing prices. Couples seeking IVF are often met with high prices, leading some to partake in "medical tourism" for cheaper fertility care abroad. Sciubba added that more couples are also delaying marriage, shortening their window to conceive naturally with their spouse. More people also don't see children as necessary to a fulfilling life. Shah advises against framing fertility in moral and political terms. "It sends the message that women's bodies are public battlegrounds," he cautions. "It could end up overriding some of the real medical struggles (and) emotional distress that people have when they're trying to build their trying to build their family." Contributing: Charles Trepany, Jonathan Limehouse
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
A 'motherhood medal' to encourage having more babies? Why 71% of women say 'no thanks.'
With six kids — including two she adopted — her full-time content creation job and a husband who was laid off last year, Sharon Johnson can think of a lot of things that would make her life as a working mother easier. For starters, there's affordable child care, health insurance and housing. 'I'm a good mom, and I love my children, but I would never advise someone to have more than just, like, two or three kids, especially right now,' says Johnson, who makes a living as a mental health advocacy content creator. The U.S. government is weighing possible ways to encourage more American women to have bigger families, like Johnson's, in an effort to boost the historically low national birth rate. One proposal that's generated a lot of buzz is the idea of awarding a National Medal of Motherhood. Getting the award wouldn't convince Johnson to do it all over again. And, according to a recent Yahoo/YouGov poll, an overwhelming majority of women agree. The White House is considering a number of ways to encourage people to have more children, according to a recent New York Times article. The declining U.S. birth rate, coupled with the aging population, has given rise to concerns about economic instability due to a shrinking workforce (though whether having more babies is the most efficient or ethical answer is a matter of debate). Proposals for how to increase the U.S. birth rate submitted to the White House include providing a $5,000 'baby bonus' to each woman who gives birth, reserving a certain share of scholarships for people who are married or have kids, menstruation education to better inform women when they can conceive and the aforementioned motherhood medals. As reported by the Times, the suggestion of motherhood medals was made to the White House by a pro-natalist couple, Simone and Malcolm Collins. The proposal is unpopular with most Americans, according to recent Yahoo/YouGov polling of more than 1,500 people between April 25-28, 2025. Overall, 64% of Americans said they disapprove of the idea, while just 19% said they approve of giving moms of large families medals. Women are especially opposed, with 71% disapproving of the motherhood medal. 'It's not at all surprising,' Leila Abolfazli, who serves as director of federal reproductive rights for the National Women's Law Center, tells Yahoo Life. 'Generally, the reaction from people and from women has been that there's just an 'ick' factor to all this.' As a mother of six, Johnson goes so far as to say the proposal 'just feels like a slap in the face.' Johnson grew up in the Mormon faith, and was raised to "essentially be a tradwife' whose purpose in life was to get married and have many children. She initially followed that path, giving birth to four kids and taking in two more children from foster care (through what's known as a kinship adoption, meaning they were relatives' kids). She doesn't have any regrets, but to her mind, there are big concerns that need to be addressed as higher priorities than awarding medals for big families. 'We have no community, no support, a terrible quality of life and it's literally killing women,' Johnson says, referencing high rates of mental distress among moms and maternal mortality. Yoreim Virella doesn't have children, 'by choice,' she tells Yahoo Life. The 42-year-old human resources program manager says that she grew up in Puerto Rico with the expectation that she would get married and have babies. But when she reached her 30s while living in the mainland U.S., she 'started seeing the struggles, the challenges, the lack of health care and programs around parenthood — and parents' distress levels became so evident.' 'My husband and I decided we should steer clear [of having kids] in this environment,' Virella says. For her, the suggestion of giving out medals for larger families doesn't make her feel that mothers are valued, but rather dismisses the real challenges. Plus, she says, 'history has shown us the dangers of what happens when governments try to control reproductive choices with rewards,' alluding to motherhood medals given out in Nazi Germany and the eugenics movement. 'Instead of giving medals, it would be nice to give paid parental leave,' she says. Mothers, families and groups that advocate on their behalf have long called for federal policies that provide better support for parents, especially as the cost of living has skyrocketed. That's why Erin Erenberg, a lawyer, mother and CEO of the Chamber of Mothers, views the Trump administration's consideration of pro-family policies with optimism. 'If this administration is saying, 'Hey, we want to look at what would be supportive of mothers,' then we have an opportunity,' she tells Yahoo Life. However, the medals don't quite fit the bill of what moms are asking her organization for. Feeling unappreciated for the largely hidden and unpaid labor of childbearing and raising kids is a common sentiment among parents, especially mothers. 'Moms feel really ignored,' says Erenberg, whose Chamber of Mothers is in contact with some 40 million moms a month. But among those mothers, there's a consensus, and it's not about medals. 'There's an 80% approval rating for investment in paid leave, child care and maternal health — that's what's really needed,' Erenberg says. As glad as Erenberg is to see the White House consider pro-family policies, 'I don't know a single mom who wants a medal,' she says. 'We want time to breathe and think and just be, but we can't because we're just drowning in care. We need more support. Everybody talks about 'the village,' but it's set at the federal level, where law and policy inform our culture and what we expect of one another. And there is way too much expected of mothers without support.' What do Americans want that support to look like? According to our polling, the most popular policy (with a 79% approval rating) would be making pre-kindergarten free for children ages 3 and 4. Tied at 62% approval, the next most favored policies would be funding six months of paid family leave for new parents and creating a $6,000 child tax credit to support the first year of a baby's life. The $5,000 baby bonus reportedly being considered by the Trump administration received support from 39% of respondents, and another proposal to fund menstrual education programs to help women learn when they can conceive was approved by 44% of people we polled. Motherhood medals were the least popular family-related proposal, with just 19% of men and women in support. Although paid family leave didn't make the list of family policies being considered by the Trump administration, the president did sign a form of parental leave into law during his first term. For the fiscal year of 2020, he approved 12 weeks of paid parental leave for federal employees to accompany the birth, adoption or fostering of a child. 'We hear moms demanding that over and over,' says Erenberg. 'It's really the first step of parenting: You have a baby and the birthing person or parents have to take care of the baby; that needs to be attended to.' Johnson, the mother of six, left the workforce after having her first baby and realizing that her entire paycheck was just going straight to child care. For her, neither a medal nor the $5,000 baby bonus would convince her to have more kids. ('I'm not going to say no to $5K — it's a lot when you have six kids and you're lower middle class — but that barely touches the hospital bills' for having a child, she says.) Though Johnson is put off by the idea that women should have more children based on any government incentive, the recent proposals are especially offensive to her. 'All of it means nothing if you're not going to back it up with meaningful changes,' she says. 'I don't want to be recognized or given anything until you're giving maternity leave with guaranteed pay and treating us like humans, not just people that are having babies. You can't celebrate us and say 'good job' when you're taking away our humanity.'
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
A 'motherhood medal' to encourage having more babies? Why 71% of women say 'no thanks.'
With six kids — including two she adopted — her full-time content creation job and a husband who was laid off last year, Sharon Johnson can think of a lot of things that would make her life as a working mother easier. For starters, there's affordable child care, health insurance and housing. 'I'm a good mom, and I love my children, but I would never advise someone to have more than just, like, two or three kids, especially right now,' says Johnson, who makes a living as a mental health advocacy content creator. The U.S. government is weighing possible ways to encourage more American women to have bigger families, like Johnson's, in an effort to boost the historically low national birth rate. One proposal that's generated a lot of buzz is the idea of awarding a National Medal of Motherhood. Getting the award wouldn't convince Johnson to do it all over again. And, according to a recent Yahoo/YouGov poll, an overwhelming majority of women agree. The White House is considering a number of ways to encourage people to have more children, according to a recent New York Times article. The declining U.S. birth rate, coupled with the aging population, has given rise to concerns about economic instability due to a shrinking workforce (though whether having more babies is the most efficient or ethical answer is a matter of debate). Proposals for how to increase the U.S. birth rate submitted to the White House include providing a $5,000 'baby bonus' to each woman who gives birth, reserving a certain share of scholarships for people who are married or have kids, menstruation education to better inform women when they can conceive and the aforementioned motherhood medals. As reported by the Times, the suggestion of motherhood medals was made to the White House by a pro-natalist couple, Simone and Malcolm Collins. The proposal is unpopular with most Americans, according to recent Yahoo/YouGov polling of more than 1,500 people between April 25-28, 2025. Overall, 64% of Americans said they disapprove of the idea, while just 19% said they approve of giving moms of large families medals. Women are especially opposed, with 71% disapproving of the motherhood medal. 'It's not at all surprising,' Leila Abolfazli, who serves as director of federal reproductive rights for the National Women's Law Center, tells Yahoo Life. 'Generally, the reaction from people and from women has been that there's just an 'ick' factor to all this.' As a mother of six, Johnson goes so far as to say the proposal 'just feels like a slap in the face.' Johnson grew up in the Mormon faith, and was raised to "essentially be a tradwife' whose purpose in life was to get married and have many children. She initially followed that path, giving birth to four kids and taking in two more children from foster care (through what's known as a kinship adoption, meaning they were relatives' kids). She doesn't have any regrets, but to her mind, there are big concerns that need to be addressed as higher priorities than awarding medals for big families. 'We have no community, no support, a terrible quality of life and it's literally killing women,' Johnson says, referencing high rates of mental distress among moms and maternal mortality. Yoreim Virella doesn't have children, 'by choice,' she tells Yahoo Life. The 42-year-old human resources program manager says that she grew up in Puerto Rico with the expectation that she would get married and have babies. But when she reached her 30s while living in the mainland U.S., she 'started seeing the struggles, the challenges, the lack of health care and programs around parenthood — and parents' distress levels became so evident.' 'My husband and I decided we should steer clear [of having kids] in this environment,' Virella says. For her, the suggestion of giving out medals for larger families doesn't make her feel that mothers are valued, but rather dismisses the real challenges. Plus, she says, 'history has shown us the dangers of what happens when governments try to control reproductive choices with rewards,' alluding to motherhood medals given out in Nazi Germany and the eugenics movement. 'Instead of giving medals, it would be nice to give paid parental leave,' she says. Mothers, families and groups that advocate on their behalf have long called for federal policies that provide better support for parents, especially as the cost of living has skyrocketed. That's why Erin Erenberg, a lawyer, mother and CEO of the Chamber of Mothers, views the Trump administration's consideration of pro-family policies with optimism. 'If this administration is saying, 'Hey, we want to look at what would be supportive of mothers,' then we have an opportunity,' she tells Yahoo Life. However, the medals don't quite fit the bill of what moms are asking her organization for. Feeling unappreciated for the largely hidden and unpaid labor of childbearing and raising kids is a common sentiment among parents, especially mothers. 'Moms feel really ignored,' says Erenberg, whose Chamber of Mothers is in contact with some 40 million moms a month. But among those mothers, there's a consensus, and it's not about medals. 'There's an 80% approval rating for investment in paid leave, child care and maternal health — that's what's really needed,' Erenberg says. As glad as Erenberg is to see the White House consider pro-family policies, 'I don't know a single mom who wants a medal,' she says. 'We want time to breathe and think and just be, but we can't because we're just drowning in care. We need more support. Everybody talks about 'the village,' but it's set at the federal level, where law and policy inform our culture and what we expect of one another. And there is way too much expected of mothers without support.' What do Americans want that support to look like? According to our polling, the most popular policy (with a 79% approval rating) would be making pre-kindergarten free for children ages 3 and 4. Tied at 62% approval, the next most favored policies would be funding six months of paid family leave for new parents and creating a $6,000 child tax credit to support the first year of a baby's life. The $5,000 baby bonus reportedly being considered by the Trump administration received support from 39% of respondents, and another proposal to fund menstrual education programs to help women learn when they can conceive was approved by 44% of people we polled. Motherhood medals were the least popular family-related proposal, with just 19% of men and women in support. Although paid family leave didn't make the list of family policies being considered by the Trump administration, the president did sign a form of parental leave into law during his first term. For the fiscal year of 2020, he approved 12 weeks of paid parental leave for federal employees to accompany the birth, adoption or fostering of a child. 'We hear moms demanding that over and over,' says Erenberg. 'It's really the first step of parenting: You have a baby and the birthing person or parents have to take care of the baby; that needs to be attended to.' Johnson, the mother of six, left the workforce after having her first baby and realizing that her entire paycheck was just going straight to child care. For her, neither a medal nor the $5,000 baby bonus would convince her to have more kids. ('I'm not going to say no to $5K — it's a lot when you have six kids and you're lower middle class — but that barely touches the hospital bills' for having a child, she says.) Though Johnson is put off by the idea that women should have more children based on any government incentive, the recent proposals are especially offensive to her. 'All of it means nothing if you're not going to back it up with meaningful changes,' she says. 'I don't want to be recognized or given anything until you're giving maternity leave with guaranteed pay and treating us like humans, not just people that are having babies. You can't celebrate us and say 'good job' when you're taking away our humanity.'
Boston Globe
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Trump's efforts to boost birthrates (probably) aren't going to work. Neither are anybody else's.
Send questions or suggestions to the Starting Point team at . If you'd like the newsletter sent to your inbox, . TODAY'S STARTING POINT I am a single, 47-year-old relationship writer who's never wanted kids, so, as you can imagine, I have been reading recent stories about declining birthrates, in the US and worldwide, with great interest — and many opinions. I've never been 'mom material' — I am built to be a fun and supportive aunt-type — but I want to live in a world where people who want children can have them, support them, and keep them (and themselves) healthy. As you probably know, there's been a lot of talk about why people aren't having children, and why the birthrate is plummeting globally. It's Advertisement The problem with that? The world's population is aging. We need workers and caregivers. Not everyone can be like me. There are plenty of people who want kids, but see barriers to having them. Globe business reporter Dana Gerber would have children — or more children — if they had the money to support them comfortably. Advertisement The current administration's proposed solutions to this problem make me feel like I'm watching 'The Handmaid's Tale,' of course. The Trump administration is considering giving women $5,000 to have kids, and a 'National Medal of Motherhood' for those who have six or more. I hate all of that, but I will say that from my vantage point, no government or administration seems to be asking the right questions when it comes to falling birthrates and how to deal with them. In South Korea, for instance, which has had the lowest global birthrate since 2013, some local leaders have gone into the matchmaking business. In Seongnam city, just southeast of Seoul, Mayor Shin Sang-Jin has made headlines for hosting parties for singles. He hopes the events will help people fall in love so that they get married and have babies. We did a I do not like the idea of a city butting into people's love lives (although I'll admit, the initiative did seem to be helping people find partners). But I especially didn't like the mayor's plan to go into school classes to teach young kids the message that, as he put it to me, 'marriage is a blessing and childbirth is happiness.' It sounded like brainwashing. And while marriage and kids can be lovely, so is being single in a clean apartment. Advertisement South Korea's birthrate did increase in 2024, slightly. I suspect this has something to do with more companies offering better benefits to parents. What Mayor Shin seemed to miss, on a more global level, are the many reasons why girls and women feel like marriage and children can be an unpleasant path. There can be a loss of freedom; the gender division of labor at home is still lopsided. That's a big issue in the US, too. While reporting a new story about how COVID-19 Corrine Wiborg, who presented a paper at the recent annual meeting of the Population Association of America in Washington, D.C., said this trend started in 2015, with more and more high school seniors saying they're unsure that marriage and children will be part of their future. This comes from the I'd also like to know more about what young people want and how we can help them find it. The answers to those questions might produce better solutions than brainwashing students or $5,000 bribes, and actually show us a path to the future. Advertisement If you'd like to try my Love Letters newsletter, . 🧩 4 Across: | 😶🌫️ 76° POINTS OF INTEREST Staff at Butler Hospital in Providence rallied in the rain yesterday. It's the facility's first strike in 37 years. Lane Turner/Globe Staff Boston and New England Karen Read: The doctor who autopsied John O'Keefe called his head wound 'severe,' but said she'd been Walkout: Nurses and staff Bear necessities: To cull a growing population of black bears, Massachusetts regulators Looks familiar: The CEO of Baystate Health, Western Massachusetts' biggest health system, writes a weekly blog for employees. He New building: Lego executives — joined by Healey, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, and people dressed like toy minifigures — cut the ribbon on Surprise discount: In 1946, Harvard bought a copy of the Magna Carta for $27.50. It turns out to be Mayoral race: Wu and Josh Kraft traded criticisms at a candidate forum that included their two lesser-known rivals. Asked which ward he lived in, Kraft answered, ' Trump administration Supreme Court: During arguments, the justices Trump's agenda: Conservative House Republicans threatened to block Trump's tax bill from advancing today because they want it to cut Medicaid sooner. ( Kseniia Petrova: A judge ordered federal authorities to transfer a Harvard cancer researcher back to Massachusetts to face charges that she smuggling frog embryos into the US. The administration is Violent arrest: A Guatemalan native whose car window was smashed in by ICE agents during his arrest in New Bedford last month No deal: Immigrant rights groups want Governor Healey to ban police throughout Massachusetts Higher power: After officials in Weare, N.H. cracked down on a backyard church, the church sued the town. Trump's Justice Department The Nation Another airport outage: Air traffic controllers in Denver lost contact with planes for 90 seconds this week, similar to recent equipment failures at Newark airport. ( Diddy trial: Sean Combs' defense lawyers cross-examined the R&B singer Cassie Ventura, trying to portray the music mogul's ex-girlfriend as a willing participant in his drug-fueled orgies. ( UnitedHealth Group: The health insurance giant's stock price slid after it abruptly replaced its CEO this week and the Wall Street Journal reported that the Justice Department is investigating it for possible Medicare fraud. ( WNBA: The season starts tonight. VIEWPOINTS Is the new Copley Square an eyesore? Yes, says the Globe's Editorial Board. The park needed renovating, but the new design has turned its inviting lawn into ' Be patient, counters MassLive's John L. Micek. The sleek new space makes room for music performances and, maybe, a beer garden. And the city BESIDE THE POINT By Teresa Hanafin ✈️ Um, excuse me: Airplane seat squatters, a new breed of 🚚 Helping hand: Her DoorDash order was delivered by her former teacher who needed extra money for bills. So she 💘 Blind date: They both are scientists and even have similar hair. 📺 Weekend streaming: 'Paddington in Peru,' season 7 of 'The Chi,' the latest season of 'Nine Perfect Strangers,' and 🎵 US debut: During the Boston Early Music Festival, the Boston Camerata will perform a timely program about Thanks for reading Starting Point. This newsletter was edited by ❓ Have a question for the team? Email us at ✍🏼 If someone sent you this newsletter, you can 📬 Delivered Monday through Friday.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Republicans Are Trying To Push Women To Have More Babies, And It Looks Disturbingly Familiar
President Donald Trump is reportedly entertaining policy proposals to incentivize American women to have more children. But the proposals don't include basic and undeniably effective ideas like subsidized child care or paid parental leave. Instead, the Trump administration appears to be considering a $5,000 cash 'baby bonus' and a 'National Medal of Motherhood' for any woman who has six or more children. The policy proposals are part of a larger push from conservative Republicans to boost the United States' declining birth rates by persuading families to have more kids. The proposals fall squarely into what's known as the pro-natalist movement — an ideology created to raise declining population rates that has historically been co-opted by far-right misogynist groups, including fascist and authoritarian regimes. The contemporary pro-natalist movement has found a leader in Trump, who has aligned himself with some of the ideology's most extreme advocates, including far-right influencer Jack Posobiec and billionaire Elon Musk. Musk, who was never far from Trump's side at the start of his second term, has fathered 14 children and routinely voices concerns about 'population collapse' due to declining birth rates. Vice President JD Vance famously made fun of 'childless cat ladies' during the campaign and recently urged Americans to have 'more babies.' And Trump has proudly appointed himself 'the fertilization president.' At the same time, the president has literally made it more dangerous to be pregnant and give birth in the US He has bragged about his role in dismantling federal abortion protections and commented that 'it's a beautiful thing to watch' states ban abortion. Dozens of pregnant women have nearly died due to those state-level abortion bans because they're so vague that they also criminalize miscarriage care. Trump has also slashed the social safety net, attacking vital family planning resources for low-income women and implementing policies that target immigrant and LGBTQ+ children. It makes you wonder who, exactly, his administration is telling to have more kids and why. Medals for women who give birth to a lot of children and cash bonuses are not new ideas from the Trump administration, said Denise Lynn, a professor of history and director of gender studies at the University of Southern Indiana. Fascist and authoritarian regimes of the past have used similar pro-natalist ideologies to restore conservative family values within society and relegate women to the home, where their sole duty is to bear children. Germany's Adolf Hitler, Chile's Augusto Pinochet, and Italy's Benito Mussolini all employed pro-natalist policies to encourage specific types of married couples to produce children for the state. In Nazi Germany, white women were awarded a bronze medal for having four children, silver for six and gold for eight children. The Nazi Party also gave out financial loans to white families; couples could have more children in order to decrease how much money they would owe back to the state. Related: Justin Trudeau's Shady Comment Toward Donald Trump Is Going Super Viral One of the first things many fascist regimes did was ban abortion and restrict birth control. Trump has proudly claimed responsibility for repealing Roe v. Wade, which led to a dozen or so abortion bans in states around the country. Republicans in the current administration are continuing to attack access to contraception and roll back access to general sexual and reproductive health care. 'There's been lots of studies that have shown that with access to higher education, with access to health care and prenatal, postnatal and perinatal care, and all of these other things, everyone's standard of living increases in a culture,' said Lynn, whose research focuses on the American Communist Party during the Great Depression and the Cold War, specifically around anti-fascism sentiments during those eras. 'So, feminist policies actually benefit everyone, including men, and yet we persist in pushing policies that are going to hurt all of us in the long run.' HuffPost spoke with Lynn about the history of pro-natalism in fascist regimes and some of the through lines she sees to the situation today in the US. How do you define pro-natalism? It's a pro-birth political position that has historically revolved around fears about declining populations. Generally, when the party in power shares that pro-natalist view, it can appear in public policy. So, for example, anti-abortion laws are pro-natalist, anti-birth control or birth control stigma is pro-natalist. I would even argue that abstinence-only programs are pro-natalist because many pro-natalists see the heterosexual married relationship as the epitome of citizenship, and thus enforcing it in education is a necessary part of a pro-natalist political position. The fundamental idea behind it is that states depend on women's reproductive labor to reproduce [their] citizenry, and so reproductive bodies are expected to serve the state by producing citizens. From your research, how have pro-natalist policies and ideologies worked in tandem or within authoritarian or fascist regimes? Within authoritarian or fascist regimes, reproductive labor becomes a state obligation specifically for women. So it's an obligation that is in service to the state. In Nazi Germany, it was framed as producing future soldiers and laborers to build the nation and, in the 1930s at least, to fight wars for progressing the creation of Hitler's 'lebensraum' or living space. The pro-natalist movement was really strong in Europe after World War I. I would argue that it was still present in the United States, but the imperatives were different because there was so much human loss after World War I that there were countries that saw deep demographic declines. But in Nazi Germany, which also had huge population loss — which, of course, means fewer men to marry, fewer children to have — they saw this as jeopardizing their future security. And then, of course, in Nazi Germany, it's coupled with racial imperatives that they needed to perpetuate the white Germanic stock. That's when we saw the 'racial hygiene' laws become part of state policy in Nazi Germany. Related: Donald Trump Just Shared A Very Ominous Post, And People Are Calling It "One Of The Worst Statements Ever Made By A Sitting US President" Some of your research focuses on anti-fascism and the American Communist Party, specifically how women in the Communist Party fought back against pro-natalist policies. You wrote in one research article that 'in Hitler's Germany and other fascist states such as Italy, Spain,, and Austria, communists believed there was an effort to 'nationalize' women's maternity in service to the state.' Can you talk to me more about that? The people I studied feared women would lose all autonomy and would be quite literally owned by the nation — their bodies would be owned by the nation, their children's bodies would be owned by the nation. That bodily sovereignty would not belong to women anymore, and that all decision-making was now influenced by national concerns, and certainly not influenced by personal concerns or even medical concerns. It's framed as an imperative for women to have babies for the nations and not for their own emotional, mental, physical, well well-being. Traditionally, we think of childbirth in the past as children were used as laborers for the family, that their existence was seen as something that would help a family. In the pro-natalist state, children are laborers that serve the state. One of the things that I discuss in my more recent research focuses on anti-Korean War activism among Black radicals. One of their big concerns was that they were basically being told they needed to produce cannon fodder for the state's future wars. This bond between their children transformed into: the state needs me to produce soldiers. I want to talk about whether you see any through lines from that point in history to what's happening in the US today. I'm covering the attacks on the abortion pill, mifepristone. In the updated complaint from three anti-choice states trying to restrict access to the pill, they use pretty barefaced pro-natalist terminology that makes me think of what you just said: 'Defendants' efforts enabling the remote dispensing of abortion drugs has caused abortions for women in Plaintiff States and decreased births in Plaintiff States. This is a sovereign injury to the State in itself.' Oh my gosh. Yeah, that's a great example of pro-natalism. You wrote in that same article: 'In Nazi Germany, improved economic conditions led to an increased birth rate. But pro-natalist policies helped to encourage this rise, particularly the laws prohibiting abortion and allowing for the prosecution of those performing and receiving abortions.' It's hard not to think of what's happening in the US when I read that. The fall of federal abortion protections in 2022 has led to nearly half the country criminalizing care, and physicians are being prosecuted, and pregnant people are dying. The Dobbs decision [overturning Roe v. Wade] was a pro-natalist policy. I like the language of the current movement, the language of forced birth policies, because by banning abortion, they really do take away women's autonomy. One of the problems in the United States is that not only are we limiting access to abortion and birth control, but we have forced birth policies in a country that has aggressively rejected things like maternity leave, Medicare for all, adequate prenatal and postnatal care, and affordable childcare. These things have not been remedied even when Roe was in place. One of the arguments behind pro-natalism is that the state needs people to do labor — right now we are heading toward a demographic cliff with an aging population and fewer younger people to do the work needed for society and to take care of the aged. Of course, this could be solved by immigration and creating pathways to citizenship, but the very same people committed to pro-natalism take hardline stances against immigration. This just further demonstrates that pro-natalism's primary goal is to enforce second-class citizenship on women. Are there any pro-natalist policies from Nazi Germany or other fascist regimes you've studied that stand out or are similar to the ones that the Trump administration is entertaining? I was having a conversation with one of my colleagues the other day about the proposed $5,000 allowance for someone who has a child. That reminded me of the loans that Nazi Germany afforded to white Aryan families. That is very similar. It's also a joke — $5,000 isn't going to do much. Under Nazi Germany's racial hygiene laws, they gave out loans to families, specifically to the husband, that promised you could reduce your payback amount with every subsequent child. One of the big things that the women I studied — and they talked about it well into the Cold War — is the fascist triple K: Kinder, Küche, Kirche, which means 'children, kitchen, church.' This pro-natalist ideology sought to confine women, essentially, to second-class citizenship. I keep thinking about the idea to award a '' to women who have six kids and the similarity to Nazi Germany's motherhood medals. It really reduces women to breeders. It ignores the deep complexity of childbirth. You have a uterus and ovaries, but that doesn't mean you have the ability to have children. But if you can't have children and you have a uterus and ovaries, do you no longer have status in your own country? It marginalizes fathers and fatherhood. There's so many layers of issues. How does pro-natalism intersect with race and eugenics? In United States' history, pro-natalist policies were directly linked to eugenics. Eugenics emerged in the US when middle- and upper-class white women were having fewer children, while immigrants and people of color continued to have more children. A lot of that has to do with access to birth control information, and eugenicists wanted to flip that script completely and encourage white birth rates. But only appropriate white birth rates. One of the doctors involved in the 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell was given a citation by the Nazi government. It was about this woman, Carrie Buck, who had been confined to a mental health institution. It's likely she was probably raped by a doctor there, but became pregnant with a second child out of wedlock and she was accused of being an 'idiot,' which was a eugenics term for someone who might have had a second to fourth grade mentality. Carrie Buck was white, but eugenicists were like, 'Well, we don't want idiots to have children either, and the Nazi government is going to learn from that case.' Essentially, the Nazis really liked our racial hygiene cases because it glorified not just white births, but appropriate white births. Of course, as the 20th century goes on, eugenics itself becomes stigmatized, but it still lives on. So Black women, Latinas, and Indigenous women faced forced sterilization, while white women were often refused permanent sterilization until they had a specific number of children. Do you see any of that today? We can definitely still see the eugenicist language today. I don't think it's a coincidence that forced birth policies jeopardize people of color the most because white nationalists have no interest in their birth outcomes. They're only concerned about producing more white babies. There was a senator from Louisiana who basically said, 'We have a great maternal mortality rate if you don't include Black women.' And that was only a couple of years ago. Our policies around forced birth do disadvantage people who are already disadvantaged, and I don't think that's coincidental. Where do we go from here? One of the things that I think about a lot is the question around health. Politicians don't talk about reproductive care as an issue of health. We see conversations on social media that say, 'Well, birth is a natural part of life.' And, sure, but maternal mortality rates were very high until the 1950s, and one of the things that changed was access to care for the reproductive body. Those poor birth outcomes weren't that long ago. I worry that we're heading towards a future that's gonna look a lot like our past. I just hope it doesn't last very long. This article originally appeared on HuffPost. Also in In the News: "We Went From 'Lower The Price Of Eggs' To 'Lower Your Standard Of Living'": 39 Of The Best, Most Brutal, And Very Relatable Political Tweets Of The Month Also in In the News: "We Don't Import Food": 31 Americans Who Are Just So, So Confused About Tariffs And US Trade Also in In the News: People Who Voted For Trump Are Getting Very Honest About Donald Trump's Latest Truth Social Post
