(National Review) Cratering birth rates are threatening a “demographic winter,” according to a recent Wall Street Journal story, causing government leaders to believe that increasing the number of babies born has become “a matter of national urgency.”
But the ever woke New England Journal of Medicine is having none of it. Instead, it published a bitter piece castigating “pro-natalism” that even deploys the ridiculous “The Handmaid’s Tale” cliché to make its points. From “Blessed be the Fruit” (citations omitted):
“Pronatalism” is an attitude or policy approach that encourages childbearing and elevates the role of parenthood, specifically for women, as a necessary and positive societal contribution, often deliberately at the expense of women’s opportunities in education, governance, and the workforce. . . . Regardless of the stated motivations, such policies threaten the health and well-being of women and marginalized people, whether by overtly restricting access to reproductive services or by encouraging childbearing by people who lack the required financial resources, social support, or physical or mental health to safely bear and raise children in the manner they would desire.
Moreover, pronatalist ideology conflicts with many people’s reproductive goals and societal gender-parity efforts. We are therefore alarmed by government-developed reproductive policies and believe it is important to resist their normalization. This resistance is especially salient for historically marginalized populations for whom reproductive freedom and choice have never been guaranteed.
Oh, brother. So to encourage larger families is oppressive — dangerous, even — because it could reduce rates of abortion. But surely one can be pro-choice and still support polices that promote bigger families — such as the interesting proposal by Americans United for Life to make all birth free.
The authors also claim that encouraging people to have more children makes the childless feel bad and strengthens traditional families!
Beyond the threat to the health of people who are or may become pregnant, pronatalist culture adversely affects people facing infertility: in this population, pronatalism, as compared with policies creating supportive social structures for infertility, compounds feelings of stigma and shame and is associated with higher rates of depression, anxiety, and intimate partner violence.
Similarly, pronatalist policies rarely advocate for childbearing or child rearing in “nontraditional” families, by people such as same-sex couples, single parents, and unmarried couples. In fact, many supporters of pronatalism promote traditional family structures and vote in favor of policies that discriminate against anyone falling outside them.
Here comes “The Handmaid’s Tale” triteness:
The fall of Roe in June 2022 was not the nadir in challenges to reproductive rights and gender parity. The amplification of pronatalist rhetoric in the 2024 U.S. political cycle reflects a plan to further roll back advances in reproductive health and gender opportunities and empowerment, a trajectory eerily reminiscent of The Handmaid’s Tale.
People who promote pronatalism seemingly out of concern for their countries’ economic sustainability need to be aware of the health implications and access limitations that result as collateral damage, especially for marginalized populations.
As people’s reproductive goals for themselves shift, it is crucial to stand firm against coercive government-sanctioned pronatalism and advocate for policies that support comprehensive reproductive sovereignty and gender equity.
Look, I don’t have children. It is a sadness. But celebrating and promoting fecundity doesn’t denigrate me in any way. Moreover, some of the happiest people I know are traditional women, married with children. Now that I think of it, maybe that’s what really upsets the anti-natalist crowd.
So, perhaps J. D. Vance has a point — certainly too pointedly made with the “cat ladies” crack — when he worries that some elements in the country have “become almost pathologically anti-child.” Apparently, this includes the New England Journal of Medicine, which demonstrates, week after week, how culturally estranged the medical establishment has become from the society it is supposed to serve.
Editor’s Note: This article was published at National Review and is reprinted here with permission.
