Unpopular Opinion: Baby Boom Agenda - Eugenics & Control in America

The president has been espousing this idea of a baby boom for quite some time. He has declared himself the "fertilization president," which, if nothing else, is at least terribly off-putting and unsavory. This was in the context of IVF and it has resurfaced as he has started to push women to give birth to more children. All the while, he and Musk and RFK work to slash healthcare and science.

The president's self-proclaimed title as the 'fertilization president,' coupled with a push for a 'baby boom,' carries an unsettling undertone, especially when viewed alongside policies that actively undermine the well-being of families. Beneath the veneer of pronatalism, a closer look reveals a potential agenda rooted in eugenics and control, prioritizing population numbers over individual autonomy and societal equity. This isn't about national prosperity; it feels like a step towards a dystopian future where control trumps care.

Make no mistake, we may in fact be headed for Handmaid's Tale-esque policies and if it isn't clear already, you will fare differently depending on where you fall on the socioeconomic spectrum.

The Baby Boom's Hidden Agenda.

Globally, fertility rates have been declining in developed nations, owing to increased women's rights and access to education. The region of the world with the highest birth rates? --Sub-Saharan Africa, countries within which women have little access to education and limited rights.

In the US, the birth rate is below replacement level. Replacement Level is the birth rate required to replace the current population. Each couple should give birth to 2 babies in order to replace themselves. According to the CDC, in 2023, the birth rate was 1.62, well below the replacement level.

The proposition to encourage families to have more children is based on the belief that a growing population will fuel economic growth and maintain America’s global standing. The logic being that more people can increase consumer spending, expand the labor force, and ultimately enhance national security. However, this oversimplified view doesn't consider significant cultural and economic factors. Declines in birth rates are primarily driven by economic instability, rising living costs, and a lack of family support systems that discourage couples from starting or expanding their families.

Families in lower socioeconomic classes face real economic barriers that make having children a daunting prospect. Merely suggesting that people have more children fails to alleviate the financial pressures deterring them from doing so.

Have you seen how much it costs just to give birth in a hospital in this country? The average cost of childbirth in the US can range from $10,000 to over $30,000 depending on the type of birth and insurance coverage. Not to mention if there are complications. Does the administration plan to give us free birthing care?

But it's okay, you'll be given a $5,000 baby bonus once you've given birth. That should take care of all of the expenses, right? And, if you birth 6 or more kids, they'll give you a medal! Worth it!

Recent Policy Context

Let's summarize recent history real quick:

• Abortion and Contraception Access:

  • The 2022 Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade has led to significant state-level restrictions. As of late 2024, approximately 13-14 states have near-total abortion bans.   

  • This directly impacts women's reproductive autonomy and disproportionately affects low-income and minority communities.

  • In 2024, eight states enacted or proposed attacks on contraceptive access. These attacks are attempts to push contraception further out of reach for many people, particularly those with lower incomes. In one state, anti-abortion legislators, with support from activists, amended a bill to include the false notion that certain types of contraceptives can cause an abortion.

• Childcare:

  • Access to affordable childcare remains a critical issue. The average cost of childcare in the US can exceed $10,000 per year per child.  

• Paid Leave:

  • The US lacks a federal paid parental leave mandate. Only 13 states and D.C. have implemented paid family and medical leave programs.   

  • The absence of federal paid parental leave disproportionately burdens low-income families and women, potentially discouraging them from having more children while those with greater financial resources face fewer such constraints.

• Wage Inequality:

  • According to 2023 data, women earn 83.6 cents for every dollar earned by men. Racial wage gaps are even wider: Black women earn 65.8 cents, and Hispanic/Latina women earn 59.2 cents for every dollar earned by White men.   

• Education:

  • Significant disparities exist in educational access and quality, particularly for minority students.

  • Within these lackluster educations, further disparities exist for sex education. According to a report from the Guttmacher Institute:

    • 26 US states and Washington DC mandate sex education and HIV education.

    • 18 states require that sex education content be medically accurate.

    • 39 states require that sex education programs provide information on abstinence.

    • 20 states require that sex education programs provide information on contraception.   

    • Fewer adolescents have been learning about birth control methods from formal sex education sources than in 1995!

• Healthcare:

  • Postpartum depression and psychosis rates only increased between 2000 and 2015. Postpartum depression affects roughly 600,000 (20%) of U.S. mothers a year. Psychosis occurs in 1-2 women per 1,000 births. And yet access to affordable mental healthcare, including postpartum care, is severely limited.

• Rising Costs of Living and Housing:

  • Rising costs of living are a major deterrent to family growth. From 2010 to 2020, median home prices rose by about 26%, while wage growth was only around 11%.

  • There is no state or county where a renter working full-time at minimum wage can afford a two-bedroom apartment.

  • Seventy percent of all extremely low-income families are severely cost-burdened, paying more than half their income on rent.

• Research Funding:

  • The administration has been demanding all federal health agencies cut what they spend on contracts by at least 35%, in addition to massive layoffs, grant terminations and other cuts. Federal funding to support collection of new research data for the Women's Health Initiative will end in September 2025, that is research into conditions known to limit fertility, such as endometriosis will cease, directly in opposition to this Baby Boom push.

• Environment and Sustainability:

  • Climate change poses a serious threat to future populations, heck, current populations--and the administration's energy policies are counterproductive.

  • History has shown that growth cannot be sustained indefinitely if it neglects quality of life, environmental factors, and social equity. Simply put, there will eventually come a point where there will not be enough land and food to sustain the population.

    
    

Baby Boom = Eugenics

The dissonance between the 'baby boom' rhetoric and the stated goal of increasing the birth rate is stark. How can an administration genuinely desire a 'baby boom' while simultaneously restricting access to contraception, failing to ensure affordable childcare and paid leave, perpetuating wage inequality, limiting access to reproductive health education and postpartum care, and cutting research into fertility-related conditions? This contradiction suggests that the push for more births is not rooted in a desire to support thriving families or a robust economy for all but rather echoes the dark history of eugenics and social control.

Historically, eugenics movements have sought to control populations based on discriminatory and scientifically flawed ideas. While the overt language of the past may be absent, the current push for a 'baby boom' within a context of eroding reproductive rights and dwindling support for marginalized communities raises concerns that similar underlying motivations may be at play.

Consider the timing and the actors involved. This push emerges immediately after the dismantling of federal abortion rights, disproportionately impacting marginalized communities who already face systemic barriers to healthcare, economic stability, and education. Simultaneously, we see resistance to comprehensive sex education and accessible contraception, tools that empower individuals to make informed decisions about their own bodies and family planning.

Furthermore, the selective enthusiasm for increased birth rates often seems to ignore the lived realities of many Americans.

Where is the commensurate investment in affordable childcare, universal paid leave, equitable wages, and accessible healthcare – the very things that would genuinely support families and make the choice to have children more viable for a wider range of people? The absence of these crucial supports suggests that the focus isn't on the well-being of future generations, but rather on a numerical increase, regardless of the circumstances into which these children are born.

The "fertilization president" moniker, while jarring, inadvertently highlights a potentially dehumanizing view of women as mere vessels for reproduction. This perspective strips individuals of their autonomy and reduces a deeply personal decision to a matter of national output. When coupled with policies that restrict reproductive choices and offer superficial incentives like paltry "baby bonuses" or symbolic medals for large families, the message becomes disturbingly clear: quantity over quality, control over choice.

Moreover, the historical context of declining birth rates in developed nations, often linked to increased women's rights and access to education, cannot be ignored. Could this "baby boom" push be a subtle attempt to roll back progress, reinforcing traditional gender roles and limiting women's participation in the workforce and public life? By creating an environment where having large families is implicitly or explicitly encouraged without adequate support, the burden disproportionately falls on women, potentially hindering their economic and social advancement.

The selective emphasis on increasing birth rates invites scrutiny regarding whose births are truly desired. Historically, eugenics movements explicitly targeted specific racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups, aiming to promote the reproduction of those deemed 'desirable' while discouraging reproduction among others. While overt discriminatory language may be less prevalent today, the current push for a 'baby boom' occurs alongside a lack of robust policies addressing systemic inequalities that disproportionately affect marginalized communities. Disparities in healthcare access, economic stability, and educational opportunities continue to impact the reproductive choices and family sizes within Black, Indigenous, and other minority groups. Elon Musk's suggestion of building a "legion" of "genetically gifted offspring," while vague, echoes eugenic ideologies by implying a desire for selective breeding based on perceived genetic superiority. Furthermore, proposals to incentivize childbirth among those who might otherwise pursue higher education first, without simultaneously addressing the foundational needs of already marginalized communities seeking to raise families, could unintentionally create a system where only certain segments of the population are truly supported in having children. Given the persistent overrepresentation of White individuals in higher income brackets and positions of power, policies that selectively encourage childbirth within this demographic, while neglecting the needs of marginalized groups, risk perpetuating existing inequalities and aligning with the discriminatory outcomes historically sought by eugenic movements.

This isn't simply about wanting more children in the abstract. It's about the kind of children, born into what circumstances, and under whose control those decisions are made. The confluence of restricted reproductive rights, inadequate social support, and a relentless push for higher birth rates paints a concerning picture. It's time to look beyond the superficial rhetoric and recognize the potential for a dangerous agenda rooted in eugenics and control, one that prioritizes population numbers over individual autonomy and societal well-being.