The Federalist By Joshua Monnington
In the week leading up to Mother’s Day weekend, The Atlantic thought it would be the perfect time to run a piece on pro-natalism policies arguing that being raised by “a group of friends” “might be even better” than being raised by a mother and father.
Perhaps this should be unsurprising considering The Atlantic’s atrocious track record of hoax-peddling and left-wing bias. It should be even less of a shock in light of the fact that the author, Faith Hill, has touted the virtue of skipping family holiday gatherings, argued for spouses maintaining a stranglehold on their individual autonomy, and advised readers to “take yourself on a date” “to honor [your] aloneness.” After the reversal of Roe v. Wade, she lamented that “the gap between dystopian plots and actual life feels like it’s shrinking” — because, apparently, a world in which there are some limits on the legality of parents paying an abortionist to kill their unborn child is a very dark place.
Admittedly, Hill’s cautious openness to the possibility that there might be a problem with America’s basement-level birth rate is an improvement on the media’s years of collaborating with scientists, researchers, and so-called experts to demonize parents who have more than 1.8 children and strike fear in the hearts of young people who entertain the idea of having children. At the same time, it isn’t committing a genetic fallacy to pause and consider whether a member of the legacy media is the person most qualified to dictate pro-natalist policy prescriptions. In fact, news outlets with a robust, decades-long track record of promoting no-holds-barred promiscuity, self-enforced sterility (as the magical highway to adult utopian-theme-park experience), abortion-on-demand, and climate change paranoia seem unlikely to have a reasonable perspective on the issue.
Hill does acknowledge the breakdown in the traditional family since the 1970s but (unsurprisingly) fails to ponder whether this decline might be linked to the collapse in birth rates that took place over the same period. She decries Project 2025 for stating that “married men and women are the ideal, natural family structure,” claiming that “a pronatalist policy that defines family so narrowly” is a “moral” and “strategic” error because it “acknowledge[es] only a type of household that most Americans don’t fit into.” (Married couples still account for nearly 50 percent of U.S. households, but Hill is deftly obscuring a deeper reality here. Every child has a mother and a father — not just 50 percent — and those three make up a natural family, regardless of whether the child ends up being raised by a same-sex couple or “group of friends.”)
. . .
READ FULL ARTICLE HERE… (thefederalist.com)
Home | Caravan to Midnight (zutalk.com)
Be First to Comment