It is also important to examine Trump’s birth rate proposals in the context. like New York Times Reports, the birth rate within management seems to be the result of a group of “supporters of borrenis”, who do not want to encourage women only to have more children but also to pay the idea of ”traditional” family structure that does not include, especially single mothers or LGBTQ+families. In reality, Project 2025The extreme right -wing scheme for Trump’s second chapter, which aims to restore Christian valuesIt focuses not only on the increase in the birth rate, but on saving the nuclear family of two different sexes from what you see as a decrease.
“Our final goal is not just more children but more families have been formed,” said Emma Waters of the Heritage Foundation, which wrote the 2025 project. New York Times.
Therefore, it can be said that those who pay the policies of the birth rate of Trump are not interested in helping to reduce the burden on parents in the United States by solving their pain points. They seem to be more interested in returning women to a time when the only purpose was motherhood, in order to restore their vision of what the family should be. Another policy that is considered is a “national medal for maternity” for mothers with more than six children – a number that makes most women work outside the home expensive.
But even if the intention behind this birth rate is worrying, this deserves to be studying whether the proposed policies will actually reduce the burden on American mothers. South Korea, which has a much lower birth rate than the United States, has implemented the so -called Child rewards To encourage mothers to have children, with the country’s thinking up to $ 99,000 for the child. “These policies in the country and others,” says Dr. Jin Walovujil, a professor of social work at Columbia University and author of the book. The benefits of the child.
“My review of the evidence indicates that policies that were more successful in influencing fertility were those that provided a great benefit to newborn families or young children,” she says, “she says,” she says, “she says,” she says. luster. “Evidence also shows that these policies have other important benefits. Families that have young children are at risk of insecurity and economic poverty and face high costs to cover parents’ time away from work or childcare. The research also shows that young children are the most vulnerable to the effects of financial insecurity and poverty.
However, a lot of online discourse surrounding the proposed “child bonus” Trump has focused on the amount, which is $ 5,000, which most of them are not sufficient to make any meaningful difference.
“The reward for one time is not the solution to the real crisis that mothers and families face at the present time,” says Rownakir.
What is more frustrated for her and other space defenders is the idea that it is not known or confused why women hesitate to have children, or struggle as they do so. Erinberg, what we need, is logical solutions like a federal paid vacation program; Reasonable prices, can be reached, childcare quality; And investments are meaningful in the health of the mother.
