Fair Start Movement

Author: Fair Start Movement

  • Ezra’s Dilemma: Vox Is Pushing Women to Have Kids, Which Accelerates Species Extinction and Expands Factory Farming

    Ezra’s Dilemma: Vox Is Pushing Women to Have Kids, Which Accelerates Species Extinction and Expands Factory Farming

    [et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”]

    Ezra Klein has a dilemma.

     

     

    Vox Media reports responsibly on the horrors of factory farming and the climate crisis but openly pushes women to have more kids as a means of creating economic growth. They do so through their tax policy promotions, the work of Matthew Ygelsias, articles denying the science of population and climate, etc. It’s the same approach used by Donald Trump and many right-wing politicians who think of future generations as numbers to inflate the economy, rather than as children who all need a socially and ecologically fair start in life.

     

     

     

    Factory farming and every other animal and environmental crisis is fundamentally driven by human population growth. While Peter Singer is often credited with advancing the philosophy of animal rights, Paul Ehrlich probably did more to actually mitigate animal suffering and extinction through his influential work to slow population growth. Animal liberation, ours and nonhuman, begins with a family planning ethic that promotes sustainable and more equitable families who build empathy and fluid democracy in future generations. It’s not whether we talk about animal rights — it’s how we actually influence nonhumans and their worlds.

     

     

     

    Vox’s “women should have more kids” reporting is slanted, exacerbates the greatest factor driving the climate crisis, and hurts animals. Vox should recognize that any economic growth is first contingent on human rights compliance, which requires more equitable and sustainable families that invest heavily in each child. The human rights regime envisions a future filled with town halls where everyone has a voice, defined by nonhuman habitat. It does not envision a world where the average voice is lost and nature is paved with shopping malls where consumer freedom has replaced political freedom.

     

     

    Take Action:

     

     

    Learn more about why social justice for all starts with family planning reform and urge Editor Lauren Williams (@laurenwilliams) and Ezra Klein (@ezraklein) to support Fair Start sustainable family planning policies, and to stop pushing women to have kids.

     

     

    Also, urge Cory Booker to adopt family planning reform as key aspects of his opposition to factory farming and his support for guaranteed minimum income for children.

     

    [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

  • Four Key Questions for Nonprofits or Foundations You May Support

    Four Key Questions for Nonprofits or Foundations You May Support

    Solving the biggest problems we face, from the climate crisis to growing inequality, requires effective action. There is no way to be truly effective without planning ahead and adopting family planning policies that invest more in kids and restore nature. Here are some vital questions to ask groups you might be supporting:

    • If you support a child welfare organization: Does it urge communities and parents to ensure minimum levels of welfare for kids, before they are born, in order to avoid less effective interventions later in life?
    • If you support an environmental or animal protection organization: Does it promote sustainable families, by far the most effective way to ensure a healthy environment, biodiversity, and less animal suffering?
    • If you support social justice organizations working on racial, economic, gender, or other forms of equality: Do they promote family planning policies that a) level the playing field for all kids so that they truly have equal opportunities In life, and b) advance gender equity by eliminating all forms of pronatalism, or pushing people to have kids?
    • If you support organizations promoting human rights and democracy: Do they promote family planning policies that will ensure each person has an effective voice in their political systems and is not lost in the crowd?

    In addition to considering organizations’ current approaches, find out how organizations have historically approached policies for how we should plan our families, and how those positions impacted social and ecological conditions in the world today.

    Changing the way we all plan families is not easy. It requires breaking a taboo and confronting those who benefit from exploiting future generations and nature through unsustainable family planning policies. But there are lots of way to begin.

    Urge any group you support to choose from the actions listed here. Or contact us at info@fairstartmovement.org for more information.

  • The Human Right to Nature: Time for a Second American Revolution?

    The Human Right to Nature: Time for a Second American Revolution?

    Erika Mathews and her daughter Willow are fighting for their right to nature, the fundamental human right for which we should all be fighting in the face of the climate and other ecological crises. They are plaintiffs in a lawsuit currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging the federal government’s actions and inactions that have led to the climate crisis. Having Kids intends to submit an amicus, or friend of the court, brief in the case.

    The case is straightforward: The Declaration of Independence, parts of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court have made clear that there is a fundamental human right to be let alone, or free from others. The Declaration, in particular, talks about freedom as based on Nature. Being in nature, or wilderness more specifically, is the height of that experience, and given that climate change is the greatest threat to nature, climate change is the greatest threat to that right. How can you be free of others without nature? If climate change is a bad thing, what’s the state of affairs we are changing from, and don’t we have a right to that healthy and natural world? Nature is the buffer between us and others – the thing that individuates us.

    And the right to nature is not just part of our legal system. It’s fundamental to the concept of liberty, a necessary condition for any legitimate form of social contract. The right to nature, conceived specifically as a wilderness or regenerative ecological standard, is the highest environmental baseline possible. It’s the gold standard against which any environmental protection efforts must be judged. We are facing the climate crisis and other ecological catastrophes because we’ve failed to protect this right.

    The Trump administration is taking the position that we have no such right, and that they have the authority to exploit and wipe out nature. Is it time for a second American Revolution? How many died to protect freedom in the past? Those opposed to a right to nature are a threat to our freedom, and to our kids’ freedom. Without nature the social contract is over, the deal is off, and we will be subject to the influence of others against our will. Those behind the climate crisis are like foreign invaders threatening us, and the case before the Ninth Circuit will help decide how we deal with them. Having Kids is deeply committed to the case, in part because better family planning is the best way to restore nature, and protect our rights.

    TAKE ACTION: YOU HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT TO NATURE. The heads of these companies, along with the Trump administration, are violating it. Find and peacefully engage them to change their ways, tell us how you did it, and we will publicize your story. One very effective way for them to change their ways is through funding Fair Start family planning. Having Kids is starting to make the just and morally undeniable demand for those resources. Together we can protect our rights, and ensure freedom for ourselves and our kids.

  • Should Louisiana adopt a “Fair Start” policy like the proposed Colorado Amendment?

    Should Louisiana adopt a “Fair Start” policy like the proposed Colorado Amendment?

    By Timothy David Ray

    Last year, Having Kids proposed an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that would have enshrined into law, policies that reduced inequality of resources and opportunities for all children born in the state, as well as enhanced natural environmental protections to ensure Colorado’s children had access to the rich natural resources of the state’s ecosystem.

    Louisiana policymakers have expressed support for similar policies, or at least the importance of addressing [through the laws] the inequities of children.  Louisiana policymakers have also fought and won major victories to pass laws protecting the state’s vast natural resources; especially along its coasts.

    It is important to note, in Louisiana, political ideologies amongst the two major political parties rarely align when it comes to family planning matters, and the state is deeply religious.  However, support for children’s equity policies have been supported by lawmakers and policymakers across the political and religious spectrums. 

    The Colorado fair start approach would enshrine “ . . . freedom and equality from the moment of birth . . . ” into the Constitution.  The proposed constitutional amendment also places the state’s natural resources in a trust – held by the State – with the goal of protecting them for the “ . . . benefit of present and future generations . . . “

    A comparison chart of Current Family Planning and Fair Start Family Planning. The left side lists negatives: no minimum welfare, no equal opportunity, no environmental protection. The right side lists corresponding positives.

    Perhaps, Louisiana would support a “fair start” plan as a legislative policy if supporters of the policy could unite a coalition of parents, educators, environmentalists, and lawmakers – convincing them of the need to dedicate new laws that would cause a reduction in inequity among children and provide for the protection and use of public lands.

    Louisiana currently ranks last in the U.S. among the best states for children to live, according to a 2020 report from Save the Children.  Among the organization’s recommendations to provide better opportunities for children, they call for governmental investment in the future [lives] of all children:

    “We therefore call on policymakers at all levels of government to  . . . craft strong policies, provide sufficient resources, and create an appropriate regulatory environment for relevant childhood programs and interventions to flourish.”

    As the Colorado Fair Start proposal gains traction, Louisiana must begin rethinking its approach to providing for the fair, holistic, and equitable development of and investment in children. 

  • Want a Fair Start for Kids in Your State Constitution? Colorado Could Be the Beginning.

    Want a Fair Start for Kids in Your State Constitution? Colorado Could Be the Beginning.

    Having Kids is working closely with leaders in Colorado to develop an amendment to the state’s constitution that would guarantee every child a fair start in life, both ecologically and socially. Click below to read the proposal:

    A Fair Start for Colorado’s Kids
    • Our current family planning systems provide no minimum standard of well-being for future children, allowing children to be born into failing state systems because their parents cannot care for them. That exacerbates inequity and ensures rich kids stay rich and poor kids stay poor. 
    • The United State and much of the world believed that new bodies were needed to produce more labor. This pro-natal, pro-capital belief has created a world in which huge inequities exist. For example, the world’s 2,153 billionaires have more wealth than 4.6 billion people, which is more than 60% of the planet’s population.
    • A recent study from Stanford has found that efforts to mitigate climate change could yield trillions in economic benefits. And the best wayto mitigate climate change is by choosing smaller families. Yes, it’s more effective than changing diet or forms of transportation. 
    • By the year 2100, the world population could vary by billions of people, depending on whether the average woman in the world today has one child more or one child fewer in her lifetime. If the average woman alive today has between 2 and 3 children, the world population will grow to as many as 16 billion by 2100.
    A comparison chart showing Current Family Planning with no minimum welfare, equality, or environmental protection, versus Fair Start Family Planning with welfare for all kids, equal opportunity, and strong environmental protection.
  • Dear UN: We Can Do Better for Kids

    Dear UN: We Can Do Better for Kids

    Today, Having Kids is calling on the United Nations to back up its commitment to protect children. The international community, including key United Nations agencies, requires minimum standards of care for children. But we don’t apply those same standards in family planning models. Why not? Could we afford to do that, through future child entitlements, if we promoted a universal ethic of sustainable families and shifted the savings? We think so. Help us urge the UNFPA and UNICEF to consider the change. Here’s what we sent to the UN:

    Dr. Natalia Kanem

    Executive Director

    United Nations Population Fund

    605 3rd Ave, New York, NY 10158

    Henrietta Fore

    UNICEF House

    3 United Nations Plaza

    New York, New York 10017

    Dear Directors Kanem and Fore,

    Having Kids is nonprofit organization dedicated to replacing subjective and parent-focused family planning models with the human rights-based and child-focused Fair Start model. We and other organizations have asked the Secretary General of the United Nations to speak out on the need for better family planning models that focus on delay, cooperation, and families that invest more in each child.

    As the impacts of the climate crisis manifest, and studies confirm that simply improving access to family planning services will not accomplish what was previously predicted, there is an urgent need to revisit the ethical models that underlie and drive family planning laws, policies, funding, etc. Can we do better than treating the act of bringing a child into the world as a matter parents decide in isolation from their community? We think so.

    The best reading of the Children’s Rights Convention is that it prohibits children from being born into conditions the Convention is attempting to reform. Preventing violations of the rights of future children, while respecting the rights of intending parents, requires something more internationally cooperative than a model where parents are walled off from others in their decision to have children.

    We believe Fair Start modeling provides one cooperative path forward, and that public statement by the UNFPA and UNICEF regarding changing  the underlying ethical modeling is the necessary first step. We believe it  open the door for things like family planning delay and relocation payments, which under new modeling are more akin to entitlements for future children than incentives for parents.

    More specifically, we are urging you, as heads of the key international organizations responsible for shaping family planning modeling, to speak out about the need for a universal ethic of sustainable families who cooperatively work together to give every child a fair start in life. New modeling, which would require explicitly abandoning old modeling that treats family planning as a matter of parental privacy or autonomy, could be the most effective solution to many of the crises facing the world today.

    A child-first model, based on giving all kids a fair start in life, would advance all 17 of the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals. The following is a framework for a possible statement:

    The responsibilities referred to in the ICPD Programme of Action ensure progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals and the goals of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Helping parents fulfill those responsibilities could be achieved though policies that, without discrimination or coercion, 1) encourage prospective parents to delay parenthood, 2) encourage communities and their governments to ensure all parents the resources they need to give their child equal opportunities in life relative to other children, as well as 3) encourage prospective parents to choose a sustainable family so that they can invest more time and resources in each child.

    We believe new family planning modeling could save countless lives.

    The international community, including key United Nations agencies, requires minimum standards of care for children. But we don’t apply those same standards in family planning models. Why not? Could we afford to do that, through future child entitlements, if we promoted a universal ethic of sustainable families and shifted the savings? We think so.

    Thank you for considering our request.

    Sincerely,

    The Phelps-Mathews Family
    The Phelps-Mathews Family

    Erika and Willow

    Executive Director of Having Kids, and her daughter, age 11

    Having Kids is a 501(c)3 nonprofit nonprofit organization dedicated to reforming family planning by replacing parent-centered family planning models with the human rights-based and child-first Fair Start model.

  • National Adoption Awareness Month: Time For Celebs to Step Up and Do the Right Thing?

    National Adoption Awareness Month: Time For Celebs to Step Up and Do the Right Thing?

    November is National Adoption Awareness month, and an opportunity to change the world. How? Public figures play a large role in many peoples’ family planning decisions – including timing, size, and whether we adopt or have biological children. We follow their lead.

    The world is at a crossroads, and whether the average woman in the world has one child more or one child fewer will decide a lot about the future, and whether all the social and ecological crises we face today are exacerbated, or largely ameliorated.

    What celebrities do, in terms of family planning decisions, will help define our and our kids’ future. This month Having Kids will be urging celebrities to model responsible family planning, and adopt, over choosing a large family. While good hearted everyday people are going out of their way to save children in need, many celebs are modeling totally irresponsible behavior. Shouldn’t we be helping kids in need, and building an ecologically sustainable world?

    TAKE ACTION: Politely urge Joanna Gaines to choose adoption @joannagaines

  • What’s Missing from the Green New Deal?

    What’s Missing from the Green New Deal?

    Despite the continued unsustainable growth, which is the underlying driver of climate change, poverty, and social instability, many media outlets are reporting that women are not having enough kids. This example, from Fortune magazine, is telling. The headline literally misstates a government report’s findings on the subject. Things can be more subtle – like a list of solutions to climate change that omit the most effective one – sustainable families.

    What gives? Modern systems of economic growth were built on population growth – which meant a constant supply of cheap labor, voracious consumers, and compliant taxpayers. Be clear what this means. People pushing arbitrary population growth are pushing for the exacerbation of climate change and other environmental crises, children being born into poverty and unimaginable conditions, and revolution ready-sized gap between rich and poor – because those kids are vital fuel for their growth-backed investments, job security, low tax rates, etc.  in an unsustainable pyramid Ponzi scheme. See these people for who they are.

    Our Unsustainable Reality

    That system of constant growth was never sustainable. That is why we are now faced with the incomparable threat of climate change, crowded cities with unaffordable housing, extreme poverty and inequality. But the people that designed that system left it for future generations to find a better way. Can we?

    The Green New Deal

    The Green New Deal presents an opportunity. It represents an attempt to address the intersecting issues of environmental crisis and inequality with an ambitious, centralized plan for massive public infrastructure investments and new jobs, all themed around sustainability. Here’s the problem. It does not address family planning.

    What’s Missing

    How can we address things like climate change and inequality without addressing their underlying driver, and most effective solutions? The Green New Deal also needs to reform our family planning system, and change the focus to ensure sustainable families that work together – yes, transfer significant resources – in order to give every child a fair start in life. The Green New Deal needs to include a transition from parent-focused to child-focused family planning, using something like the Fair Start model. That will mean more effective outcomes, avoiding the inefficiency of centralization and big government, and address a variety of other problems we face today.

    We can find a better way, but not without change at the most fundamental level.

    fair start model

    Is there a way to make the deal nonpartisan?

    Can we use it to eliminate the big businesses that liberals oppose, and big government that conservatives oppose, at the same time? A healthy, safe and natural environment, and an economic system free of big government and big business, one that is comprised of relatively equal players, starts at the same place: With a family planning system that creates a population of highly prepared people, people who got a fair start, and a shot at equal opportunities, in life. Specifically, that means targeting big businesses with an antitrust reform to distribute their market share to future generations, and big government with tax reform to reduce its size, with both reforms designed to fund a cooperative family planning system that maximizes investments in future children, through a variety of mechanisms like delay and relocation incentives, early childhood development programming, and heavy investments in international family planning systems.

    Unless the Green New Deal integrates and addresses the source of the problem, it is neither Green nor New. Including family planning reform would integrate the Deal with the overarching and universal human rights regime from which it should derive, a regime that itself derives from the fundamental human right – the right to a fair start in life.

    TAKE ACTION:
    Tweet Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Sunrise Movement, urging them to include sustainable family planning in the Green New Deal. Copy/paste below into a Tweet.

    .@aoc @sunrisemvmt the #GreenNewDeal won’t succeed without a plan to reform #familyplanning to encourage more equitable, sustainable families. It’s the most effective way to reduce inequality AND climate impact. https://fairstartmovement.org/whats-missing-green-new-deal/

  • Subsidizing Delayed, and More Equitable, Parenthood: A Policy That Works

    Subsidizing Delayed, and More Equitable, Parenthood: A Policy That Works

    Could taking resources from the wealthy and using those resources to fund delayed parenthood, and a fair start in life for every child, solve many of our ecological and social crises? An article due to be published this winter in the Loyola Chicago Law Review argues that it is.

    The impact of better family planning on sustainable, and even regenerative, development is well-known. But poor modeling in the mid-20th century created barriers between ensuring resources that all children need and coordinating the time, place, and manner in which parents would bring those children into the world. New modeling is removing those barriers, and one emerging policy involves subsidizing delayed parenthood with the aim of improving childhood equity.

    Simply put: The policy shifts power from wealthy (usually white male) elites to women and children through family planning-linked forms of guaranteed minimum incomes.

    These transfers go beyond incentives. They involve the entitlements that are part of every child’s right to a fair start in life. And the evidence is clear: The subsidies mean increased earnings, education, well-being for women and children, and environmentally sustainable prosperity for all.

    Take action: Urge the D.C. council to consider a pilot project implementing the policy.