Fair Start Movement

Author: Fair Start Movement

  • How Do You Simultaneously Restore Nature, Protect Kids, and Build Real Equality and Democracy?

    How Do You Simultaneously Restore Nature, Protect Kids, and Build Real Equality and Democracy?

    It’s called child-first family planning, and it starts by recognizing that all children have the fundamental human right to fair start in life, with the same opportunities that wealthy kids are getting, the same opportunities Donald Trump’s kids are getting. What loving parent wouldn’t want that for their child?

    Kids have that right because systems of human rights and democracy begin with free and equal people coming together. That “coming together” happens – in the most important way – when we have children and bring them into society. Our family planning systems have to bring kids in as equals, on a level playing field, and each with the resources – high levels of things like education, health care, nutrition, love – to eventually make them truly free and emancipated people. Systems of human rights and democracy don’t begin to work until we ensure kids that right.

    How does a child’s right to a fair start in life also protect the environment and restore nature?

    Ensuring kids a fair start in life is a two-way street – parents have to work with their communities to create that start, before they have kids. If parents do that they will have fewer children (which is the most effective way to mitigate disastrous climate change), and will invest more in each child. That process in turn builds real democracy, or smaller communities of better-prepared people, living in a healthier and natural environment. Here is an example of one family moving towards child-centered family planning.

    There is a natural confluence between cooperative family planning, smaller families, and higher investment in each child. That in turns leads to freedom: The freedom to do what you want that comes from a fair start in life, the freedom of a smaller, truly democratic and autonomous community where your voice matters, and the freedom of nature.

    Having Kids is pushing for children’s right to a fair start in life, against our current family planning systems, which treat kids like widgets in an economic model. You can push for child-first family planning too, and restore nature, protect kids, and build real equality and democracy, all at the same time.

  • Hitting Kids Is Wrong, and Increasingly Illegal. Can We Take That Logic Further?

    Hitting Kids Is Wrong, and Increasingly Illegal. Can We Take That Logic Further?

    For many of us growing up it was common to see parents smacking their children. But as the science of better child development has gone mainstream, violence towards children is increasingly unacceptable, and illegal. What changed?

    In addition to knowing more about the impacts of violence on kids, and hence on the rest of us with whom those children will interact, there has been a longer-term erosion of the view  – in morals and law – that parents own their children and can treat them in any way they wish. Of course there are those that push back, much the way some pushed back against the liberation of women from violent husbands, or the liberation of animals from “owners” today, but those people are losing.

    What if we extended the logic of bans on violence towards children to include future children, and rather than violence, we used extreme child inequity and the long-term impact it has on children as the problem we wished to target? There are stark examples of inequity among children, like Robert Mugabe’s kids flaunting their obscene wealth as many children around them starved, but even milder disparities closer to home have lasting impacts on children’s chances of escaping poverty in their lives. What if, rather than treating parents as if they owned their future children and could pluck them out of preexistence whenever and wherever they wished, parents has to cooperate and share resources to constantly improve the conditions into which all children were born?

    That is what the Fair Start model seeks to accomplish. Let’s take the logic of protecting children to where it belongs – to protecting kids before they come into this world.

     

     

     

     

  • Giving Tuesday: Why Donate to Having Kids?

    Giving Tuesday: Why Donate to Having Kids?

    You care about kids. You care about the environment. You care about equality. Why not do something to protect the things you care about, all at the same time?

    You can, simply by helping people work together and think ahead when it comes to planning their families.

    This is the Fair Start family planning model, and Having Kids is finding ways to build it into our legal, corporate, and cultural systems:

    • We all help parents wait, plan, and be ready before they have kids.
    • We also help them fight for the resources they need, and have a right to, to give their kids a fair start in life.
    • We ease this process by helping to promote smaller, cooperative and more equitable families.

    On this Giving Tuesday please consider what Having Kids does, and give what you can.

    The image is a plain white background with no visible objects, text, or features.

  • Trump In Violation of Human Rights Treaty

    Trump In Violation of Human Rights Treaty

    [et_pb_section admin_label=”section”]
    [et_pb_row admin_label=”row”]
    [et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text”]On Universal Children’s Day, Having Kids called on President Trump and Congress to comply with their obligations under international law, and dump their two-pronged population growth policies that limit women’s access to things like contraception while increasing tax incentives to urge them to have more kids. As noted in our press release, the organization sent its open letter to Trump on behalf of Deanna Young, a concerned citizen whose rights Trump is violating.

    Deanna Young, whose rights are at issue, had this to say: “The right to have children can’t be interpreted to hurt kids, or destroy our environment. This isn’t rocket science.”

    Read the letter here.

    Larger and thoughtlessly-planned families are the fastest way to exacerbate climate change and other environmental and social crises. Yet Trump and many in Congress are openly pushing for bigger families. Intentionally endangering our kids and future generations just to meet his shortsighted “more people equal more money” agenda is a violation international law.

    Instead of a cutting off access to reproductive health services and a cash-for-babies scheme, Having Kids is calling for a child-first and truly human-rights based Fair Start family planning system. Recently, Republicans moved to modify tax-advantaged “529” educational savings accounts – used almost exclusively by the well-off – to allow fetuses to become beneficiaries. Instead, Having Kids is urging Trump and Congress to work with states to fully fund those accounts for all prospective parents and children through progressively-scaled contributions. These accounts would also require some cooperative contribution from parents (again, progressively scaled) before they have kids.

    Tweet @RealDonaldTrump, and tell him that pro-natalist policies exacerbate climate change.

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

  • What Are the Consequences of the Baldwins’ Example?

    What Are the Consequences of the Baldwins’ Example?

    Alec and Hilaria Baldwin have announced that their recent fourth child was the first one they had “planned.” They have since been criticized for having a large family. The Baldwins’ quickly responded:

    “Here is why we like having babies: they are simply so lovely and bring so much joy. Plus, I feel like we need to populate this world with a whole next generation of really good people. My little Baldwinitos are such good souls and I hope they continue to grow and make this world a better place.”

    There is a problem with that approach to parenting. Why couldn’t every couple use the same rationale to justify a large family? If enough people followed this couple’s lead and chose to have four children, we would have no chance to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. We would accelerate the mass extinction of other species, and the quality of our lives would be reduced as we tried to navigate life in even more polluted, politically dysfunctional, and crowded communities.

    In short, we would not be able to help all children have a better future.

    The Baldwin’s choice, applied broadly enough as a model, would make our and our kids’ world uninhabitable. Large families don’t make the future better; they make it worse, for all the reasons that the quality of life in our crowded world today is so much less than it could be.

    There’s another problem. Assuming the Baldwins don’t mean that their rationale should apply to others, we have to figure out who would not qualify for a large family under the Baldwin’s model, and who would not produce a next generation of really good people. If the implication is that the Baldwins wealth is the determining factor, we have to ask why that’s the case, and what justifies any children getting a massive head start in life, with the best health care, nutrition, and educational opportunities available. Why is that fair or justified? Did the children earn that advantage?

    Don’t all kids deserve a fair start in life?

    The great news is that the Baldwins can still act, and publicly choose to stop at four children. They can also help other parents plan something at least approaching a fair start in life for their own kids. They can act to show that having kids is not a private “none of your business” matter, but that which most defines the future we all share.

    If you agree, please politely suggest this option, at @alecbaldwin.

  • Guest Post: Parenting in the Anthropocene

    Guest Post: Parenting in the Anthropocene

    A woman with dark hair, wearing a light blue blouse and jeans, stands smiling and leaning against a large tree in a sunny outdoor setting with a building and fence in the background. by Emma Spett

    When I (a 23-year-old woman) was asked to write about my perspective on having children, two things were happening in my life: first, I was spending time with a community of folks in their 20s and 30s who were all childless. Second, I had just finished Learning to Die in the Anthropocene, a book by Roy Scranton about the climate crisis and our mortality as a species.

    I started talking to the people in my life about having kids, asking what their plans were (if they had any) and what motivated those plans. I also spoke with my parents, who had three children in three years while still in their twenties, about the choices they made while building their family.

    Throughout my week of conversations, I allowed Roy Scranton’s theory of humanity’s imminent destruction to inform my perspective. In his book he considers the ways in which we can move towards our demise gracefully, rather than in flames. What does that look like with respect to developing future generations of human beings? Do we want to bring children into this changing world?

    Some of my friends expressed wanting kids because it seemed like a natural next step in a relationship. Some felt an inherent desire to be a parent, to carry a child. Some had made the choice long ago not to have children. When I asked my parents about their motivations, they shrugged and said that’s just how it happened.

    To me, parenting in the anthropocene means that we must take responsibility for our new role as the primary geological force on earth. What can we do to alleviate our grasp of the world’s natural systems? We can have fewer children, surely. We can encourage the people around us to adopt, to participate in the lives of their friends’ and family’s children, we can encourage smaller families through policies and taxation and education. We can normalize, validate, and celebrate the conscious choice not to have children at all.

    I don’t know if I’ll have kids. I’ve always felt motivated by my capacity to do impactful work, which has silenced, for the most part, any desire to devote time and energy to a future family. Additionally, as an environmentalist, I’m cognizant of the challenges we’ll face in the coming years, as humans grapple with our choice to grow without a consciousness of earth’s capacity to provide. It doesn’t feel imperative to me to make a sweeping statement about the choices I’ll make down the line with respect to my family. What is important, though, is to be conscious about how I can reflect my values in those choices.

  • Only Child-First Advocacy Addresses the Root Issues

    Only Child-First Advocacy Addresses the Root Issues

    A recent report by the Annie E. Casey Foundation documented that while many in the US tout “equality” as one of the country’s highest values, there is absolutely no measure by which the next children born in America will have equal opportunities.

    The Eugene Register-Guard looked into the statistics for Oregon children living in low-income households. They found that 63% of African-American children, 64% of Native American children, and 67% of Latino children are growing up low-income, compared to 33% of white children. And in answer to those who claim that undocumented immigrants are distorting these numbers, 88% of the children are US citizens, and an additional 7% hold legal status here.

    Most politicians claim to be pro-family and pro-children, but statistics like the above show that these claims are, at best, empty. Politicians at every level failing to advance policies that will fundamentally alter our society plans and cares for families.

    But our current reality is even worse. At the national level, the Republican-led Congress has failed to reauthorize the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which has provided health coverage for about 9 million low-income children and pregnant women.

    So not only are we, as a society, failing children born into a cycle of poverty, we are undermining one of the very few programs that can actually help poor children be born into slightly better situations.

    All of these issues – and the many more we feature on the Having Kids’ Facebook page – come about because we refuse to formalize family planning based on every child’s right to a Fair Start. And while some groups do amazing triage work on the inequalities in our society, only Having Kids is willing to address the root cause – our unwillingness as a society to state, unequivocally, that a child’s right to a Fair Start should supersede all other rights.

  • A Millennial’s Take on Having Kids

    A Millennial’s Take on Having Kids

    by EK Green, far left

    I’ve been incredibly fortunate to have great parents who put a tremendous amount of work and time and love into raising me and continuing to support me. They made their housing decisions based on getting me into the best school districts they could afford, and always supported my education. They drove me to 6 am cross country practices all through high school, trained with me through the offseason, and came to track and cross-country meets around the state. They paid my way through college and continue to always be there for me.

    Their example has shown me that raising a child well is a full time, lifelong commitment. I’m incredibly grateful for all they do for me, especially as I see others close to me who don’t receive the same kind of support from their parents. I see friends – especially those with siblings – who are put into roles they shouldn’t have to take on: the role of parent to siblings, or mediator between parents.

    Potential parents who aren’t able and/or willing to take responsibility for themselves, their emotions, and their obligations to others, shouldn’t have kids. Potential parents who aren’t able and/or willing to put their kid(s) first shouldn’t have kids.

    My parents have been patient, thoughtful, and compassionate as I’ve come out and come to an understanding of my own various queer identities. I have friends who aren’t in the same fortunate position. Some do not feel comfortable talking with their parents about their identity; others have parents who ignore or disrespect who they are. Of my close friends, most are queer, neurodivergent, or mentally or physically disabled (or some combination of the above). The assumption of many parents that their child will be straight, cis, neurotypical*, and without disabilities, etc. is wrong and unfair to their child.

    Even if their child is straight, cis, etc., there are often other unfair assumptions, such as a child will fill a particular gender role and/or have certain social aspirations. A child is an individual, not the projections of a potential parent’s dreams or wishes. No child should come into the world unwanted, and no child should end up resented because they aren’t what their parents imagined. If potential parents are not prepared – practically and emotionally – to support their children, regardless of who they end up being, and what their needs are, they shouldn’t have kids.

    As an adult, I’ve never wanted kids of my own. Although when I was younger I briefly considered that I might adopt kids, as I’ve gotten older and realized that I’m not obligated to have kids, I’ve come to the conclusion that raising kids isn’t something I want for my life.

    Even if I did, I know myself and what I value. Stability, space for myself, and self-determination are important to me; none of which are compatible with the level of work and sacrifice required to raise a child. Most of my close friends also don’t want kids, for similar reasons. Those who do are actively invested and eager to have raising a kid be a part of their life, and have thought about it significantly, rather than simply accepting that as the default Plan For Their Lives.

    While not interested in raising kids of my own, I do plan to be a part of the support network for my friend’s kids. I’ve had conversations with my friends about what kind of “cool not-blood-related nuncle***” I’ll be for their kids – such as introducing them to my favorite cartoons and comics as age-appropriate, teaching them about Cool Science, taking them to natural history museums, and getting them registered to vote when they turn 18. Friends of my parents have played a variety of important roles in my life – I wouldn’t be where I am today without them and their support – so I hope to be that kind of person to my friends’ kids. We all know – village, child, etcetera.

    * And if parents are not willing to vaccinate – and thus risk their kids dying because they don’t want an autistic kid – they absolutely should not have kids.**
    ** Vaccines don’t cause autism, but that’s not the point.
    *** Borrowed from Ann Leckie’s     Provenance, where it’s the term for a nonbinary sibling of a parent.

  • Trump’s Tax Scam: Here’s a Better Idea

    Trump’s Tax Scam: Here’s a Better Idea

    Most people, even those deeply opposed to President Trump, probably think his plan to expand the child tax credit is a good thing. However, this proposal – long pushed by the religious right – is not so simple. Instead, it has to be viewed within the wider context, including the fact that Republicans are blocking access to family planning and playing politics with children’s health by delaying funding for the Child Health Insurance Program for some nine million needy kids.

    The idea of expanding the child tax credit – the $1000 the government cuts off your taxes for every kid you have – is not new. Increasing that credit been called for by many, perhaps most notoriously Ivanka Trump and Marco Rubio, as another cash incentive meant to encourage certain Americans to have more kids. The credit tries nudge people to reverse a progressive fertility decline in some populations. This decline has been perhaps the greatest success of the last half-century’s concerted efforts around the world for sustainable development, women’s empowerment, and environmental protection.  

    Beyond attempting to undermine women’s empowerment, environmental protection, and sustainable development, this new tax proposal has many other significant problems.

    Even with an increased tax credit, more kids inherently means less investment in each child. The average cost per child is about $230,000, which is in no way countered by an increase in the tax credit. Incentivizing larger families also leads to even greater inequality between rich and poor in a society where some families already buy six-dollar loaves of bread while others can’t afford diapers. Our society’s current approach to family planning continues to widen the gap, and incentivizing more kids will broaden the chasm between the haves and the have-nots. 

    Pushing families to have more kids is also the worst way to exacerbate climate change. Increasing the tax credit to encourage larger families should really be seen as an extreme form of climate change denial. Of course, this hurts an untold number of children in the long run.

    But the tax-credit is also a perfect example of how all of us – Republicans and Democrats alike – claim we care about children but fail to actually help them. Through the child-tax credit, our government is equating a “child” with a few extra dollars for the parent. This divorces the decision to have a baby from the real needs of that helpless and defenseless individual, and all the many physical and emotional resources each child deserves to have. None of those needs can be addressed by simply tossing parents a few more dollars.

    If we really cared about children, we wouldn’t propose minor tax credits in order to disguise massive giveaways to the rich and corporations. We wouldn’t, in a country where half of pregnancies are unplanned, be denying women access to family planning both domestically and abroad, or denying health insurance to our most at-risk children.

    This is what Trump’s tax and budget proposals add up to: Women being prodded to produce more children while society provides fewer resources and programs to care for those children. This creates a pool of resentful future workers with lower education and fewer opportunities – a permanent underclass whose only purpose is to prop up a system built on maximizing profits for the wealthy.

    We need a way to actually help kids, one that recognizes the vital importance of early childhood conditions. Preparation, planning, foresight, and collaboration are how we can truly care about the next child born.  

    We know how this would look: Smaller families making up integrated, cooperative communities that properly fund and support the vital array of resources – healthcare, education, environmental – every child needs to get a fair start in life.

    We could do so much better. If we look at our nation’s founding documents, we all have a fundamental birthright to equal opportunities in life. Instead of tax credits, we need incentives for parents and communities to work together to plan a fair start in life for every child.

    It’s time for a fundamental change in how we care for children. It’s time for Congress to be proactive, not reactive, and help every child have a fair start.

    Please contact your representatives and senators. Please politely tell them to develop a plan that incentivizes parents and communities to work together to plan a fair start in life for every child. 

    Thank you!