Category: Children’s Rights

  • Tell Trump and Congress to Dump Cash-for-Babies, and Give Us Better Family Planning

    Tell Trump and Congress to Dump Cash-for-Babies, and Give Us Better Family Planning

    Trump and his supporters want taxpayers to pay women to have more kids because it will mean more consumers and demand for big business, cheaper labor in the future as workers compete for jobs, and more taxpayers. What looks like a helping hand to parents is actually an attempt to nudge people towards having larger families to reverse a progressive fertility decline in some populations. That decline has been the greatest success of the last half-century’s concerted efforts around the world for sustainable development, women’s empowerment, and environmental protection.

    The tax proposal, which cut similar credits for adopting a child, is part of a larger Republican move that simultaneously cuts off access to family planning services that would allow for smaller families in a country where half of the pregnancies are unplanned, and which recently included one Republican lawmaker trying to limit access to abortions because doing so would produce a glut of more laborers (thereby disempowering individual workers) to fuel the economy. These moves ignore a trend of economic growth in highly developed places like Japan, despite falling population.

    • Their cash-for-babies scheme, like other child tax credit and pronatalist schemes in general, ignore child welfare. How does encouraging people to have more children ensure that each child will be born in anything approaching optimal conditions? 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.
    • Their proposal ignores every child’s right to a fair start in life, which is increasingly important to ensure in a world where one percent of the population owns half the wealth. How do pittance tax credits, which treat families like isolated units, close the gap, massive in some cases, between rich kids and poor kids? Don’t all kids deserve the healthcare, education, and nutrition Trump’s kids got? Why wouldn’t they?
    • Their proposal is pure climate change denial, as our situation only worsens, with over 15,000 scientists recently issuing a dire warning regarding the future of our environment. It would only further destroy the polluted and collapsing natural environment our kids are inheriting. Why ignore the clear evidence that larger families drive the worst impacts on our climate, crowded cities, and other forms of environmental degradation?
    • Their proposal is correct to focus on family planning, but makes a crucial mistake. Instead of growing an economy and intensifying inequality, we need to build democracy. And that means ensuring the intergenerational coming together of free and equal people, through the decentralizing of power, diffusing it instead  among future citizens though a family planning system that builds democratic communities where each person belongs and has a voice.

    The fundamental problem with child tax credits and similar pronatalist schemes is that they divorce the decision to have a baby, the creation of a need, from the resources required to fulfill that need, or the physical and emotional means each child deserves. Human history has shown we get the best results by being proactive and planning ahead, not ignoring needs until they fall in our lap. By raising the conditions of entry for all children, we will continue to reduce family size, increase cooperation, and continue our greatest success in sustainable development, women’s empowerment, and environmental protection.

    Instead of a cash-for-babies scheme, we need a child first and truly human-rights based Fair Start family planning system that incentivizes and also assists would-be parents to have children only in conditions that begin to ensure that child a fair start in life, relative to other kids in their generation. We need to continue the progressive evolution of family planning systems (which have failed to account for things like climate change, inequality, the erosion of democracy, etc.) by now linking them to what kids need, before those kids are born. Family planning determines who we will be in the future, and must further the fundamental values of child welfare, fairness, nature and democracy.

    What would child-first Fair Start family planning look like? Recently, Republicans moved to modify tax-advantaged “529” educational savings accounts to allow fetuses to become beneficiaries. Instead, why not work with states to fully fund those accounts for prospective parents and children, including college tuition, through progressively scaled contributions that also require some cooperative and progressively scaled contribution from parents, before they have kids? Doing so would mean a future world filled with happy and healthy children, equal opportunities for all, smaller and more connected communities, and functional democracies in a healthier environment.

    Please contact President Trump and your representatives and senators today. Please politely tell them to drop the cash-for-babies schemes in favor of proactive, child-first and fair start family planning that incentivizes better and cooperative family planning to give every child a fair start in life.

  • Take Action Now to Protect Your Future: #BetterFamilyPlanning

    Take Action Now to Protect Your Future: #BetterFamilyPlanning

    When you read stories about thousands of scientists urging us to take action now to mitigate disastrous climate change, it’s hard to know exactly what to do. Here are some ideas:

    • Start by focusing on promoting better family planning – meaning smaller and more equitable families – for everyone. It’s the first, and probably most effective, action to take. Not only does it have a huge impact on current emissions and other pollutants, but it will determine the quantity people alive in the future, which in turn will mostly determine our collective quality of life.
    • Choose a smaller family where you can use the resources saved to help invest in your community or another family’s planning. Then please speak out about why you made that choice.
    • Tell our President and Congress to start funding for Fair Start family planning, rather than using taxpayer money to pay people to have kids in the hopes of making more future workers, consumers, and taxpayers to fuel an unsustainable economic model.
    • Tell your city or local government to include family planning in their climate action plan, and to start building more sustainable communities now.
    • If you work with or are a member of an environmental, animal protection, child welfare, human rights /democracy or other comparable civil society nonprofit organization, ask them to include better family planning in their mission and strategic planning. We can’t care about the environment, animals, children, or our democracies without caring about improving how we choose to bring kids into the world.

    Please take action now!

    A line graph shows world population (in billions) from 1800 to 2100, steeply rising after 2000 with three future growth scenarios: high, medium, and low. Data is from the UN, with estimates for 1800-2015.
    By Bdm25 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0
  • 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.

  • Family Planning: Time For a Better Ask?

    Family Planning: Time For a Better Ask?

    Today’s paradigmatic demand for reproductive rights, including the rights to contraception and the safe termination of a pregnancy, goes something like this: Men and women have the right to choose the timing and size of their families. And things like President Trump’s recent expansion of the rights of employers to deny women insurance coverage for contraception, as well as his refusal to fund family planning services domestically and abroad, violate these rights.

    Is there another way to make the demand for reproductive rights? Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis has acknowledged that climate change is a threat to our national security, and studies have shown that choosing a smaller family is the most effective way to mitigate climate change. Moreover, these studies focused simply on emissions, not also factoring in the beneficial effects of creating a smaller, better prepared and more resilient population to match the more challenging environment of the future. Could we make a better demand for reproductive rights based on preventing a recognized threat to our national security?

    Here’s another way: If you are a caring person you might feel beleaguered by the constant needs of neglected children, in and out of our communities. Refugees, abused children in failing foster care systems, children living in child-care desserts, children who vitally need federal health insurance, etc. – where did these millions of children come from? Why do we treat children as invisible until they arrive in this world, especially when we now know the disproportionate impact early childhood development has on a person, impacts that last the rest of their lives? Instead of dumping funding and other resources into a cavern of needy children, why not also incentivize parents and communities to work together to plan a fair start in life for every child?

    We have to imagine what the world would look like today if parents in the past had waited a few years more to have kids, had fewer kids, and worked with their communities to improve the conditions into which every child had been born. What if all parents had planned for and worked towards things like health insurance, educational savings plans, organized community day care, etc. – all with the help of others who saw family planning for what it is: the future of the world. That proactive view of helping children presupposes rights to things like access to contraception, and the safe termination of a pregnancy. But it bases those rights upon what children need rather than simply upon what parents want. And by focusing on children it also bases the rights on the interests of the community in its future citizens. Who among us really wants to live in communities filled with people raised by parents who did not plan for or want children at the time, but were forced to have and raise kids because they simply could not prevent them?

    We can talk about reproductive rights and our right to choose. We can also talk about reproductive rights and climate change, national security, the wellbeing of children, the future of our communities, etc.  Is the latter more compelling?

  • 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.

  • 5 Ways Thoughtful Family Planning Can Protect Children, Wildlife, Our Democracy – and the Future

    5 Ways Thoughtful Family Planning Can Protect Children, Wildlife, Our Democracy – and the Future

    This is third in a series of AlterNet articles on population growth.

    The first explored the trend toward smaller families. The second examined a new family planning model that can capitalize on that trend. The current piece – 5 Ways Thoughtful Family Planning Can Protect Children, Wildlife, Our Democracy – and the Future – explores ways to implement that change.

    Click here for the article.

    This article was made possible by the readers and supporters of AlterNet.

     

  • Having Kids Protects Kids from Abusive Parents

    Having Kids Protects Kids from Abusive Parents

    Having Kids is working to replace parent-centered family planning with the child-centered Fair Start model.

    Why?

    Some of the worst consequences of parent-centered family planning are the many abused and neglected children it creates and subsequently ignores. Because the parent-centered approach prioritizes the parents’ desire to have any number of children, in any conditions – irrespective of what children need – this approach leads to some horrific results for kids.

    For example, parents who have abused and/or neglected their kids – and as such are prohibited by law from having custody of any children – will often continue to have more kids. These kids are then taken in by the state – oftentimes right from the maternity ward. They are left in limbo – raised by failing state systems rather than loving and caring parents.

    These kids do not get anywhere near a fair start in life. They lead lives none of us would choose for our own kids. The abusive and neglectful parents often suffer as well, separated from their children. The rest of us suffer, too, in failing communities funding a failing system of public childcare.

    In the face of this horrible situation, some judges have stepped forward and said, “Enough is enough.” In certain cases, they have issued orders prohibiting abusive and neglectful parents from having more kids. These judges take the position that:

    • Society cannot care about children – the most vulnerable citizens – and not also care about the conditions into which they are born.
    • There is no ethical or legal conception of parenthood that would allow abusive and neglectful parents to create children for the state to raise (and raise poorly).

    These judges’ orders clearly protect future children. Their orders also protect individuals who can’t parent, and society as a whole.

    Having Kids is working to improve and expand the use of such orders – what we’re calling “Fair Start orders.” We are working to make sure they are constitutional, and are used under specific guidelines and in egregious cases.

    To improve our efforts and accurately reflect our memberships’ views, we sought your opinion, using a survey that was based on a real-world case.

    As you can see, Having Kids’ membership strongly supports our efforts to protect children from being born to abusive parents.

    This is the survey and results:

    A Florida couple with four children stands accused of abusing at least one of the children by shocking him/her with a stun gun and forcing him/her to eat dog feces. The other children were present during this abuse. Some courts are conditionally limiting the right of abusive parents to have more children in order to protect the children those parents already have, as well as future children.
    .
    If the charges prove true:
    .
    1. Should the couple be allowed to retain custody of their four current children?
    .
    Yes:     18 (6.98%)
    No:      240 (93.02%)
    .
    2. Regardless of whether they are allowed to retain custody of their current children, should the couple be conditionally limited by court order from having more children, under penalty of fines/jail time?
    .
    Yes:      193 (75.39%)
    No:       40 (15.63%)
    Other:  23 (8.98%)
    .
    3. Regardless of whether they are allowed to retain custody, should the couple be conditionally limited by court order from having more children, but there would be no penalty assessed for violating the court’s order?
    .
    Yes:      43 (16.86%)
    No:       170 (66.67%)
    Other:  42 (16.47%)

    Your opinion really matters to us – thank you for taking the time to respond to our survey. We will take the results into consideration as we develop and promote model Fair Start orders.

    If you would like more details on the responses, please contact us. And please follow us on Facebook and Twitter to help us with future surveys!