The gist of the part relating to a decline in births is that the government should be used to pressure women to forgo college, get married after high school, and immediately start having babies. The message is not to worry about how to support children, just keep having babies. And of course unsaid but since pushed is to submit all decisions to their lord and master husbands because women need to be controlled.

What people like this refuse to recognize is that around 40% of all first marriages end in divorce. How is a woman with no college degree, no work experience, and no guarantee of enough alimony or child support for herself and her multiple children supposed to live. There's a reason 35% of single women raising children live in poverty.

It's not explicitly in project 2025, but it is a Heritage Foundation position.

That's what they are trying to do. Take away the women's right to vote.


sage

A new Constitutionl amendment would be needed to rescind the 19th, and such an amendment would have 0 chance of ever passing.

But, they are going to 'test the waters' and skate so close to thin ice, that it will start cracking. Probably. This current government is so predictable.


sage

FIFY

... which they assume means that they will be treated the way they treat minorities now, as second class citizens.

These morons are the ultimate victims.

Sorry.

I think the problem with who's getting dates isn't the women.

That was the whole premise behind what happened in The Handmaid's Tale.

Some time before the Rise of Gilead there was a nuclear war. These men came back to have families and found that they couldn't get their wives pregnant. There were two ways they could have gone.

Way 1: All the men take fertility tests and learn the radiation from the nuclear war has rendered them all sterile. They find a bunch of healthy, attractive men who didn't go to the war and match them to specific Commanders: Commander Joe is 6'1" with brown hair, brown eyes and olive skin, so Savior Frank who is also tall with the same coloration as Commander Joe becomes his sperm donor in the hopes the children would look enough like Commander Joe to be believable.

Way 2: what they did, which didn't work because if you're sterile you're not getting anyone pregnant.

Then after thinking about it I thought maybe they meant to say "solving infertility." Either way, the headline either unobjectively sympathizes with the bias of the subject who is fictionalizing an issue or they don't know how to write a headline.

and if you want more children make it supported - no more poverty and support for having children financially and emotionally and stuff the male control crap

but they really don't. There was at least one study done in the last few years showing these men actually hold their wives in contempt.


https://www.unlv.edu/news/release/positive-views-tradwife-movement-linked-higher-levels-sexism-among-men

https://www.salon.com/2026/04/08/why-maga-men-actually-loathe-tradwives/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/05/gen-z-men-baby-boomers-wives-should-obey-husbands

Guess they really don't want a "sexy mama" do they?

Looks like Emma Waters is indeed another Phyllis Schlafly, who traveled around the country and made a career out of telling women they shouldn't have careers. Waters has a JOB at the Heritage Foundation, so she isn't at home raising her kids and letting her husband rule over her, much like Erika Kirk, whose kids lost their father last year, and yet she is going around being onstage everywhere and talking about "merch." These women are playing a role - in fact, it seems like Kirk is constantly performing for the cameras.

I swear, most of these MAGA types literally believe they're on a reality show.

FIFY.

Wow, a true medical breakthrough!

Nationwide average is around $300,000.
Single mom's, and there are a lot of them, have to work, which often involves expensive daycare; 200-300 or more a week.
Abortions are illegal in many states, government assistance is drying up, and the cost of living keeps rising.
Being a tradwife only works when your husband is still around and has a good enough job to support the family.

As a result, the percent of US women who never marry or never have children is rising. If the government wants more women to have more children, they'll have to make it financially easier to do so.
Support for children needs to start in prenatal care, and continue through the birth process, up until the child becomes an adult.
Republicans are never going to do this, and yet they want women to do the tradwife thing.

Of course it's more than just having kids, it's about dominating women, and stripping away their rights. My Lutheran brother-in-law had a phrase that covered the republican way they see women, "barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen".

Profiles like this aren't endorsements.

But meaner.

Did they ever ask why?
Who wants to bring children into the World ruled by Republicans and their Plan 9?
Who can afford a mortgage? Who can afford Child Care? Who wants to live under a Christian Dominion?
The reasons go on forever, even if you exclude all the external environmental pressures our civilization has cooked up in its corporate petri dish.
And, here’s just another small thing: our uncontrolled populating has pushed past the ability of our Natural World to support the physical needs of the population as it is.
This is actual madness.

As the OP points out, talk to me about a birthing crisis when all of the kids in foster care have homes. When no child goes to bed hungry. When all have education and access to medical care. When they are all have a reasonable expectation of a home of their own, a fulfilling and well-paying job, and some happiness when they grow up.

All of this birthing/fertility crap is just another way the crazies are trying to control women. They've been on women over the last two decades to have more kids, and we see it happening. What was "normal" in the 1980's to have no more than two children, is now three and four. They will grow up uneducated and poor because the parent's resources are stretched too thin per child.

Disagree if you want. It is after all, someone's personal choice if they decide to have a bunch of kids. That's not the question here. The question here is - would it be a wise thing to do?

It is readily apparent in my neck of the woods - South Texas. More and more young women are choosing to be stay-at-home moms and have sometimes six and seven kids. Many choose to homeschool, which I am NOT a fan of. Many have a little side hustle in the home baking cookies or something. That works for about six months, and then they realize it's not all lollipops and rainbows and they aren't making the money they thought they were going to make. Because every other woman is doing the same damn thing!

All of that is their choice. Granted.

But it is a BAD choice.

One of the most notable things is that these women, while unemployed, are not paying into social security even. Much less a retirement account. So unless the dominant male is going to work and put away millions, how in the heck will they ever be able to retire? I realize most aren't thinking about retirement. But it gets here faster than anyone expects. I guess if you have six or seven kids, you expect that they will take care of you in your older years. Bet that's what Jim and Michelle Duggar were thinking at one point, and look how things have turned out for them. LOL The young women in South Texas don't have a reality show with residuals either.

These young people don't contemplate that one spouse might get sick. One might die. One might decide to leave. Most likely the husband who has more contact with the outside world and isn't tired and distraught after a long day of feeding, bathing and teaching a bunch of kids. Then where would the entire family be? The woman with no work experience will be standing in line trying to get the aid that they before so loudly insisted shouldn't be available.

Again, just a bad idea. It's history repeating itself trying to make women dependent on men. It's bullshit.

I always figure I'm going to get flamed.

Waters plan to fund her proposal for "restorative reproductive medicine?" Or is that just for those who can afford it?

Gift link from the Wonkette piece:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/08/us/politics/emma-waters-restorative-reproduction.html?unlocked_article_code=1.wVA.SIpP.CL-tdl5KsLUQ&smid=url-share

Archived, no paywall no login:
https://archive.ph/b6n8j

After reading: This reads like someone being positioned for a high-ranking trumpist policy role.

Goddam these people are ignorant.

There are a bunch of photos of Emma Waters online, and none of them are this unflattering.

So...let's do some analysis on this lady's claims.

The Hard Right claims there is a "fertility crisis." In their worldview this is exactly accurate: the "right people" - intelligent white women - are not having enough children. Their solution is for the "right people" to become a Servant Woman, get married to a Good Godly Man, take themselves out of the workforce (which, of course, would enable a Good Godly Man to take her job) and have four or five kids which they will then stay home and raise up to be Good Godly Men and Servant Women.

Please ignore the fact that things have gotten so expensive a Good Godly Man and his Servant Woman can't afford to raise kids on one income anymore. Mrs. Waters is living proof of that: the lady who wants other women to drop out of the workforce and raise enough kids to start a football team works and has only one kid.