Singer Chappell Roan just responded after being called out by Brazilian soccer star Jorginho Frello for her alleged treatment of his 11-year-old stepdaughter. The singer claimed her personal security was not involved and said she doesn’t actually “hate children.”
The drama began when Frello detailed his version of the “aggressive” treatment of Chappell&#8217;s young fan while both were eating breakfast at a local hotel. He claimed Chappell Roan&#8217;s security guard threatened his family, including the young girl, for daring to walk by the Grammy Award-winner’s table and look at her.
In Frello’s social media post, he said his daughter “was so happy to see an artist she really admires, or used to admire” before the hotel drama changed everything. Frello did not say the name of the child, but it’s believed he is referring to his stepdaughter, who is the biological child of actor Jude Law and Frello’s wife Catherine Harding.
Chappell Roan, whose real name is Kayleigh Amstutz, is currently headlining Lollapalooza Brazil in São Paulo.
“By coincidence, they’re staying at the same hotel as this artist. During breakfast, the artist walked past their table. My daughter, like any child, recognised her, got excited, and just wanted to make sure it really was her,” he explained. “And the worst part is she didn’t even approach her. She simply walked past the singer’s table, looked to confirm it was her, smiled, and went back to sit with her mum. She didn’t say anything, didn’t ask for anything.”
The pro athlete said that next, “a large security guard came over to their table while they were still having breakfast and began speaking in an extremely aggressive manner to both my wife and daughter, saying that she shouldn’t allow my daughter to ‘disrespect’ or ‘harass’ other people.”
Frello continued the post, saying his daughter “was extremely shaken and cried a lot” following the interaction. He added in his post, “It’s sad to see this kind of treatment coming from those who should understand the importance of fans. At the end of the day, they are the ones who build all of this. I sincerely hope this serves as a moment of reflection. No one should have to go through this, especially not a child.”
Chappell Roan addressed the accusations Sunday morning with an Instagram post of her own, claiming that she had no knowledge of the incident.
“I’m just going to tell my half of the story of what happened today with a mother and child who were involved with a security guard who is not my personal security,” the singer <a href="https://www.instagram.com/stories/chappellroan/3858455290845217294/?hl=en">said</a> in a video response. “I didn’t even see, I didn’t even see a woman and a child. Like, no one came up to me. No one bothered me. I was just sitting at breakfast in my hotel. I think these people were staying at the hotel as well.”
“The fact that a security guard who was … I did not ask the security guard to go up and talk to this mother and child. They did not come up to me. They weren’t doing anything. It’s unfair for security to just assume someone doesn’t have good intentions when they have no reason to believe, because there’s no action even taken. I do not hate people who are fans of my music. I do not hate children. Like, that is crazy,” she went on. “I’m sorry to the mother and child that someone was assuming something that you would do something and that if you felt uncomfortable, that makes me really sad. You did not deserve that.”
Chappell Roan has been outspoken about having personal boundaries and is known for calling out fans or paparazzi who approach her, even at events. “I chose this career path because I love music and art and honoring my inner child, I do not accept harassment of any kind because I chose this path, nor do I deserve it,” she <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/C_CGxsrP4Bc/?hl=en&amp;img_index=1">shared</a> in 2024.
“I don’t agree with the notion that I owe a mutual exchange of energy, time, or attention to people I do not know, do not trust, or who creep me out — just because they’re expressing admiration,” she went on.

Chappell Roan

‘Pink Pony Club’ Singer Chappell Roan Responds To Explosive Claim She Left Child In Tears

Brazil

Celebrities

Children

Entertainment

singer

World

This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
It&#8217;s become a running joke that millennials are obsessed with minimalism to the point of living in empty, sad gray-walled homes with white kitchens and zero personality. What started as a noble cause — the rejection of overconsumption, the adoption of thoughtful purchasing — has swung way too far in the other direction.
Millennials throw everything away. And now, they&#8217;re taking away the joy of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/going-to-a-kids-birthday-party-this-weekend-check-the-invite-for-fine-print">kids getting birthday gifts</a>? Say it ain&#8217;t so!
Look, on a surface level, I understand the temptation to advocate for &#8220;no gifts, please&#8221; birthday parties for small children. Kids have enough toys. Your house is way too small, and they don&#8217;t appreciate the shiny new plaything for more than two seconds. And honestly, some of the reasoning behind the movement is legitimate. 
The economic argument deserves consideration: When every guest feels obligated to show up with a present, it creates real financial pressure — gifts, annoyingly overpriced cards, and wrapping paper can easily run $30 or more per party, and kids sometimes attend dozens of parties a year. Removing that expectation means every family can attend without stress. That’s obviously a bonus.
But here&#8217;s what the no-gifts movement keeps missing: We are looking at all of this from an adult perspective, not a kid&#8217;s perspective. And for kids, there is nothing more magical than receiving a present. The research backs this up. One <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-moment-youth/202012/what-makes-children-happier-material-gifts-or-experiences">study</a> involving children ages 3–17 found that young children derive significantly more happiness from material gifts than from experiences. 
That zoo membership, that donation in your honor, that educational subscription box — those are adult satisfactions dressed up as children&#8217;s gifts. Children haven&#8217;t yet developed the cognitive framework to derive lasting joy from something they can&#8217;t see or hold. The toy is real. The memory of the experience fades fast.
And the joy flows both ways. Choosing a gift for a friend builds genuine empathy; a child has to imagine what would make someone else happy, not just themselves. Research confirms that giving activates real neurological benefits, and the brain may enjoy giving even more than receiving. That small friend who spent an afternoon at Target picking out the perfect present is getting something out of this tradition, too.
It&#8217;s hard to remember what it felt like on Christmas morning. But if you think back, it probably felt amazing. Piles of presents, mountains of wrapping paper, nary a &#8220;zoo membership&#8221; or &#8220;educational subscription service&#8221; in sight. I got a whole bunch of stuff when I was a kid, and you know what? It was great.
Now with five kids and a 1,400 square-foot ranch home, I definitely feel the pull to reduce the number of things that inevitably accumulate on every available surface. But I would argue that doing so at the expense of birthday presents, which only come around once a year, is a huge mistake.
Birthdays are special occasions. At any birthday party I&#8217;ve been to where presents still get opened in front of everyone, it&#8217;s always a highlight of the festivities. All the kids gather around the birthday girl (&#8220;Back up! Everyone, move back a little, I can&#8217;t see!&#8221;) and watch in delight as she tears through the gifts. When she gets to the present my child brought, the small attendee beams with pride, especially when it&#8217;s received with a delighted smile or a hug. That moment should never be taken away.
I&#8217;m not saying we should rent storage units to accommodate all the clutter, and I&#8217;m not dismissing the concerns that started this movement. If budget is a worry for your guests, consider a &#8220;bring a favorite book&#8221; policy, new or used, which keeps the joy of giving alive without the financial pressure. Or, create a wish list including non-expensive items and send out the link. That&#8217;s a genuine solution to a genuine problem. But scrapping the tradition entirely, in the name of values the child doesn&#8217;t yet hold and wouldn&#8217;t choose for himself or herself, is a step too far.
In my house, my kids never get gifts outside of birthdays and Christmas. No little treat on a random Target run. Want something your friend just got? Put it on your birthday list. Then, when the party is over, I tuck those gifts away and dole them out individually every time someone says &#8220;I&#8217;m bored.&#8221; Nothing is wasted, and everything is appreciated. The magic is in the ritual, not the present pile.
Practically speaking, experiences make better gifts, but only when you&#8217;re older. As a millennial, I would much rather receive an experience than an item, but I&#8217;m not a child. Projecting my preferences onto my kids would be a mistake, and the research confirms it.
These kids are growing up too fast already. Your overstuffed toy shelves will be neglected in no time. Your sweet little child asking for Barbies and baby strollers will soon replace those requests with iPhones and pimple patches. Soon, you&#8217;ll be wishing she still wanted toys.
I like to think of this as my clutter season. It will be brief, it will be busy, and it will be beautiful. So please: Bring them all the birthday gifts. Clutter my house. Delight my mama heart. The magic won&#8217;t last forever.
***
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

GettyImages-1205283048

The Part Of Childhood The No-Gift Trend Misses

Upstream

Large American Family Group Gathering

Why Kicking Your Kids Out At 18 Is Actually Insane

family

Family Values

Gen Z

Marriage

Matt Walsh

Opinion

Parenting

Teenagers

The following is an edited transcript excerpt from <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1933-the-new-ayatollah-of-iran-is-gay?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">The Michael Knowles Show</a>.
* * *
We&#8217;re not supposed to say anything but good about people who&#8217;ve just died. As the saying goes, speak no ill of the dead.
This man, however, left a wake of death, destruction, and catastrophe wherever he went. And most people don&#8217;t even know his name: Paul Ehrlich.
I write about Paul Ehrlich at some length in my book “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Speechless-Controlling-Words-Minds/dp/1684510821/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Y2L5GPaNcg2v5jnT9SD5ksR5a40NcpExppW6aHVVBg2FzlIHja61O5i6m-pH9wpIMWHGSkrLhkrd8rHzMDQN1iA3BuBH-UVJi0EyStx6M6l_7HKhwR0GKrN8w6e8rOUE18q_fPEggyexww619c7-BErp7yFNm38xTMhU_w6ZaMi3k03CxrXWwSCCSRcazdNo3eNXnHdUbDw3bae74VylSnpc0SFRJr6jlNhYAX6vRAs.q0vDzxnV2mm76BoF3WDe4Demnp2J-5X6usahlx1IIbo&amp;qid=1773785807&amp;sr=1-2">Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds</a>.” 
And now, here we have his obituary in <a href="https://x.com/SonnyBunch/status/2033466323842331077">The New York Times</a>:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
“Premature,” lol. The abject refusal to just admit this guy was completely wrong is one of the funnier Boomer-coded traits. <a href="https://t.co/oM5GYgDEtR">pic.twitter.com/oM5GYgDEtR</a>
— Sonny Bunch (@SonnyBunch) <a href="https://twitter.com/SonnyBunch/status/2033466323842331077?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 16, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Source: @SonnyBunch/X.com
The headline and sub-headline reads: 
<blockquote>Paul Ehrlich, who alarmed the world with The Population Bomb, dies at 93. 
His bestselling 1968 book, which forecast global famines, made him a leader of the environmental movement, but he faced criticism when his predictions proved premature.</blockquote>
Here we go. Big lie. 
His predictions “proved premature.” What were his predictions? His prediction was that if the population grew any more, we would have widespread famine, because the Earth could not sustain all those people.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1933-the-new-ayatollah-of-iran-is-gay?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-1054531" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/MK-watch-now-1-1024x171.jpg" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/MK-watch-now-1-1024x171.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/MK-watch-now-1-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/MK-watch-now-1-768x128.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/MK-watch-now-1-1536x256.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/MK-watch-now-1.jpg 1800w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
His prescriptions, therefore, were to stop having kids and sterilize people. We should use the government to reduce the population. These policies of his led to the one-child policy in China and forced sterilizations in India. This guy is — not single-handedly, but pretty close — responsible for the population crisis (or depopulation) that we face today.
And they say his predictions &#8220;proved premature.&#8221; 
Since he made his prediction that we would inevitably face mass starvation because the population was growing too much, since that time, the world population has doubled and global malnutrition has been cut dramatically. Today there are twice as many people as when he made his prediction, and we are more well-fed than ever.
It&#8217;s not that his predictions proved premature. They were completely wrong. Totally wrong. 
The New York Times is covering for Ehrlich in its obituary of him. Ehrlich did more evil than almost anybody in the 20th century. And the consequences of his stupid predictions and prescriptions — because he prescribed policy to governments — were mass evil.
The consequences of his ideas led to mass death, sterilization, the violation of basic rights, and he never let up on it.
Here is Paul Ehrlich, in the 1970s, discussing the problem as he saw it:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
In a 1970 interview, Paul Ehrlich stated: &#8220;The FCC should see to it that large families are always treated in negative light on television.&#8221;
He added that if this approach failed, then the government should &#8220;legislate the size of the family&#8221; and &#8220;throw you in jail if you have… <a href="https://t.co/Ij7C5eso4W">pic.twitter.com/Ij7C5eso4W</a>
— Gentry Gevers (@gentrywgevers) <a href="https://twitter.com/gentrywgevers/status/2033583323864568245?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 16, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Source: @gentrywgevers/X.com
In the interview, Ehrlich says,
<blockquote>The first thing the government should do is try and take the pressure off to reproduce &#8230; Young couples — if they don&#8217;t have children — people say, &#8216;gee, they must be sterile.&#8217; They never say, &#8216;gee, maybe they like good wine and going to the theater and so on, they prefer that to scraping diapers.&#8217; So there&#8217;s pressure to have children. So the first thing that should happen is that the president ought to say, &#8216;From here on out, no intelligent, patriotic American family ought to have more than two children, preferably one, if you&#8217;re starting a family now.&#8217; He ought to make the FCC see to it that large families are always treated in a negative light wherever they appear &#8230;  you can move to giving women bonuses for not having babies, that almost certainly would do the job. 
If that didn&#8217;t have the effect, then you could move to changing the tax structure so that people who had the money and had the children paid more for them — in other words, increase taxes on people with children rather than decrease them, since when they have the children they require more services. 
If that doesn&#8217;t work, then you&#8217;ll have the government legislating the size of the family. And people say, &#8216;Oh that&#8217;s impossible, government can never intrude and tell you how many children to have.&#8217; Well, I got news — you know it intruded a long time ago and told you how many wives you can have and there&#8217;s not the slightest question that if we don&#8217;t get the population under control with voluntary means that in the not-too-distant-future, the government will simply tell you how many children you can have and throw you in jail if you have too many.</blockquote>
So God tells us in the book of Genesis to &#8220;Be fruitful and multiply.&#8221; 
This Antichrist figure comes out in the 1970s and says, &#8220;Do not have children. It&#8217;s unpatriotic to have children.&#8221;
It&#8217;s funny because patriotism comes from the word &#8220;Pater,&#8221; meaning father — it&#8217;s an extension of filial piety, it&#8217;s an extension of the family — and he&#8217;s saying the pro-family thing to do is to destroy your family.
He says, first we&#8217;re going to incentivize people — we&#8217;re going to discourage them culturally. Say having kids is bad, you should just drink good wine instead. 
All these arguments you hear today — Don’t you want to travel? Don’t you want to have experiences? Don’t have kids.
And if that doesn&#8217;t work, we&#8217;re going to pay people not to have kids. Give women bonuses. Subsidize it. Say instead of having kids, go work at the widget factory, do spreadsheets, we’ll give you money.
That doesn&#8217;t work? Okay, now we punish you. Forget the carrot, now it&#8217;s the stick. If you have kids, we&#8217;re going to tax you. We&#8217;re going to make you pay for the privilege.
And if that doesn&#8217;t work, we&#8217;re just going to stop you from having kids.
What does that mean in practice? Because China implemented this. It means forced abortion. The government comes in and kills your child. You want to keep your child? No. Government kills your child.
It leads to policies like in India, where people were told you can only get access to food and resources if you sterilize yourself.
That happened because of this guy. Because of his book. Because of his ideas.
He said in &#8220;The Population Bomb&#8221;: 

<blockquote>The battle to feed all of humanity is over… hundreds of millions of people will starve to death… nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.</blockquote>
Totally wrong. Could not have been more wrong.
He said we must have population control — hopefully through voluntary means, but by compulsion if necessary. That was his thesis.
He described population growth as a &#8220;cancer.&#8221; Population growth just means more people. So if more people are a cancer, then people are the disease.
Human beings are a disease.
The left has held on to that view for a very, very long time. And this is where the truly wicked origins of leftism — which endeavors to invert reality — began, during the French Revolution as an assault on the Church. This is where the real satanic, Luciferian character of liberalism really begins to show itself. One of the fruits of liberalism is the view that human beings are a disease that must be cured, that must be eradicated from the earth. 
And now this guy is eradicated from the earth. And it&#8217;s sad, because every man&#8217;s death diminishes me because I&#8217;m a human. 
As John Donne wrote in his famous poem, &#8220;No Man is an Island&#8221;:
<blockquote>No man is an island entire of itself; every man 
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; 
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe 
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as 
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine 
own were; any man&#8217;s death diminishes me, 
because I am involved in mankind. 
And therefore never send to know for whom 
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.</blockquote>
We should pray for him, because he led a very, very evil life. And in many ways, maybe he didn’t fully understand what he was doing. “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
But we can’t just think about him — we have to think about the institutions.
This guy got everything wrong. Not a little wrong — perfectly wrong. And he never paid a price for it. He kept his positions, his prestige, his influence. His policies were implemented. They led to enormous harm. And the institutions backed him up.
And now one of the chief cultural institutions, The New York Times, is still covering for him — still saying his ideas were just “premature.”
Not premature. Wrong.
And as a final note, that idea — “forgive them, for they know not what they do” — this connects to something else.
The world feels tense right now. The stakes feel higher. There’s conflict in Iran, division at home, a lot of strain in the culture. For Christians, this is Lent. And if you’ve paid attention over the years, this season often feels like that — more tension, more conflict, more difficulty. In the story, this is the period in the desert, the temptation, the struggle.
And then comes Easter.
I’m not saying everything magically gets better overnight. But if you believe in spiritual realities, that there is a meaning to history, a rhythm to the liturgical calendar, then it’s not surprising that things feel strained right now.
Sometimes things look like they’re falling apart — like when Christ was crucified on Calvary — right before they come back together.
That’s the pattern.

Paul Ehrlich at a press conference this afternoon at Macquarie University.Internationally famous biologist, Paul Ehrlich, is visiting Australia and will be taking the position of Visiting Professor in Environmental Studies at Macquarie University.

One Of The Most Evil Men In History Just Died

Abortion

babies

Birth Control

China

Death

Obituaries

Population

The New York Times

Comedian Chelsea Handler is once again proving that she doesn’t understand human development after she released another sad video praising her child-free lifestyle. 
The 51-year-old star bragged about not having to go to places like Build-a-Bear because she doesn’t have children, but commenters rightly pointed out that at her age, it’s more likely that any children Handler had would be well past that stage of life.
“I just woke up and it’s one o’clock in the afternoon,” Handler says in the video she shared to Instagram. 
The “Chelsea Lately” host is seen wearing pajamas and a sleep mask. “I get to sleep to however late I feel like it because I don’t have any f***ing children,” she went on. “And because I don’t have kids, that means I don’t have to go anywhere today. I don’t have to go to Disneyland, Legoland, Color Me Mine, Build-a-Bear, Yogurtland, the zoo. I don’t have to go to any of those places, not once, not ever.”
“Kids… they’re not that great,” Handler concluded.
<blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/reel/DV6TfniDago/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14">
<div style="padding: 16px;">
&nbsp;
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"></div>
<div style="padding-top: 8px;">
<div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;">
<div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 8px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: auto;">
<div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div>
</div>
&nbsp;
<p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/DV6TfniDago/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by Chelsea Handler (@chelseahandler)</a>
</div>
</blockquote>
<script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>
The skit received mixed reactions, especially from followers who don’t understand why Handler is so focused on children&#8217;s formative years. 
“Ma&#8217;am, your kids would be off at college ignoring your phone calls,” one reply <a href="https://x.com/madelineefry/status/2033316372151681500">said</a>.
“Now that my kid is a teenager and prefers the company of his peers, I look back on the days when I ‘had to’ go to those places as some of the most meaningful and sweetest times of my life. You will never know the greatest and purest love until you’ve loved your child,” another reply <a href="https://x.com/Kanchitakarola/status/2033254412635033603">said</a>. 
“People who are untroubled about a life choice don&#8217;t have to post about how untroubled they are about it. They just move on,” a third commenter <a href="https://x.com/QuestionPDX/status/2033392956552736814">pointed out</a>. “She&#8217;s spinning her wheels and making a rut for herself.”
This isn’t the first time Handler has tried to glorify her child-free life. The celeb made headlines in 2023 with her viral “Day In The Life Of A Childless Woman” <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/extremely-sad-chelsea-handlers-day-in-the-life-of-a-childless-woman-spoof-goes-viral">spoof video</a>.
“I wake up at 6 AM. I remember that I have no kids to take to school, so I take an edible, masturbate, and go back to sleep,” the video begins.
Each segment of the video got more outlandish, with the comedian saying she gets up at 12:30 PM to “get ready for a busy day of doing whatever the f*** I feel like.” 
“I put on my most impractical and stylish shoes since I won’t be chasing a child around the grocery store,” Handler continued, adding how she enjoys a peaceful time during air travel because she has “no screaming kids.”
Handler’s pretend day ends with her texting a random man, “Wanna f*ck tonight?” 
Reactions at the time were the same, with commenters pointing out that the bit was sad and predictable, plus didn’t reflect the reality of women in their late 40s with older children anyway.

Chelsea Handler

Chelsea Handler’s Child-Free Bit Is Back, And It’s Even Sadder This Time Around

Chelsea Handler Is Back To Glorifying Her Child-Free Life, But It Still Makes No Sense

comedian

Motherhood

A novel in the Young Adult (YA) genre, which was a &#8220;Good Morning America&#8221; YA Book Club selection, apparently includes graphic sex scenes of necrophilia, threesomes, and rape. 
“Sibylline,” written by Melissa de la Cruz, is advertised as “a heart-stopping dark academia romantasy series” in the YA genre. Typically, these books are aimed at middle and high school children, with characters around that same age range. “Sibylline” was published on February 3.
<blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/DUomiwOjkb6/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14">
<div style="padding: 16px;">
&nbsp;
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"></div>
<div style="padding-top: 8px;">
<div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;">
<div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 8px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: auto;">
<div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div>
</div>
&nbsp;
<p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DUomiwOjkb6/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by Penguin Teen (@penguinteen)</a>
</div>
</blockquote>
<script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>
Writer Lauren Uribe for Evie Magazine <a href="https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/theres-a-book-with-necrophilia-and-rape-being-recommended-to-tweens-and-gma-calle">described</a> some of the graphic content in the novel, which included scenes that seemed to depict the rape of a person believed to be deceased.
Uribe noted that in chapter 40, a character named Atticus dies, which is clearly indicated over the course of the chapter by characters Raven and Dorian. Some lines include, “He’s not breathing, he’s not moving,” “He’s dead–Atticus is dead,” “Atticus isn’t breathing,” “But he doesn’t move. Doesn’t wake,” “He’s dead,” and “he’s gone.”
In chapter 41, told from Atticus’s perspective, those two characters attempt to bring Atticus back to life by engaging in sexual acts with him.
This narrative includes the lines, “Someone is undressing me,” “they are undressing themselves as well,” “Now Raven’s breast is against my mouth,” “Dorian presses his erection against my back,” “Raven’s hands are on my shaft, guiding me, and as I plunge into her, Dorian’s thrusting into me. And the three of us are making love with each other.”
The book has been earning mostly one-star reviews on Amazon and Goodreads, with many readers noting that the themes are inappropriate for children and mentioning that there are no warnings on the book.
“[The book’s] audience is children and there are graphic descriptions of sexual acts between characters. Yes, the characters are older. No, they&#8217;re not always consenting,” one reviewer notes.
“The main three characters participate in a threesome that is graphic, and this book is listed as appropriate for 9th through 12th graders, which is completely insane… If we think that it’s appropriate to market sex let alone a threesome to 12-year-olds there’s a serious problem in this industry,” another person said.
“What a piece of filth. Please stop selling this book targeting pre-teen adolescents,” another reviewer shared. “I&#8217;m appalled at the gruesome, disgusting material that no child should read. What happens to these characters is beyond horrific and made me want to vomit. Glad I&#8217;m able to preview books before giving them to my child. This one ended up in the trash. I hope the author is investigated, because I just can&#8217;t understand the perverted imagination it would take to conjure up some of the scenes in this book.”
Author de la Cruz is also the author of “The Isle of the Lost” (Descendants) book series, which was later adapted into the popular “Descendants” movies on Disney.
Disney/ABC did not immediately respond to The Daily Wire’s request for comment.

teen reads book

‘Good Morning America’ Book Pick For Teens Features Rape, Threesomes, Necrophilia

Books

Good Morning America

Media

Pornography

U.S.

Last week, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an important ruling in Mirabelli v. Bonta, a case addressing whether schools can implement policies that deliberately exclude parents from critical decisions about their children’s well-being. The Court answered that question with a clear and resounding no.
In its order, the Court reinstated a prior injunction, barring California schools from enforcing policies that conceal students’ gender transitions from parents or require teachers to use names or pronouns inconsistent with biological sex. Under these rules, this information was withheld from parents unless the child consented. Naturally, many parents and teachers challenged these policies, arguing that they violated constitutional rights.
The Court agreed that the parents raising religious objections are likely to win their claims under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. The justices also found that the policies are likely to interfere with parents’ long-recognized constitutional right to direct the upbringing and care of their children under the Fourteenth Amendment.
In reaching that conclusion, the Court relied on decades of precedent that affirm the role of parents in guiding their children’s development, including Wisconsin v. Yoder and Troxel v. Granville. The message is straightforward: when it comes to consequential decisions affecting a child’s identity, mental health, and moral development, the government cannot simply push parents aside.
This ruling arrives amid a broader national debate over how schools respond to students experiencing gender dysphoria. In many districts, policies have emerged that treat transgender identity as a matter between the student and the school, <a href="https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/protecting-children-from-social-transition-act">rather than between the child and their family</a>. Supporters argue that such policies protect vulnerable students. But the Court’s decision highlights a critical problem: removing parents from the conversation can undermine the very support systems children need most.
Parents are typically the first line of care when a child is struggling emotionally or psychologically. The Court recognized this reality, noting that <a href="https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/gender-dysphoria-and-the-social-transition-intervention">gender dysphoria</a> is a condition with significant <a href="https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/gender-dysphoria-and-the-social-transition-intervention">mental health implications</a>. When schools conceal information about a child’s confusion with their biological sex from parents, they risk shutting out those most responsible for providing guidance, counseling, and medical care.
The Court’s reasoning also exposes an uncomfortable truth that has been too often ignored in public policy debates: decisions about “gender” identity during adolescence can have profound and lasting consequences.
That reality becomes particularly important as more individuals speak openly about the experience of detransition — discontinuing gender transition procedures after coming to regret them. While research on detransition remains limited, emerging evidence suggests that some young people who went through so-called “gender affirming care” did so because of social pressure. Others say the real reason for their psychological distress was not addressed, and the transition process only further complicated their existing pain.
This is why parental involvement matters. Adolescence is a time of rapid emotional and cognitive development. Decisions made during that process should not occur in isolation from parents who are legally and morally responsible for their children’s welfare.
This week, advocates and researchers will observe Detransition Awareness Day on March 12. The day highlights the experiences of individuals who have reversed or questioned their earlier identification as transgender and seeks to promote better research and support for those navigating a similar path.
Their stories underscore an important point: the debate surrounding our biological sex is not simply theoretical. It involves real people whose lives are shaped by the policies adopted by schools, medical institutions, and governments.
Acknowledging detransition means recognizing the complexity of adolescent identity and the need for careful, responsible approaches that prioritize long-term well-being.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Mirabelli does not resolve every problem that surrounds the gender topic, but the ruling establishes a vital principle: parents cannot be treated as obstacles in their children’s lives. In fact, they are the opposite – parents are the people primarily responsible for guiding their children through the most difficult and formative stages of adolescence. To exclude them from decisions that carry permanent, harmful, and lasting consequences is contrary to the very concept of what it means to raise a child.
As the nation reflects on detransition and the broader questions surrounding the gender issue, policymakers would do well to remember what the Court reaffirmed this week — families matter, and parents deserve a seat at the table.
* * *
Dr. Jennifer Bauwens is America First Policy Institute’s Director of American Values.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Mother hold hand schoolboy walking to bus. Energetic pupils running crossway.

The Parent Trap: The Detransition Reality Schools Tried To Hide From Moms And Dads

California

detransitioner

Parental Rights in Education

Parents rights

Public Schools

Supreme Court

Transgender

For years, the abortion debate has been framed almost exclusively around law and ideology. But behind the slogans are women making deeply personal decisions often under intense financial pressure. <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3729671/">National research</a> consistently shows that the cost of raising children, especially childcare, weighs heavily on those decisions.
March 12 is National Working Moms Day. At Human Coalition, we are taking this moment to celebrate the hardworking moms we serve as the nation&#8217;s most trusted life-affirming alternative to Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry. Every day, we serve pregnant women who are already working to support their other children and fearing that they can&#8217;t possibly welcome another child in their current circumstances. 
But if we’re serious about honoring working moms, we need to confront an uncomfortable truth: childcare is one of the most consequential factors shaping decisions about work, family, and even abortion. 
According to Human Coalition, a national pro-life organization that serves thousands of pregnant women each year, <a href="https://www.humancoalition.org/impact/blog/continuum-of-care/">76%</a> of women seeking abortion say they would prefer to parent if circumstances were different, and financial reasons figure prominently in many of those decisions. Nearly 40% cite <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3729671/">economic concerns overall</a>, and more than one in four say they “<a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf">can’t afford a baby and childcare</a>.” 
These are not abstract statistics. They represent women staring at bank accounts, calculating rent, daycare, groceries, and gas, and concluding they have no room left for a new baby.
Consider “<a href="https://www.humancoalition.org/impact/blog/how-does-childcare-affect-a-womans-abortion-decision/">Cindy.</a>&#8220;
When she first came to Human Coalition, pregnant with her second child, Cindy was overwhelmed and unsure whether she could choose life. With practical support, she completed her GED, secured childcare vouchers, and started working. Stability seemed within reach.
Then her employer changed her hours. She lost childcare. Without childcare, she lost her job. One scheduling shift unraveled everything.
Human Coalition walked with her again, helping her regain stability. But Cindy’s story illustrates a broader reality: for many working-class mothers, childcare access is fragile. One disruption can mean lost income, lost opportunity, and a life thrown off track.
That’s why recent reforms in the Working Families Tax Cut deserve real attention.
The legislation included meaningful steps to strengthen childcare access and expand flexibility for working- and middle-class parents. Lawmakers <a href="https://www.ffyf.org/policy-priorities/tax-policy-and-child-care/#:~:text=The%20tax%20code%20was%20updated%20in%20July,or%20provide%20child%20care%20for%20their%20workforce">reinforced funding</a> streams by increasing the Child &amp; Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC), expanding dependent care assistance program (DCAP) limits to $7,500, and boosting the Employer-Provided Child Care Credit (Section 45F) to encourage business-supported care.
The bill also modernized certain eligibility pathways and acknowledged something working mothers have long understood: that affordable childcare isn&#8217;t a subsidy for working parents; it&#8217;s a foundation for a culture that makes room for new life.
And without accessible childcare, financial stability slips away for some of the most vulnerable moms in our nation.
These reforms matter because the cost burden is staggering. In 2024, parents reported spending roughly 22% of their income on childcare and nearly 30% of their savings just to maintain it. A new<a href="https://americanfamilysurvey.byu.edu/american-family-survey-2025"> 2025 American Family Survey</a> showed that the average annual price of center-based child care is $15,570, rivaling mortgage payments in many communities.
And even when families can afford care, they often can’t find it. More than half of Americans live in a “<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/childcare-deserts-labor-shortage-infrastructure-affordable-childcare-working-parents-2021-11">childcare desert</a>,” where there are at least three children for every licensed childcare slot.
This isn’t just an affordability crisis. It’s an access crisis.
The cultural conversation often assumes Americans don’t want families anymore. The data tell a different story.
A 2024 peer-reviewed paper from scholars Lyman Stone and Clara Piano found that states with less restrictive childcare regulations have meaningfully smaller “<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/coep.12677">fertility gaps,</a>” which represent the gap between how many children women say they want and how many they actually have. In the state with the most burdensome regulations, simply adopting the regulatory environment of the least restrictive state would increase fertility rates by roughly 13%. 
Strikingly, in every state, the average desired family size remains above the replacement level of 2.1 children.
Women want children. They need the structural support that makes those children economically possible.
The goal here isn’t to replace immediate family or community support with government. It’s to remove unnecessary barriers that make family formation financially perilous. Smart childcare reform can expand options for those who need them most. If we want stronger families, a healthier economy, and a culture where moms don’t feel forced into abortion by their circumstances, we cannot ignore the role childcare plays in all three.
National Working Moms Day shouldn’t be reduced to social media tributes and corporate platitudes. It should prompt serious reflection about the policies shaping women’s real-life experiences. For many women standing at the edge of a decision between life and death for their unborn child, it can be an undeniably pro-life policy.
We’ve made meaningful progress. But until no woman feels cornered into a permanent decision because of a temporary economic barrier, our work isn’t done.
* * *
Clare Ath is the senior policy analyst at Human Coalition, one of the largest pro-life organizations in the nation, which operates a network of telecare and brick-and-mortar women’s care clinics across the country.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Toddler girl embracing mother in doorway as she gets home from work

The Hard Truth About Being A Working Mom In America

childcare

employment

Mothers

This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
My first thought after reading the viral “I Regret Having Children” <a href="https://www.thecut.com/article/women-regret-having-children.html">article</a> in The Cut was: “Wow, those are some young kids they’re complaining about.” The article consults three moms having second thoughts about their decision to become parents, and the oldest child among them is only 6. There are toddlers and babies but no older kids. That’s telling.
These sorts of articles are horrifying because they normalize a former taboo: admitting you don’t want the children you have. But more than that, they miss a fundamental point about parenthood: It has seasons.
This reminds me of when Chelsea Handler <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/extremely-sad-chelsea-handlers-day-in-the-life-of-a-childless-woman-spoof-goes-viral">made headlines</a> in 2023 for bragging about sleeping in and not shuttling kids to school in the early morning hours. Critics rightly pointed out that considering how the comedian was in her late 40s, it wasn’t unreasonable to assume that if she were a mother, any children she had would be getting themselves on the school bus or even at college sleeping late and partying just like their mom.
The baby years are time-consuming and sleep-deprived, but they are also brief. Toddler years last a little longer and also get more rewarding as your offspring start developing their personalities even more and engaging with the world around them.
Those big kid years? They are challenging too, but also magical and rewarding. Any experienced parent will tell you they are nothing like the baby years. My own kids are getting older, with the youngest out of diapers and the oldest entering her pre-teen years. They pour their own juice, get themselves dressed, clean up after themselves (mostly), and even cook dinner sometimes. Our family is in a completely different rhythm now compared to just five short years ago.
One mom I talked to mentioned how having children is an investment in the future, and that resonated deeply with me. She said for all the sleepless nights, she’s thinking ahead to her Thanksgiving table in 30 years being filled with the family she’s started now. 
The moms interviewed by The Cut complain about missed career opportunities, flabby tummies, and less free time. 
“Having a kid turns you into a morning person the way being chased by a bear turns you into a runner,” one interviewee complained. Another recalls how she “hallucinated from lack of sleep” when her daughter came home from the hospital, while the third said of her one-year-old, “If there is a hell, I’ve been living in it since I gave birth.”
Those are all problems that parents would tell you are worth the trade-off of ensuring the continuation of the family line. But even for these women with more superficial concerns, their desires don’t have to be given up forever. The older the kids, the more independent they become, and the more time moms will have for personal fulfillment again. 
Fortunately, X users were mostly horrified by the views expressed in the article.
“A life focused on pleasure, comfort and money instead of love is ultimately a meaningless, miserable one,” pro-life activist Lila Rose <a href="https://x.com/lilagracerose/status/2030406697119105132?s=43">observed</a>. “You have a soul. You need love.”
“Motherhood has its rough parts, but this seems to be a consequence of our obsession with self-actualization not taking into account that some worthwhile things are hard, and that roles of service are often more meaningful long-term than those activities that provide instant gratification,” Daily Wire contributor Emily Zanotti wrote. “Motherhood—physical, spiritual, or otherwise—is just a *good and natural thing.* It’s not always fun, or fulfilling, or even interesting. But it doesn’t need to be those things *all the time* to be the best thing you will do in your life.”
“There is only one thing that will make you chronically miserable as a parent and that thing is selfishness,” Daily Wire host Matt Walsh <a href="https://x.com/mattwalshblog/status/2030668649569140807?s=43">wrote</a>. “Immense joys are available to parents—a unique kind of happiness that non-parents cannot experience—but those joys do require you to pull your head out of your own ass for long enough to experience them. If you can’t, or refuse to, then yeah you’ll be miserable all the time. But the good news (if you want to call it that) is that selfish people are miserable no matter what they do, whether they have kids or not, so there’s still no need to feel regret.”
Children are needy when they’re little. Then they become self-sufficient and later they become helpful. The precious baby you’re wishing wasn’t here so you could have uninterrupted Sudoku afternoons could become your best brunch companion in a couple decades—or sooner. The little boy climbing furniture and throwing tantrums will be helping clean your gutters in a blink. In Bryan Caplan&#8217;s 2011 book &#8220;Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think,&#8221; the economist asks parents take such a long-term approach: consider how many kids you&#8217;ll want to have had when you&#8217;re 60.
Regretting or questioning having kids, like <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/since-when-is-cheating-a-lifestyle-the-nyt-dubs-polyamory-a-love-story">polyamory</a>, has become the latest norm-bucking trend. But like anything in life, parenthood doesn’t always, or even usually, offer instant gratification. Raising children is just part of the story. It’s a mistake to close the book before you’ve reached the good part.
***
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

GettyImages-148277919 (1)

The Viral ‘I Regret My Kids’ Trend Is Getting One Big Thing Wrong

kids

Just before Pixar celebrated their first big win of the year at the box office with “Hoppers,” Chief Creative Officer Pete Docter explained why the company decided to cut the gay storyline in the original film “Elio” last year.
“Hoppers” is being lauded because it doesn’t push any inkling of LGBT themes that have become quite common in animated films recently. “Elio,” meanwhile, flirted with the idea, and it was widely considered to be a box office flop.
The original narrative included tidbits about former director Adrian Molina’s experience growing up gay, as <a href="https://www.wsj.com/business/media/pixar-disney-franchises-pete-docter-80c57f9d">reported by</a> The Wall Street Journal. But Docter said the studio opted to change it up because parents weren’t necessarily ready to have those discussions with their young children watching the film.
“We’re making a movie, not hundreds of millions of dollars of therapy,” the Pixar exec said. “As time’s gone on, I realized my job is to make sure the films appeal to everybody.”
The film tells the tale of an 11-year-old boy, Elio, who bonds with aliens. The outlet noted that the original storyline showed Elio raising a child in the future with a same sex partner.
Upon its release, The Hollywood Reporter <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/elio-pixar-america-ferrera-director-queer-2-1236301860/">described</a> Elio as a “queer-coded character” whose “characterization gradually faded away throughout the production process.”
LGBT activists who worked on the film blamed these edits for its poor performance. “Suddenly, you remove this big, key piece, which is all about identity, and Elio just becomes about totally nothing,” one former Pixar artist told THR. “The Elio that is in theaters right now is far worse than Adrian’s best version of the original.” Another said the final character version was “generic.”
Meanwhile, there was speculation that “Elio” never took off because those “queer coded” themes were leaked to the media and parents were avoiding it.
After being understood as a hitmaker for years with beloved projects such as the “Toy Story” franchise beginning in 1995, “Monsters Inc” (2001), “Finding Nemo” (2003), “The Incredibles” (2004), “Up” (2009), “Inside Out,” (2015), and a slew of others, Pixar, which was acquired by Disney in 2006, seemed to lose its way by going too niche. It produced sequels to some of its most popular titles, but also came up with out-of-the-box concepts like the controversial “Turning Red” (2022), a movie about puberty.
Then there was that whole “Lightyear” <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/gay-kiss-included-woke-toy-story-spinoff-lightyear-struggles-at-box-office">same sex kiss fiasco</a> in 2022, which proved that even Pixar films based on treasured IP weren’t guaranteed to hit, especially if they included topics parents didn’t want their kids to see.

Elio

Pixar Exec Explains Why Studio Killed Gay Storyline In Animated Children’s Film

Animation

Disney

LGBTQ

Movies

Pixar

This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
I’ve spent my entire life watching people’s eyes widen when they discover I have 10 siblings.
“Any twins?” they always ask.
&#8220;Nope.&#8221;
“All from the same parents?” they wonder.
“Yes!” I tell them.
“It must be loud around there,” they laugh.
It&#8217;s louder than you think. And I wouldn’t have it any other way.
So you can imagine my amusement when I stumble upon very-online big family debaters clutching their pearls over influencer Hannah Neelman — better known as Ballerina Farm — and her nine children.
Some argue that big families just aren&#8217;t for everyone. Others, like pro-abortion playwright Rebecca Reid, suggest parents of large families cannot give their children adequate “time, attention, and connection.”
Very few people, if any, are telling young women that they must have big families. We do hear constant warnings about how unfathomably hard and expensive children are and how children limit your freedom, your fun, and your time with your spouse. On the flip side, we also hear constant chatter about how women can balance career and family if they truly want to. Are we not allowed to hear about the women, like my mother, who defied the world and raised a clan at home?
As the oldest daughter and second-oldest child in a very large family, I can tell you firsthand that big families are not universally wealthy, and parents of such broods certainly aren’t calculating how much each child costs before they make the decision to have one more. These mothers and fathers look at life and family differently.
When you ask them how many children they are going to have, they’ll probably tell you with a big smile, “As many as God sends us.” And if you question how on Earth they plan to pull this off, they will probably say something to the effect of what my own mother told me: “God gives you the grace, one child and one day at a time.”
Families like mine don’t have a dozen children to “own the libs” or populate an aesthetic Instagram page. They’re open to life and to as many children as God blesses them with based on their deeply held religious convictions. They view each child as a gift from God, and they trust that He will provide for them.
I’m well aware that this reasoning sounds crazy to secular outsiders. But at the end of the day, does it matter? God has, in fact, provided for us, and my siblings and parents are the greatest blessings of my life.
<div id="attachment_1055369" style="width: 778px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1055369" class="size-large wp-image-1055369" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/IMG_7618-2-768x576.jpeg" alt="" width="768" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/IMG_7618-2-768x576.jpeg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/IMG_7618-2-300x225.jpeg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/IMG_7618-2-1536x1152.jpeg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/IMG_7618-2-2048x1536.jpeg 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 768px) 100vw, 768px" />The author and a smattering of siblings.</div>
I could never imagine life without my six brothers: Tommy, Patrick, Michael, Barry, Daniel, and Seamus. I certainly can’t picture a world without my sisters: Catherine, Theresa, Janey, and Brigid. While we may all look alike, thanks to some good Irish genes, each one of us was uniquely created and brings a diverse array of talents, interests, virtues, and vices to the table. It has been my parents’ role to sort through all of that and to raise us to be the men and women we were created to be.
A large family necessitates a different kind of lifestyle than a smaller family might have, of course: My parents didn’t take our growing family on exotic vacations, and when I was a child, we had PB&amp;J lunches and spaghetti dinners probably more often than my father and mother would have liked. There isn’t as much room in the budget for going out to eat after sports practice or daytime kid activities. The other big families I have known throughout the course of my life are largely the same.
I have never wished for anything different. When I think about my childhood, I don’t really even remember the PB&amp;Js, except maybe the 11 I made for an infamous road trip. (The siblings still accuse me of sitting on them. I maintain my innocence.)
<div id="attachment_1055393" style="width: 877px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1055393" class="size-large wp-image-1055393" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/image1-867x576.png" alt="" width="867" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/image1-867x576.png 867w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/image1-300x199.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/image1-768x510.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/image1.png 1253w" sizes=" (max-width: 867px) 100vw, 867px" />The author giving piggybacks.</div>
What I do remember is eagerly waiting by the phone with my grandmother and the other kids as my parents called from the hospital to tell us that our ninth child would be a boy (Daniel, who now towers over me at 6&#8217;3&#8243; and texts me after my TV hits to say, “Well done, Marg”). Believe it or not, I cried that day because I wanted a girl. I got her when my mother had our 10th baby, Brigid, my goddaughter and close friend.
I remember sitting at the kitchen table with all the siblings, a toddler on my lap as always, as we begged my dad for stories about his childhood in Massachusetts, or standing, at his request, on the brick hearth of our fireplace with my sisters to sing Irish ballads to company.
I think of our cozy school days all working away in our makeshift classroom, my mom waking us up early to go to daily Mass, hours and hours of sister doll games, swinging the baby to sleep on the play set, and the fun we had teaching the little ones to walk, play games, and propose like Mr. Darcy (jury’s out on that one, but we tried).
In functioning big families, kids necessarily help out with chores, with babies, and with each other. We each had our designated chores every day, and we did them with gusto. To this day, we help each other review resumes, emails, job applications, middle school papers, you name it.
Eleven kids means 55 unique relationships between the siblings, and in big families, those relationships hold so many possibilities: the friend, the mentor, the confidante, the babysitter, the tutor, the partner in crime. As we grow older and start families of our own, those relationships necessarily evolve.
The constant in our lives remains the same: We are the Olohan family, and we will always be there for one another.
Of course, the life of a big family is not without its crosses. I grew up with a number of large families, including my own, who have dealt with hardship and tragedy. We know that nothing worth having is easily come by, and for my part, I know I’m very lucky to have been given the parents God gave me. As I’m sure my readers are well aware, every family is the product of the caliber of its parents, and mine are made of good stuff.
Being open to the children God sends you is absolutely a leap of faith. It’s a leap of faith that my parents took and the parents of most big families take. It&#8217;s a surrendering of your will, time and time again, and it&#8217;s a beautiful sacrifice with a beautiful reward. As my grandmother, the mother of 10, would tell us, “Love multiplies; it never divides.”
That is why failing to include God in the conversation about big families doesn&#8217;t make any sense. He’s woven into every step of the way.
***
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Father carrying baby son while pulling four children in a wagon

I’m One Of 11 Kids. Here’s Why The Internet Doesn’t Realize Big Families Are Great.

Religion

The IRS and the Department of Treasury released a series of rules regarding eligibility and procedures for Trump Accounts yesterday.
Under the Trump Accounts, which were part of the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” the federal government will mark the birth of U.S. citizens by depositing $1,000 into a deferred, low-cost index fund, The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-announces-1000-newborn-baby-investments-in-big-beautiful-bill">reported</a>. While the accounts start at $1,000, families and others can contribute up to $5,000 total per year per child, including employer contributions.
Parents have until Dec. 31 of the calendar year in which their child turns 17 to open the initial account, the IRS said in a press release.
“Trump Accounts are a pro-family initiative that will help millions of Americans harness the strength of our economy to lift up this generation and generations to follow and unlock the American Dream,” IRS Chief Executive Officer Frank J. Bisignano said in the release. “Creating Trump Accounts was one of the most important provisions in President Trump’s historic One, Big, Beautiful Bill, and these regulations are an example of the hard work of Treasury and the IRS in developing the guidance needed to ensure that eligible families can take advantage of Trump Accounts.”
Parents can open the account with Form 4547 when filing taxes or through a separate <a href="https://form.trumpaccounts.gov/">online portal</a>, the IRS said. Instructions for opening an account can be found <a href="https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i4547.pdf">online</a>. The IRS said the person who opens the account will be responsible for it.
For a child to be eligible for the accounts, he must have been born between 2025–2028, be a U.S. citizen, and have a valid Social Security number.
Parents can choose to receive the initial $1,000 when they open the account. If they choose not to claim it then, individuals who can claim the pilot amount are, in order: a legal guardian, a parent, an adult sibling, and a grandparent.
“It is a trust fund, a piece of the American economy for every child that they will be able to take out when they are 18, or they could convert it to a more IRA-type program,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-secret-weapon-that-will-supercharge-the-trump-accounts-for-newborns">said</a> in December.
In February, Bessent said about two million forms for three million children have been filed for the Trump Accounts, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/20/trump-accounts.html">according</a> to CNBC.
“They’ll be getting a big jump on life,” President Donald Trump said last year of the babies benefitting from the accounts.
The program will officially launch in July 2026.

TOPSHOT-US-VOTE-REPUBLICANS-TRUMP

Trump Accounts Move Forward: IRS Releases Rules For $1K Baby Investment Program

Donald Trump

Economy

Trump Administration

Menu