A recent YouGov poll found that 47% of Americans <a href="https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54403-what-americans-think-about-overpopulation-birth-rates-and-children">view overpopulation</a> in the United States as a “very or somewhat serious problem,” while only 41% say the same about low birth rates.
The consequences of such inverted priorities are already catastrophic. America’s total fertility rate has collapsed to roughly 1.6 children per woman — far below the 2.1 replacement level needed to sustain a population without immigration.
But don’t share those statistics with Sunny Hostin over at “The View.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The View’s Sunny Hostin: “I think it’s really reckless to be suggesting that people should have children in this country.” <a href="https://t.co/iNRzG6AfcG">pic.twitter.com/iNRzG6AfcG</a>
— TheBlaze (@theblaze) <a href="https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/2038665904431497635?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 30, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Source: @theblaze/MRC/ABC&#8217;s The View/X.com
“It’s really reckless to be suggesting that people should have children,” said Hostin. “&#8230;when you now know, in this country, there is this affordability crisis and for a two-person household — a married household — you need over $400,000 for childcare.”
Now, you may think planning an armored car heist à la Michael Mann’s 1995 classic “Heat,” is reckless, but according to Hostin, I need <a href="https://alltherightmovies.com/feature/25-interesting-facts-about-heat/">$1.6 million</a> to take care of my eight children. Anything less and they <a href="https://x.com/theblaze/status/2038665904431497635">would be</a> impoverished, uneducated, homeless, and starving.
A taken-aback Ana Navarro then blurted out, “over the lifetime of a child, or what? A year?”
“No, a year,” Hostin said.
Hostin’s fearmongering would be laughable if it weren’t so effective. In April, the CDC announced that America reached a <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr043.pdf">record low</a> in births in 2025, down 1% since 2024 and 23% since 2007. With an estimated population of 342 million, the United States witnessed <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr043.pdf">3,606,400</a> births last year. In 1966, however, America saw a similar number, <a href="https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1967/demographics/P25-368.pdf">3,661,000</a> births, drawn from a population of less than 200 million.
Hostin was born in October 1968, six months after Stanford professor <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/one-of-the-most-evil-men-in-history-just-died">Paul Ehrlich</a> published his landmark book, “The Population Bomb.” When every single one of Ehrlich’s predictions — from mass starvation in the 1970s to global mineral shortages in the 1980s — turned out wrong, he was awarded a MacArthur Foundation Genius Grant in 1990.
Only 10% of Americans held a favorable opinion of Ehrlich at the time of his death, according to <a href="https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54403-what-americans-think-about-overpopulation-birth-rates-and-children">YouGov</a> — not too shabby given that only 20% of respondents knew who he was. And yet a full 100% of us have been living in his world — or at least his narrative — ever since he sounded the false alarm that human beings are a form of pollution.
The MacArthur Foundation tipped its cap to Ehrlich’s checkerspot butterfly expertise, but anyone can study the “behavior of an invertebrate population”. His true genius lay in marketing to other spineless populations. 
“A pioneer in alerting the public to the problems of overpopulation,” the award <a href="https://www.macfound.org/fellows/class-of-1990/paul-r-ehrlich">citation</a> says. 
Paul Ehrlich may have been perennially wrong as a scientist, but he had a generational talent for scaring the wits out of dimwitted media personalities, craven politicians, cunning public health authorities, unimaginative screenwriters, and over-imaginative teachers. Exactly the type of marks a good con artist would need to capture if he were going to advance a narrative at war with reality. 
It worked.
On the same episode of “The View,” Sara Haines said, “The world has over 8 billion people. We no longer need to force people to procreate and pump out babies. We have arrived.&#8221;
Socially, the fallout is devastating. Smaller families mean fewer siblings, weaker extended kinship networks, and the erosion of the “social capital” that once bound communities together. Low fertility <a href="https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/635c69dc-6a5a-467b-b7b0-3ab906fb4a94/the-consequences-of-declining-fertility-for-social-capital.pdf">reduces</a> community participation, trust, and mutual support — the very glue of civil society. 
Militarily, the danger is existential. Fewer young Americans mean a smaller pool of potential recruits at the exact moment great-power competition intensifies. The Pentagon already struggles with recruitment shortfalls; an aging, childless society cannot field the force required to deter adversaries like China. 
Economically, the math is brutal. A shrinking native-born workforce cannot support the entitlement programs built for a growing population. Social Security and Medicare face insolvency as the ratio of workers to retirees plummets. Every country that has experienced persistent sub-replacement fertility has seen its GDP growth slow, innovation shrivel, and burden younger generations with crushing tax loads to fund the vacations of the old.
The problem with effective propaganda campaigns is that they are hard to reverse. South Korea serves as a warning. In 1960, the average South Korean woman had six children. After decades of state-backed “family planning” and “voluntary” sterilization services lovingly provided by USAID, fertility fell below replacement and eventually below 1. The Clinton State Department <a href="https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/gli/gli_sep1998.pdf">lauded</a> South Korean population control as one of America’s standout achievements.
No 20th-century public intellectual better apprehended how misanthropic an elite could be. Gilded Age robber barons were at least honest about their rapacious need for more; the postwar meritocrats of the 1960s thought themselves too enlightened for greed but enjoyed all that money just the same. Then, along came a Stanford butterfly researcher, insisting that your neighbors’ kids are hurting the environment, and if only you kept more resources for yourself, nature would heal.
A growing cohort of Americans, particularly young Americans, is waking up to the fact that Paul Ehrlich was wrong all along. And Sunny Hostin’s fearmongering, not the science, has always been the point. Gallup found that 43% of Americans aged 18-29 now say the ideal family will have more than 3 children — a <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/694640/americans-ideal-family-size-remains-above-two-children.aspx">13% jump</a> from the same cohort in 2011.
I remember the halcyon days of 2011 well. I welcomed my second daughter that year. Back then, the majority of my peers told pollsters that “Two is too many!” As Millennials settle into middle age, that number has plummeted by more than 20%. 
We are older and wise enough to know to turn the channel when “The View” comes on. Besides, chances are Michael Mann’s “Heat” is playing on some random cable channel at the very same time.
* * *
Terry Schilling is president of the American Principles Project.

The View’s “Behind The Table” Podcast

First Came Overpopulation Panic, Then Came The Birth Collapse

Abortion

Birth Rates

Children

DW Opinion

Family Values

Population

Sunny Hostin

The View

YouGov

The U.S. fertility rate reached a record low in 2025, continuing a troubling trend as annual deaths are projected to exceed annual births in America within the next decade.
Total births per 1,000 American women aged 15-44 dropped to 53.1 last year, according to data released Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Last year also marked the first time in U.S. history that women in their late 30s had higher birth rates than women in their 20s, The Wall Street Journal <a href="https://www.wsj.com/us-news/why-the-u-s-fertility-rate-has-hit-a-record-low-13e7c2f8?mod=e2tw">reported</a>.
Recent <a href="https://x.com/BradWilcoxIFS/status/2042211547343450313/photo/1">projections</a> from the Congressional Budget Office warn that, beginning in 2033, there will be more deaths reported in the United States than births. After 2032, U.S. population growth will be entirely dependent on net immigration, according to the Congressional Budget Office&#8217;s projections. The United States recorded just 514,000 more births than deaths in 2025.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Striking CBO projection: by 2033, deaths will outpace births as a consequence of falling fertility. <a href="https://t.co/FJ7lBJOvsB">pic.twitter.com/FJ7lBJOvsB</a>
— Brad Wilcox (@BradWilcoxIFS) <a href="https://twitter.com/BradWilcoxIFS/status/2042211547343450313?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 9, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The U.S. fertility rate now stands at 1.57 births per woman, below the replacement level of 2.1 and among the lowest in the world. Data from 2023 showed that only eight countries, including Russia and China, had lower fertility rates than the United States. South Korea has the world&#8217;s lowest fertility rate at 0.80 births per woman in 2025, which was a slight <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/06/asia/south-korea-population-fertility-rate-intl-hnk-dst">increase</a> from 0.75 in 2024 and 0.72 in 2023. The United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Canada, and Spain also have lower fertility rates than the United States.
A big part of the declining U.S. fertility rate is the continued sharp decrease in births among young women and teenage girls. Since 2010, the birth rate among women between the ages of 20 and 24 dropped from nearly 100 births per 1,000 women to just over 50 births. For girls between 15 and 19, the birth rate has plummeted 72% since 2007.
&#8220;People are waiting longer to enter parenthood and probably want to make sure that things are set in their lives before they do so. There might be a lot of uncertainty, and that might not be good for a society in general,” Wendy Manning, co-director of Bowling Green State University&#8217;s National Center for Family &amp; Marriage Research, told the Journal.
The Trump administration has expressed concern about America&#8217;s declining birth rate and has enacted policies to encourage more Americans to have babies. President Donald Trump&#8217;s &#8220;Big, Beautiful Bill,&#8221; passed by Congress last year, sets up $1,000 Trump accounts for babies born between 2025 and 2028 and increases the child tax credit.
President Trump also signed an executive order in February 2025, seeking ways to lower costs for in vitro fertilization.
&#8220;My Administration recognizes the importance of family formation, and as a Nation, our public policy must make it easier for loving and longing mothers and fathers to have children,&#8221; Trump&#8217;s order <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/expanding-access-to-in-vitro-fertilization/">stated</a>.
Vice President JD Vance has also been outspoken in his desire to see more babies born in the United States. Speaking at the March for Life in January 2025, Vance <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23XJ2SqI8FA&amp;t=332s">told</a> pro-life demonstrators, &#8220;Our society has failed to recognize the obligation that one generation has to another is a core part of living in a society to begin with, so let me say very simply, I want more babies in the United States of America.&#8221;
&#8220;And I want beautiful young men and women who are eager to welcome them into the world and eager to raise them,&#8221; Vance added. &#8220;And it is the task of our government to make it easier [for] young moms and dads to afford to have kids, to bring them into the world, and to welcome them as the blessings we know they are.&#8221;

Baby stroller in graveyard

America Is On Track To Literally Die Off, New Fertility Data Warns

babies

Death

Fertility

U.S.

A legislative package that promises to be the largest overhaul of kids&#8217; online safety regulation in decades was advanced last month by the House Energy &amp; Commerce Committee. A good sign of a bill&#8217;s efficacy, however, is how strongly the industry it aims to regulate opposes it.
So far, most of the package — including the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7757/text">Kids Internet and Digital Safety (KIDS) Act</a> and the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/836/text">Children’s Online Privacy Protection</a> (COPPA 2.0) Act — has not drawn serious opposition from Big Tech. What gives?
On balance, Silicon Valley has much to gain if these laws pass as drafted.
For starters, the Senate version of COPPA 2.0 doubles down on the existing age of internet adulthood being 13, thus maintaining the industry-preferred status quo. This ignores the harms social media can cause teens well after 13, such as fueling depression, social isolation, or worse. David Molak, to offer just one heartbreaking example, was <a href="https://www.today.com/parents/cliff-molak-petitions-against-cyberbullies-after-teen-brother-s-suicide-t66591">driven by online cyberbullying</a> to commit suicide at 16 years old. That’s why eminent figures like <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/06/well/family/jean-twenge-social-media-screens-teens.html">Jean Twenge</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/ng-interactive/2025/jun/07/jonathan-haidt-anxious-generation-smartphones">Jonathan Haidt</a> call for raising the age of social media eligibility to 16, and others <a href="https://www.cleveland.com/news/2026/01/sen-bernie-moreno-says-social-media-worse-than-cigarettes-for-youths-urges-complete-ban.html">call for 18</a>.
This is bad, but perhaps the legislation’s biggest gift to Big Tech is its numerous provisions to preempt or block a growing crop of state laws designed to hold these companies accountable. A look at the finer details of the legislation reveal that Congress would replace robust state regulation with a far lighter “federal standard,” setting a very low ceiling for kids&#8217; online safety at the state level.
Republican sponsors, of course, frame things differently.
In the Washington Post, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/03/09/congress-tech-online-safefy-social-media/">Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY), E&amp;C Committee Chair</a> and lead sponsor of the KIDS Act, described the package in adversarial terms, as Congress moving to correct Big Tech’s egregious failure to “self-regulate.” Guthrie is doubtless correct about Big Tech’s shortcomings. But this only makes it more noteworthy that the tech industry does not oppose this legislation.
Big Tech hasn’t been silent about every bill in the package. The App Store Accountability Act, which has been enacted in four states (thus far), has received significant pushback. The Apple-backed App Association <a href="https://actonline.org/2026/03/03/the-fly-in-the-ai-package-ointment-why-asaa-doesnt-belong/">decried</a> the bill as a “poison pill” that would stifle “innovation,” explicitly calling it a “fly in the AI package ointment.”
By openly referring to the child safety package as “the AI package,” the App Association gives away the game. Insiders in Washington regularly admit that they are using the child safety package to mollify the concerns of parents and child safety advocates to pave the way for Congress to pass — <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/eliminating-state-law-obstruction-of-national-artificial-intelligence-policy/">what the White House calls</a> — a “minimally burdensome” federal AI standard. In an unguarded interview, Amy Bos, vice president of governmental affairs for industry group NetChoice, <a href="https://rollcall.com/2026/03/03/what-to-watch-from-trumps-national-ai-standard/">speaks of</a> “leveraging, or using, possibly, a kid’s package … to get AI across the finish line.”
Big Tech is only interested in kids’ safety if it comes with a much bigger payoff: a federal law that would stop states from enforcing tougher AI regulations. In fact, with help from Republican leadership, Big Tech has already tried twice — and failed twice — to get Congress to do exactly that.
According to a recent <a href="https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/03/12/congress/cruz-seeks-to-advance-senate-kids-privacy-proposals-in-next-six-weeks-00825098">announcement</a> by Senator Ted Cruz, one of Big Tech’s key Congressional allies, it looks like Silicon Valley is gearing up for a third attempt. And it seems they’ll have the buy-in to try again. As <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/inside-congress/2026/03/12/house-revolt-ahead-for-housing-bill-00824588">Politico recently reported</a>, Senate Majority Leader John Thune said that a federal AI standard is “a ‘big priority’ for the Trump administration, and [he] said a potential bill could be folded into a larger package with other proposals like a kids’ online safety bill.”
But the American people see things differently. Weakening kids&#8217; online safety legislation by tying it to a sweeping “AI package” is a non-starter for American families. Parents nationwide have heard the terrifying story of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/26/technology/chatgpt-openai-suicide.html">Adam Raine</a>, a 16-year-old boy who was goaded into taking his own life by ChatGPT. They fear that their child might be next. It’s no surprise, then, why, according to a <a href="https://ifstudies.org/blog/americans-want-ai-safeguards-by-a-9-to-1-margin" target="_blank" rel="noopener">national poll</a> by the Institute for Family Studies, American voters want Congress to prioritize kids&#8217; online safety over industry carveouts by a margin of nine to one.
Robust online safety for kids is a winning electoral strategy, but tying it to deregulation of AI is a political loser. As a second <a href="https://ifstudies.org/report-brief/the-artificial-politics-of-artificial-intelligence">national Institute for Family Studies poll found</a>, Republican voters in red states support Congressional candidates who protect children from AI harms and oppose those who push preemption. For a party expected to face serious challenges during midterms, it would seem that Republican leadership would be eager to champion the desires of its voters.
Congress should, like countless state legislatures, side with voters and not protect Big Tech companies from responsibility. We have had enough of that.
Ultimately, Rep. Guthrie is right: American families “deserve more than gestures and idle promises. They deserve laws that work.” That includes his.
* * *
Jared Hayden is a policy analyst at the Institute for Family Studies’ Family First Technology Initiative. 
Michael Toscano is the director of the Family First Technology Initiative at the Institute for Family Studies.

teen capitol hill

Big Tech Is Making Its Play And Your Kids Could Be Caught In The Middle

Artificial Intelligence

Big Tech

Capitol Hill

Congress

Safety

Silicon Valley

Social Media

Teenagers

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

A Pennsylvania couple has been charged with endangering the welfare of children after their 17-month-old child was injured near the wolf enclosure at ZooAmerica over the weekend. The zoo is a popular destination within the larger Hersheypark theme park.
The <a href="https://crimewatch.net/us/pa/dauphin/derry-twp-pd/3742/post/incident-zooamerica-april-4-2026?fbclid=IwY2xjawQ_zTxleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEe8kebCDNRaWE4lMEIYUt8E76-XKPpsTSeDEqKFm1EzzCskHj32P83r0MybM8_aem_8dD6Bi2utx4i2_QgMHoB4A" target="_blank" rel="noopener">incident report</a> from the Derry Township Police Department states that the parents, who are from Lititz, Pennsylvania, are believed to have walked around 25 to 30 feet away from the child to sit on benches, and at that point, allegedly became distracted by their cellphones. The toddler slipped through a small opening in a wooden barrier perimeter fence and reached the metal fence surrounding the gray wolf enclosure.
“From the injuries sustained, it appears as though one of the wolves in the enclosure instinctively and naturally grabbed onto the child’s hand with its mouth. Several bystanders intervened and helped pull the child away,” the police statement noted.
Court records show that both Carrie B. Sortor, 43, and Stephen J.B. Wilson, 61, are awaiting a preliminary hearing on April 28.
The zoo said in a statement that the wolf’s response “is consistent with natural animal behavior, and was not a sign of aggression.”
“Our habitats are designed with multiple layers of protection, and clear signage and barriers are in place to help ensure safe viewing. Guests are expected to remain within designated areas and closely supervise children at all times,” the statement continued. &#8220;The child was never inside the wolf’s enclosure, and we are relieved the injuries were minor.”
ZooAmerica currently houses three gray wolves, according to its <a href="https://www.zooamerica.com/animals/gray-wolf/">website</a>: a male wolf named Twister and two female sisters, Hazel and Freya.
Hersheypark <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgL3US1_0hI">made headlines</a> last year when video footage of a lost boy wandering along a non-operational monorail line went viral. The child was rescued by a heroic park visitor and sustained no injuries.

AggressiveWolf

Toddler Injured By Wolf At Zoo As Parents Scrolled Their Phones

Animals

Crime

Pennsylvania

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.
***
Parents need to earn $400,000 each year to afford children, according to “The View” panelist Sunny Hostin. Her absurd <a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=953345053913270">claim</a> made headlines last week because it’s ridiculous, but the practice of overinflating these numbers is nothing new. For years we’ve been inundated with claims about how much it really costs to raise kids. Some research says from birth to age 18, on average, parents will spend upwards of $250,000 taking their newborn into adulthood.
So how much is it, really? And more importantly: Is it worth it?
Hostin, who has two children, was reacting to Daily Wire host Isabel Brown making what should not have been a radical statement. Brown <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/i-told-gen-z-to-get-married-and-have-kids-the-view-lost-its-mind">said</a>, “If you’re not encouraging your children to grow up … get married and have kids — more kids than they can afford, before they think they’re ready, it is high time to start.”
This statement couldn’t be more important at a time when over half of the world’s countries now have fertility rates below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman. It’s a problem that hits close to home. By 2030, nearly 45% of American women aged 25-44 are projected to be single and childless.
The media keep pushing stories about <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-viral-i-regret-my-kids-trend-is-getting-one-big-thing-wrong">regretful parents</a>, happy singles, and how “irresponsible” it is to have kids. They say it’s too expensive. But those of us with lots of kids, and way less money than Sunny Hostin, are here to say, no, it’s not.
As a regular middle class mom of five surrounded by other middle class friends and family in a very typical suburban town, I can tell you that most people I know don’t have a $400,000 income, but they do have kids. Most are homeowners with two cars who take annual vacations and whose children are involved in sports. Some of the wealthier friends have vacation homes, while some of those less well-off or single parents may rent their homes or do staycations instead.
My personal experience almost certainly differs from Hostin’s. However, I think most parents aren’t really spending $250,000 per child. These numbers are totally bogus.
A 2022 <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Brookings_Cost-to-raise-a-child_inflation-adjusted-2.pdf">report</a> from the Brookings Institution declared that a middle-income family with two children will spend approximately $310,605, adjusted for higher future inflation, to raise one child born in 2015 through age 17. A similar <a href="https://www.lendingtree.com/debt-consolidation/raising-a-child-study/">study</a> put out by LendingTree last year had comparable findings, estimating the average annual cost to be $29,419, or a total of $297,674 for 18 years of parenting. None of these estimates includes the cost of college, which is a whole other issue.
The studies all note the difference between raising a child in a high cost of living area, such as Hawaii, and a low cost of living area, such as Mississippi. But they claim these numbers represent the average. As someone living in a mid-range area where a parent could expect to pay somewhere in the mid-range for child-raising, all I can say is, huh?
LendingTree broke down its cost analysis by category, taking into consideration factors including rent, groceries, transportation, health insurance, daycare, and apparel. The chart lays out the “bare-bones cost of raising [a] small child in [the] U.S.” and allots an amount for each category. But there’s one thing it fails to mention, namely that you’d be spending some amount of money on rent, food, and other essentials even if you didn’t have children. Also, parents spend their money differently than non-parents.
These studies assume that parents are spending, let’s say, $1,000 dollars of clothing per year for themselves and then $500 per child. With that rationale, adding two children to the household would increase total apparel expenditures to $2,000, right? But that’s oversimplifying the reality of life. Being a parent is a constant sacrifice of self, a rebalancing of priorities and goals. In practice, moms are more likely to take that whole $1,000 budget and spend 80% of it on their kids and 20% on themselves. Instead of increasing the budget, they will adjust where the money is going. And each child gets cheaper when you can use hand-me-downs.
When I was single and when I was married without kids, my diaper budget was $0. It increased with each child, forcing me to make cuts in other areas. Maybe it meant fewer dinners out or learning that home pedicures are less luxurious but more affordable. Now that my youngest twins are almost 5, our diaper budget is back to $0. Sounds like it’s time to schedule a pedicure.
The point is that families absorb new costs by adjusting others. That’s not to say that children don’t cost anything; my grocery bill would beg to differ. But these estimates are way off. The LendingTree report says “transportation costs” are $4,383 per year, which equals around $365 per month. An adult without children may not be spending her funds on a minivan, but she is just as likely to have a car payment.
The cost of raising kids is really what you make it. 
In a similar way, housing costs can become exorbitant if a family of seven opts to live in a six-bedroom house so everyone can have their own space. But if they’re like most of America, they use the high cost of real estate as another opportunity to humble themselves. My husband and I bought our first home, our three-bedroom, 1,500-square-foot starter home, one year after we married and before we had any children. Sixteen years and five kids later, we are still here in this little house. 
Our children share rooms with bunk beds and cram together on the couch so we can watch movies together. We all share a bathroom and stick to a shower schedule. Our rambling old van is not pretty, but it’s paid off. Our household income is nowhere near $400,000. I am not spending $150,000 per year ($30,000 times five kids) on these lovely little people I’m raising. Sunny Hostin would be flabbergasted.
Compared to a family with two children, the cost per child goes up if you only have one child (by 27%) and goes down per child (by 24%) once you have three or more, according to a Department of Agriculture <a href="https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/blog/cost-raising-child">report</a> in 2017. The report notes that this is because children can share bedrooms, clothing, and family responsibilities (fire the cleaning lady and assign some chores to your older kids!). Older children can babysit the younger ones. It’s interesting that this report hasn’t been updated in almost a decade.
Ultimately, it’s impossible to come up with a single number of what it costs to raise a child. The answer is, it depends. It depends on a family’s goals and values, on whether they buy their Nikes brand new or shop at thrift stores, on whether they’re an Aldi family or Whole Foods shoppers. It depends on whether or not one parent stays home with the kids to cut out the daycare fees. 
There are ways to save and spend at every income level, and children can be naturally absorbed into that by give and take in different areas. Children are not inherently expensive. For centuries people have been having far more kids with far less money and somehow making it work.
Isabel Brown was right. Our message to our children should be to have more kids than seems reasonable, before they feel ready. Not just because the future of humanity depends on it, but also because it’s worth every sacrifice.

GettyImages-10138540

Elites Claim You Need Massive Income For Kids, But Parents Make One Key Trade-Off

family

Upstream

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.
***
We have four kids, and sometimes when my husband and I are making dinner, the homework is done, and the siblings aren’t playing well together, we need TV time to hold their attention for a bit. The shows we choose are important — not just because we care about the messages our children are seeing and receiving, but because we care about their ability to be able to sit and engage in “longer-form” entertainment.
Research backs this up. “Children who watched the fast-paced television cartoon performed significantly worse on the executive function tasks than children in the other 2 groups when controlling for child attention, age, and television exposure,” a <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9923845/#:~:text=RESULTS:,impair%20young%20children's%20executive%20function.">study</a> from 2011 found. Even nine minutes of exposure damaged the executive functions (emotion, behavior, and thought processing to achieve goals) of four-year-olds.
Our toddler has a speech delay and has an incredible therapist who works with him during sessions in our home. Speech pathologists have told me since he started his therapy over a year ago that, among kids&#8217; shows, &#8220;Cocomelon&#8221; is the worst, and &#8220;Bluey&#8221; is the best. I agree. The frame rates of the shows matter, and &#8220;Cocomelon&#8221; is literally <a href="https://www.parents.com/news/some-think-cocomelon-is-too-stimulating-for-their-kids-we-asked-an-expert-to-weigh-insome-think-cocomelon-is-too-stimulating-for-their-kids-we-asked-an-expert-to-weigh-in/">created</a> to keep a toddler staring as it hops from frame to frame. There’s no beginning, middle, or end. It’s non-stop music, colors, and people. Compare this to &#8220;Bluey,&#8221; which develops story and characters for young viewers to root for and get to know.
&#8220;Cocomelon&#8221; is all music-based, which many parents might think is innocent enough because we have been told that music for kids is great. But, as the nursery songs are being sung by the main characters, there are often rapid and disjointed scene changes.
&#8220;Bluey,&#8221; on the other hand, has a cohesive flow and plot lines featuring recurring characters such as Bluey’s sister, Bingo; a mom and a dad; and other extended family. The episodes of Bluey also have names that correlate with the plots of the 7- to 9-minute stories. &#8220;Cocomelon&#8221; is nonstop for over an hour per episode.  
One director of a speech center for kids and adults told me, “Cocomelon is too fast-paced and does not allow the child to engage. They’re just blank staring at a screen.” She added that the show requires no patience, contains no storyline, and builds no anticipation. Therefore, there&#8217;s no reward. 
A writer at the Atlantic recently raised the alarm about film students who can no longer sit through a feature film. College <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/college-students-movies-attention-span/685812/">students</a> are now being assigned only clips and scenes from major motion pictures that professors deem influential. We can blame the smaller screens; professors often saw students looking at their phones in pivotal scenes of classic films. How is the next generation going to create art if they can’t sit through a two-hour movie with classmates?
The piece also noted that students prefer to stream movies in their dorms instead of attending a screening in a group. But watching television as a group is vital. Watching &#8220;Bluey&#8221; as a family, we get to see everyone’s reactions to it. Our toddler’s reaction to &#8220;Home Alone&#8221; over Christmas brought us all joy. A toddler laughing at certain spots of slapstick comedy during a film, the rest of us know scene by scene, is so cute; it gave us a glimpse into his awareness and personality. Seeing something through children&#8217;s eyes is amazing. I can guarantee you our family would not be sitting down together to watch &#8220;Cocomelon.&#8221;
We are such big &#8220;Bluey&#8221; fans that our 12-year-old created a spreadsheet with each episode to monitor everyone’s favorite and average out the “best” one. From Season 1, &#8220;The Pool&#8221; is a favorite “because it reminds us of going places and mommy has everything and daddy says we don’t need anything until we get home,” she says. In the episode, Dad and Bluey make fun of Mom because she is always over-packing, only to realize they miss the sunscreen and floaties when no one remembers to bring them. 
The &#8220;Camping&#8221; episode is adorable and realistically bittersweet, showing how sometimes we make friends just for a little while, but we can all find something in common, even with a language barrier.
The &#8220;Onesie&#8221; episode alludes to an aunt’s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bridgerton-just-told-a-story-many-women-know-too-well">infertility</a> and desire to have a baby. It teaches kids that sometimes we want things we cannot have, and when we have loved ones going through such an experience, we need to be there for them and acknowledge that it might be hard for them to engage when they’re reminded of that pain.
A show with community, consistency, and a mom and a dad is pretty “conservative” these days. But honestly, it’s just real life. Moms needing an occasional break (see the &#8220;Sheepdog&#8221; episode) and the requirements of hosting and serving others (the &#8220;BBQ&#8221; episode) resonate with people of all ages.
For such short episodes, they contain all the elements of a good story: a beginning, middle, and end with good pacing and good morals. Compare that to the quick-moving images and lack of direction that can bookend long &#8220;Cocomelon&#8221; episodes.
I can kind of relate to those film students; sometimes, some movies are “slow.” But the art of storytelling cannot be limited to TikTok videos and YouTube shorts. Attention spans need to last in order to engage in real life — at work, at school, in relationships, in friendships, and with a spouse and your kids.
As many parents saw during the pandemic, the shows your kids watch can even affect their communication and behavior. Some parents swore in early 2021 that their youngsters were talking with British accents because of watching so much &#8220;<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/jul/19/peppa-pig-american-kids-british-accents">Peppa Pig</a>.&#8221; Honestly, I’m fine if my kids start talking like &#8220;Bluey.&#8221; Australians say “no” in a humorous way and never sound mad. If they&#8217;re going to imitate anyone, it might as well be a beloved family of cattle dogs.
***
Elisha Krauss is a conservative commentator, writer, and speaker who resides in Los Angeles, California, with her husband and their four children. She is an advocate for women’s rights, school choice, and smaller government.

Gemini_Generated_Image_ubavfvubavfvubav

The Gap Between Two Popular Kid Shows Is Bigger Than It Looks

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.
***
The New York Times calls plunging birthrates “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/us/politics/us-birthrate-decline-women.html?campaign_id=9&amp;emc=edit_nn_20260227&amp;instance_id=171724&amp;nl=the-morning&amp;regi_id=263851259&amp;segment_id=215895&amp;user_id=be0e9c6070d70a9915bd4f91d61f750a">a good thing</a>,” while New York Magazine highlights the stories of women who “<a href="https://www.thecut.com/article/women-regret-having-children.html">regret having children</a>.” If you looked at the mainstream media alone, you might think humans are looking forward to becoming an endangered species.
At the same time, however, there is a growing band of pronatalists who decry the coming consequences of a smaller, older population: safety-net programs will suffer, labor markets will contract, and elder care will face a shortage.
But these economic distortions aren’t the worst of it: Fewer people means fewer creators, lovers, and thinkers. In religious terms, there will be fewer image-bearers of God on this planet.
These are problems we should take seriously. But falling birthrates aren’t just a problem in themselves. They are downstream evidence of other, in some ways bigger, problems rooted in relationships, identity, and meaning. Family formation, faith, and fertility are all falling together.
While individual anecdotes — like those of teen motherhood featured in the New York Times — can paint a different picture, the bigger story around falling birthrates is a sad one. Many more people <a href="https://ifstudies.org/blog/to-have-kids-or-not-which-decision-do-americans-regret-more#:~:text=The%20final%20score?,whether%20currently%20parents%20or%20not.">wish they’d had more children</a> than those who regret having children in the first place. 
Most women today delay marriage and motherhood not because they watched their parents wrestle with teen parenthood, but because they are struggling to find a mate, or they are simply following the cultural norm of later marriage. Delayed marriage, for many, means delayed motherhood, which can often mean foregone motherhood.
Even for those who successfully bear children later in their childbearing years, there is a price: higher-risk pregnancies, fewer children, and less intergenerational overlap with grandparents. To suggest that women can simply cut and paste their fertility windows into later years is wrong.
While some people have always happily chosen the single life, <a href="https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/marino-geographic-variation-percentage-mid-life-never-marrried-adults-2021-fp-23-13.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recent years have seen an increase</a> in people living alone, and usually not as an intentional choice. Or, it is a strained choice that settles for singlehood when family life is less attractive or attainable. We should all be asking what has changed to make life’s most basic and natural human relationships less desirable. Fewer teen births are the silver lining, but this whole thing is a cloud.
The fertility crisis is <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/in_focus/3470061/marriage-solution-birth-rates-fertility-crisis/">a marriage crisis</a>. But it’s more than that. It’s a crisis of identity, purpose, and optimism. In 2013, when Jonathan Last wrote “What to Expect When No One Is Expecting,” he identified socialism (the redistribution of resources through programs like Social Security) and secularism as the main drivers of reduced fertility. Secularism has a <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23780231211031320">strong negative relationship</a> with fertility, both at the societal level and the individual level.
Many people derive a sense of meaning from their religious faith, and many faiths teach about the blessing of children. As the United States has become more secular, our fertility rate has fallen. We’ve lost an important framework that generations of people have relied upon for meaning. And while <a href="https://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/opinion/2024/07/13/politics-has-become-the-new-religion-in-america/74367173007/">political activism</a>, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/VIBE-INK-Social-Justice-Pro-Active/dp/B07SJJDC72">secular creeds</a>, and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Woke-Racism-Religion-Betrayed-America/dp/0593423062">social justice movements</a> have offered something of a new secular religion, they’re hardly a replacement. Weekly church attendees still have the best <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/regular-church-attendance-associated-lower-030001242.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">mental health</a>, the strongest sense of <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4580713/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">purpose</a>, and the <a href="https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/02/13/married-churchgoing-couples-among-the-happiest-data-says/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">happiest marriages</a> of any group. They also have the <a href="https://ifstudies.org/blog/americas-growing-religious-secular-fertility-divide">most children</a>.
Christine Emba was correct when she wrote in 2024 that <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2024/08/fertility-crisis/679319/">fertility is tied to meaning</a>. When people do not have a sense of purpose for their own lives, why would they create a new life for someone else? But this sadly seems to welcome a self-fulfilling prophecy: For many parents, their children become their purpose, or at least a big part of it. Fully <a href="https://ifstudies.org/blog/to-have-kids-or-not-which-decision-do-americans-regret-more#:~:text=The%20final%20score?,whether%20currently%20parents%20or%20not.">88% of parents</a> say having kids is “one of the most important things I have done.”
In the same vein, a new study <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6126426">shows a strong causal relationship</a> between national optimism and fertility. Indeed, many people are hesitant about welcoming a new child precisely because <a href="https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2022/08/06/cover-story-facing-hopeless-future-many-young-coloradans-turn-away-from-having-children-83765512-11ee-11ed-803d-a3618e39002e/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20thought%20of%20raising%20a,security%2C%20authenticity%20and%20happiness.%E2%80%9D">they believe the world is a hopeless, dark place</a>. Young people today are not optimistic about the world or about themselves: In a poll commissioned by Independent Women, the number one reason young adults said they didn’t want to have kids was “<a href="https://www.independentwomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/TDD_Survey-Results.pdf">I don’t think I’ll be a good parent</a>.”
None of this is to say that every childless individual lacks confidence or a sense of purpose. Indeed, there are many reasons that people might end up with fewer children than they’d hoped, including health challenges, financial constraints, or divorce. But there’s no denying that at the societal level, as we become more secular and atomized, children become less common.
Falling fertility will bring its own set of problems. But that’s not the real reason it’s problematic. Falling fertility is the result of frail families and failing faith — in God, our future, and ourselves. 
None of this can remotely be categorized as “a good thing.”
This is why we should all care about falling birthrates: not because there’s an ideal number of people for the planet, not because we need age balance across our labor force or tax base, but because our birthrate points to matters of the human heart, and many hearts are lost or lonely.
This diagnosis means — perhaps frustratingly — that falling birthrates can’t be fixed with baby bonuses, childcare subsidies, or paid family leave. It’s a far larger issue than that. Instead, we have to focus on cultivating relationships that last, hearts that serve a higher power, and minds that weigh our choices in terms beyond individual costs and benefits.
If we want tomorrow to have more humans in it, we have to have more humanity today.
***
Hadley Heath Manning is a senior fellow at <a href="https://www.independentwomen.com/">Independent Women</a>.

GettyImages-90833290

People Aren’t Having Kids, And One Reason Keeps Coming Up

Marriage

I spent the day watching more of “The View” than I ever have before in my life.
Turns out, the insufferable hosts of this failing network show, on Disney-owned ABC, took it upon themselves to spend seven uninterrupted minutes on national television <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/daily-wire-host-fires-back-after-the-view-melts-down-over-her-support-for-young-families?author=Virginia+Kruta&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=2&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Daily+Wire+Host+Fires+Back+After+%E2%80%98The+View%E2%80%99+Melts+Down+Over+Her+Support+For+Young+Families">bashing me</a> by name, and anyone else with the audacity to promote marriage and parenthood to Gen Z.
I’ve been a content creator since 2019, covering some of the most contentious issues in the American culture war, and I’ve gotta be honest: I never thought this, my most wholesome, pro-America take, would be the thing I’d get attacked for.
Last week, I joined a panel of incredible women on stage at CPAC to discuss the importance of the American family, and was asked specifically to talk about what it’s going to take to save America. My answer was one <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/daily-wire-host-torches-the-view-over-claim-only-rich-women-can-afford-kids?author=Virginia+Kruta&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Daily+Wire+Host+Torches+%E2%80%98The+View%E2%80%99+Over+Claim+Only+Rich+Women+Can+Afford+Kids">I often repeat</a> in speeches or interviews, and reflects a simple timeless truth — we must renew the importance of the family as the cornerstone of society again to a generation that’s being lied to about it. Addressing a crowd older than myself, I said this:
<blockquote>If you’re not encouraging your children to grow up and have the courage to grow up to get married and have kids — more kids than they can afford, before they think they’re ready, it is high time to start.</blockquote>
Before long, Whoopi Goldberg &amp; company would be furious and virtually foaming at the mouth over the very idea that I promote marriage and motherhood to my generation, and dedicated an entire segment of everyone’s favorite “View-erless” show to launch an attack. 
The “anti-family” segment on &#8220;The View&#8221; opened with Whoopi predictably labeling me a racist – because, clearly, I must only want more white people to have children as a white woman myself. That’s obviously not true. 
But it’s a curious criticism coming from Whoopi Goldberg, an ardent supporter of the abortion industry, which grew in America specifically as a way to kill black babies in the womb at the hands of renowned and infamous eugenicist Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.
In 2022, Black women made up about 40 % of all abortions reported in the U.S. – in New York City today, as Whoopi Goldberg runs her mouth on television from the heart of Manhattan, you are more likely to be aborted as a black baby than you are to be born… all in the name of racial progress and equity, right?
Let me be clear: the only racial component to any of this is the continued desire by the abortion industry to convince black women it’s more empowering to end the lives of their children than to give birth to them.
Moving through the panel, Sara Haines spent her time on air reminding viewers that having kids is a choice. That’s true. But what about my choice, and that of literally billions of other women around the world, to get married and have children? The very notion is seemingly unfathomable to the women on this miserable panel.
In other words, if you make the choice to “want” kids – it’s the wrong choice. You’re less of a woman. You aren’t a feminist. You don’t support equality. You deserve to be publicly SHAMED, which is exactly what they proceed to do to me.
Ironically, every woman but one around that table has children of their own. And every one of them is either in a long-term relationship or has been married. They somehow make it work as working moms. They have had the courage to commit their lives to someone they love. They get to snuggle their babies at the end of a long day of work — so, why isn’t it worth pursuing for you?
For the rest of the segment, all of the hosts collectively wasted air throwing out every anti-natalist argument to see what would stick.
They lied, saying having children is somehow beneath women, that we as a sex (amazing, how suddenly we can all define woman, right?) have come “too far” to still be sucked into the innate, natural, instinctual desire to have a beautiful baby and share your life with someone.
They lied, claiming childcare costs a whopping $400,000 a year, so must be financially inaccessible to anyone outside of the 1% of the 1%. For the record, it costs about $10,000-$15,000 on average a year… but I wouldn’t expect a woman screaming at me in an $800 jacket to know.
They lied, saying if you want a baby you must be in an abusive, oppressive marriage to an evil, misogynistic man–and someone ought to help you escape with a divorce attorney. To clarify: I love my husband, and no one is more supportive of my motherhood journey or my career.
They lied, saying that I must not understand how tough having kids are because I have a mere one-year-old, who “just sleeps all day.” News to me, after over a year of my life not sleeping all the way through the night.
They lied, saying that breastfeeding ruins your boobs. I know Whitney Cummings remains deeply concerned about my breasts – after 11 months of breastfeeding my daughter, they’re doing just fine.
They lied, of course, to claim we’re facing an overpopulation crisis, which is objectively the opposite of our current reality. In fact, over half of the world’s countries and areas now have fertility rates below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman. These countries represent over two-thirds of the global population, and that number is expected to increase to over 90% by the end of this century.
By 2030, nearly 45% of American women aged 25-44 are projected to be single and childless.
It’s not hard to understand why – virtually every single influencer, television show, movie, college professor, woke pastor, politician, and mainstream media outlet today is dedicating massive air time to trying to convince you NOT to have kids.
Why? Because they want you miserable and lonely. They are intentionally seeking to brainwash you into what my friend &amp; fellow mom Allie Beth Stuckey calls “Toxic Empathy,” so you think you&#8217;re a better person and more compassionate for essentially hating children.
In fact, getting married and having kids is better for everyone in the long term. One study found that having kids increases your wealth by 23% throughout your life. Young married moms are three times happier than their unmarried, childless counterparts. Statistically, married, religious couples with children have the most satisfying intimate lives.
Most importantly, the joy and purpose we experience in sharing our lives with our children is unparalleled anywhere else in our often empty and meaningless society.
How dare we want that for the next generation, right?
I further find no coincidence that this segment aired this week at the start to Holy Week as we walk toward Christ’s Passion on the cross this Friday and His resurrection into heaven on Easter Sunday. The family is the most beautiful example we have of God’s perfect design for humanity. His love is exemplified for us as we lay down our lives for one another, humbling ourselves to serve our spouses and our children. The family, as a result, presents an unparalleled threat to the demonic forces of evil and darkness in our world.
St. John Paul II said during his tenure as Pope, “As the family goes, so goes the nation, and so goes the whole world in which we live,” and “The future of humanity passes by way of the family.”
&#8220;The View’s&#8221; attack on the family and those promoting it is just the latest example of spiritual warfare being waged against what is good and true and beautiful, and we must remain deeply committed to sharing the timeless truth of God even in today’s culture.
Mother Teresa once famously said, “If you want to change the world, go home and love your family.” These words have always been meaningful to me, but certainly have packed a huge gut punch this week as I reflect on the unexpected backlash to such a simple message I shared on stage last week.
It’s a call to action for all of us to ponder, and determine what course we will walk as we work to build our own American Dream as a generation among Gen Z.
The truth is, there’s no better advertisement for the joy of a God-centered marriage than the alternative being blast on full display from the set of &#8220;The View&#8221; – would you rather live among the misery, contempt, and judgment of these angry middle aged women, or pursue purpose and fulfillment in marriage and motherhood while you can?
So, thanks to the ladies of &#8220;The View&#8221; for giving me another opportunity to address this issue. In case it wasn’t clear, I stand by everything I said at CPAC. And in case you’re still unsure at this point, let me reiterate:
Have the courage to fall in love, get married, and make more babies.
It’s good for the world, and even better for you.

JOY BEHAR, SARA HAINES, WHOOPI GOLDBERG, ROBIN WRIGHT, SUNNY HOSTIN, ALYSSA FARAH

I Told Gen Z To Get Married And Have Kids — ‘The View’ Lost Its Mind

I Told Gen Z To Get Married And Have Kids — 'The View' Lost Its Mind

Feminism

Planned Parenthood

Whoopi Goldberg

This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire">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 dog, Lemmy, is one of my favorite people. He snores like an old man, scares himself with his own farts, and snorts directly into my eyes. Always on the lookout for new friends (he&#8217;ll take humans over other dogs), he wiggles, rolls into a ball, and lies on strangers’ feet, lapping up belly rubs and compliments about his cuteness.
Of the <a href="https://vcahospitals.com/resources/behavior-dog/communication/how-many-words-do-dogs-know#:~:text=Dogs%20can%20learn%20words%20and,understand%20more%20than%201%2C000%20words!">200 words</a> most dogs can comprehend, at least 197 words of Lemmy’s vocabulary are probably nicknames I’ve made up for him over the years. A blue French Bulldog with a nub for a tail, smushed nose, googly eyes, and “tulip ears,” he answers to Bunny, Skoonch, Teddy, Boops, and variations on the theme. He’s the best boy. I joke that he’s my biological son based on our shared love of peanut butter, long walks on the beach, and packages from Amazon. 
Though the <a href="https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2026/is-the-us-birth-rate-declining">birthrate</a> is declining in the U.S., pet ownership is skyrocketing — up <a href="https://www.forbes.com/advisor/pet-insurance/pet-ownership-statistics/">more than 50%</a> since the 1980s. As the <a href="https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2026/is-the-us-birth-rate-declining">human population shrinks</a>, dogs, cats, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/advisor/pet-insurance/pet-ownership-statistics/">horses, turtles, and chinchillas</a> have us feeling a little less <a href="https://plantationanimalclinic.com/news/mental-health-benefits-of-owning-pets#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20American%20Psychiatric%20Association%20and,a%20more%20organized%20life%20for%20their%20owners.">lonely</a>. But as researchers scramble to uncover the real reasons behind the dip in population, dogs get wrapped up in the mix as a “substitute kids” scapegoat.
Some surveys suggest that currently childless <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/27/researchers-dogs-substitute-children-know-answer-birthrates-hungary#:~:text=According%20to%20a%20review%20of%20pet%20research,dogs%20because%20they%20are%20not%20like%20children">dog owners</a> see a four-legged buddy as “<a href="https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/10.1027/1016-9040/a000552">a child surrogate to spoil</a>.” Even the late Pope Francis warned, &#8220;We see a form of selfishness. We see that some people do not want to have a child … They have dogs and cats that take the place of children.” (He also said pets <a href="https://time.com/3631242/pope-francis-dogs-heaven-catholic-church/">go to Heaven</a>, so he gets a pass.)
There’s no world in which I think Lemmy is, in fact, my kid. Of course I tell him he’ll always be my baby, and I love taking him to every restaurant that will have him. But I can tell the difference between how he sees the world and how my niece and nephews do. He also doesn’t have as many weekend soccer tournaments on his calendar. I don’t have kids, but do parents normally let their human children lick their faces? Hit me up in the comments.
When I lived in LA, there was a much greater chance that someone was pushing a stroller with a dog swaddled in the main compartment versus a human baby. But new research shows that people who pamper their pups like babies might actually save humanity. Or, at least, be more likely to eventually have their own kids. 
<a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5656231">A study</a> in Taiwan followed 23 million participants and millions of pets over a decade, revealing that pet owners weren’t replacing hypothetical children with animals. Instead, those pets were simply <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/18/world/birthrates-falling-dont-blame-dogs.html">joining the family first</a>. The human kids came next. (The findings also showed this doesn’t work in reverse where babies lead to people getting dogs.) 
Pets make people parents. It’s just science, you guys!
Goldendoodles and other furry friends probably create this desire for family because our brains see our dogs just like we see our human babies. (It’s not just me saying this; our brains light up like Christmas trees in <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/dogs-furbabies-evolution-science#:~:text=According%20to%20scientists%2C%20there%27s%2020%2C000%20to%2040%2C000,that%27s%20responsible%20for%20attachment%2C%20affection%2C%20and%20connectedness.">MRI</a>s to prove we’re especially fond of our own squad.) Mother of three Alison LaCoss said she felt a <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/dogs-furbabies-evolution-science">similar feeling</a> after adopting her dogs as she did giving birth to her kids: “I felt a flood of emotions. Here were these cute, adorable creatures that I suddenly wanted to love and protect. I felt like they were my babies.”
With dogs licking their paws in over <a href="https://www.forbes.com/advisor/pet-insurance/pet-ownership-statistics/">65 million</a> American homes, word is out on the beneficial bond between dogs and their humans. People were buried with their dogs <a href="https://www.academia.edu/62443033/When_Dogs_and_People_Were_Buried_Together">14,000 years</a> ago (I&#8217;m telling myself they died on the same day). And now, the family dog helps <a href="https://www.thedrakecenter.com/services/dogs/blog/5-advantages-kids-who-grow-dogs#:~:text=%233%20Better%20Emotional%20Intelligence,you%20probably%20already%20knew%20that).">kids feel less anxious</a>. Even just petting your dog releases the “<a href="https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/22618-oxytocin">cuddle chemical</a>” oxytocin in your body — <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/08/03/1190728554/dog-pet-mental-health-benefits">as well as your dog’s</a>. 
No offense to the <a href="https://www.forbes.com/advisor/pet-insurance/pet-ownership-statistics/">second most popular pet</a> in the U.S., but there have yet to be studies proving the same is true of cats. “If this is the exhaustion that comes with a cat, how much would it be with a child,” posted one <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/n61yfs/i_feel_like_having_a_cat_has_made_me_realize_how/">Redditor</a>, claiming to have been socially conditioned by conservative relatives to want children. “I&#8217;m happy with my fur baby, and he&#8217;s the only baby I want to have.”
Elsewhere, on r/cats, <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/cats/comments/1ev9muf/i_swear_since_getting_cats_my_desire_to_have_kids/">someone</a> posted, “I swear since getting cats my desire to have kids has vanished. Anyone else? Lol.”  This two-person Reddit sample certainly doesn’t represent every cat owner, but there&#8217;s just something different about dogs.
Writer Christine Derengowski <a href="https://www.mother.ly/life/adopting-a-puppy-made-me-realize-how-much-i-wanted-to-be-a-mom/">recalled</a> a serendipitous adoption of her family&#8217;s dog, Gertie, a few weeks before she experienced a miscarriage. “For the first time in my life, I felt the full force of my desire to be a mom,” she said of cradling her sweet pup after the devastating doctor’s appointment. “I couldn’t bring myself to put her back down. I rocked her like an infant and cried.” She went on to welcome two children. “[Gertie] taught me the difference between wanting a baby and wanting to be a mom … She not only comforted me through my greatest loss but also put me in touch with a part of me I hadn’t yet discovered.”
They may be the goofy face of <a href="https://phys.org/news/2025-10-fur-baby-culture-fueling-overtreatment.html">fur baby culture</a>, but maybe <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0ky1n791go">man’s best friends</a> will keep the future of humanity out of the dog house.

The ‘Fur Baby’ Life Comes With A Truth Most People Don’t Want To Admit

Dogs

furbaby

pets

The Trump Kennedy Center will host the premiere of the family-friendly film, “Star Spangled Adventures: The Movie,” on Flag Day: June 14, 2026.
The animated family film brings American history to life with humor and heart, tracing the nation&#8217;s founding ideals through adventure and storytelling that’s fun for the whole family.
The film features voice performances from well-known actors and public figures, including Kirk Cameron as Brutus Wigglesthorpe, Kevin Sorbo as George Washington, Pat Boone as Abraham Lincoln, Gary Sinise as Robert E. Lee, Rob Schneider in a cameo role, Alveda King as a civil rights activist, Jarrett Ellis as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Dr. Ben Carson appearing as himself.
Per the <a href="https://www.starspangledadventures.com/">website</a>, the narrative “begins in 1775, as Liberty the Eagle is sent as an apprentice to watch over Freedom in pre-Revolutionary America … In preparation for what will become a truly revolutionary act, brave colonists draft the Declaration of Independence — setting the stage to change the world. Cue the fireworks! As America&#8217;s story unfolds, the promises of the Declaration echo through each generation. When fireworks burst across the sky during a modern-day July 4th celebration, young viewers are left with a powerful truth: our cherished freedoms were not only hard-won, but they must be protected. And now, it&#8217;s up to them to carry the torch.”
The premiere marks the latest addition to the Trump Kennedy Center’s faith and family-based programming initiative. The Center has previously featured screenings of faith-centered films such as “King of Kings,” CBN’s “Revival Generation,” and “El Tonto Por Cristo,” along with its first-ever Christmas spectacular – “Noel: Jesus is Born!”
This upcoming Flag Day event will encourage Americans to celebrate our great nation.
“As we celebrate America&#8217;s 250th anniversary, the Trump Kennedy Center is proud to bring families together for the premiere of ‘Star Spangled Adventures: The Movie,’ a patriotic experience the whole family can enjoy. This continues our promise of more family-friendly show options at America&#8217;s cultural center,” said Roma Daravi, vice president of public relations.
The film was made as part of the American Cornerstone Institute’s Little Patriots initiative, expanding on the popular “Star Spangled Adventures” cartoon series.
“‘Star Spangled Adventures: The Movie’ brings the story of America to life for our youngest learners in a way that will educate and inspire them. By honoring the courage, faith, and love of liberty that has shaped our great nation over the years, we are helping the next generation understand that freedom is not automatic — it is something that must be understood, loved, and protected,” said Dr. Ben Carson.
The premiere aligns with a broader cultural push to reclaim American institutions for faith, family, and patriotism. As the country prepares for its 250th anniversary, “Star Spangled Adventures: The Movie” offers parents a wholesome, educational film that celebrates the principles of liberty, courage, and self-governance that built the United States.

Star Spangled Adventures

Trump Kennedy Center Announces Pro-America Content For Kids

America

Animation

Kennedy Center

Movies

Patriotic

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 husband and I are expecting our fourth baby, but it took us a few births under our belt to figure out which birth plan worked for us. After two hospital births and a home birth, our decision for baby number four was easy: We’re planning to have another home birth.
Not every baby can or should be born at home. But if you’re lucky enough to have a healthy baby and a healthy pregnancy, home birth is a beautiful option. And it’s one that more and more families are choosing. While home births are still a small share of overall births in the United States (<a href="https://www.nacpm.org/communitybirthdata?utm">less than 2% of total births</a>), this rate has <a href="https://theweek.com/health/home-births-rise?utm">increased roughly 60%</a> over the last seven years. 
It’s not a mystery why we’re seeing such rapid growth in this seemingly radical birth plan. There is something seriously wrong with how hospitals handle childbirth in America. The United States has one of the highest maternal mortality rates among wealthy countries. In the 1980s, maternal <a href="https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/maternal-mortality-in-the-united-states/?utm">mortality rates began to increase</a> after about 50 years of decline. Some studies suggest that between 2000 and 2021, <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2021/maternal-mortality-rates-2021.htm?utm">maternal mortality in the United States nearly doubled</a>. That’s pretty shocking considering the medical advancements we’ve made. Childbirth has been around as long as people have. How are we still getting this so wrong?
When I first explored home birth during my third pregnancy, I found the philosophical differences between OBGYNs and home birth midwives staggering. OBGYNs are doctors. They are looking for medical problems and often find them. Midwives, by contrast, do not see childbirth as a medical problem to be solved. And, if you have a good midwife, she will guide you during pregnancy to set you up for a healthy delivery, preventing problems before they arise. 
In every meeting with my midwife, she checked in on my diet. I was given a nutrition plan (my pseudo-vegetarian diet had to go), encouraged to exercise, eat a lot of protein, and cut out sugar. “Sugar is hard on you, and it’s hard on the baby,” my midwife told me. This really struck me. It’s hard on the baby. Would an OBGYN ever be that brutally honest? Maybe. But usually after a mother has already been diagnosed with gestational diabetes. Women in the United States face a cascading series of complications during pregnancy and birth. It is reasonable to assume that poor maternal nutrition plays a role.
But my decision to have a home birth didn’t come from a belief that doctors are bad or doing something inherently wrong. It came from my two experiences with hospital births. 
I went into my first childbirth having no “birth plan.” I gave birth at a hospital because that’s what you do. I had an epidural because why not? I want to be clear: There is nothing wrong with getting an epidural. But there are some things to consider before making this choice.
The ability to move your body during labor can be vitally important. If the baby is in an undesirable position for birth because you’ve been lying immobile on your back for hours due to the epidural, the baby could get in a bad spot. This could put the baby in distress and lead to an emergency C-section or, in the case of my oldest son, a vacuum birth.  
Flash forward to my second pregnancy, and my plan was to try to go without the epidural, but I would get one if I needed it. This was a ridiculous plan. If you would like a natural childbirth, you cannot leave the door open to the epidural. You need to be committed, your husband needs to be committed, and your doctors need to be committed. Because once things get hard, you will ask for the epidural. And that’s exactly what I did.
Everything was going well with the epidural until it wasn’t. The pain was gone, I was starting to feel like I might be able to get some rest, and then I started feeling exhausted. I couldn’t keep my eyes open. My heart rate and blood pressure tanked quickly, and I lost consciousness. The next thing I remember, nurses were screaming at me to open my eyes. I felt horrible. I felt weak. I felt like I was dying. 
They backed off the epidural medication, and my vitals improved. I was able to start talking, but I felt so weak. I couldn’t imagine how I could deliver a baby feeling this way. That’s when they told me they wanted to try the epidural medication again, confident that they could do it while keeping my vitals strong. I very groggily said, “Ok.” Minutes later, I was unconscious again. 
I have now learned that what I went through was just something that happens sometimes, but apparently, it’s not common enough for any of my nurses to have seen it before. They all looked terrified. Once they stabilized me, they shockingly wanted to try the epidural medication a third time. I had the wherewithal to say absolutely not. I need to be awake.
After about an hour, the pain of the contractions came back, and I was relieved. I didn’t want any remnants of the epidural medication in my body (although I’m sure there were some). I was still feeling very weak. After begging for and guzzling a strong cup of coffee, I delivered my beautiful second baby boy, and I felt incredible. I was completely connected to what was happening because I could feel it. It was hard, but I did it. I felt happier and stronger than I ever had in my life. The weakness was gone, replaced by pure euphoria. I felt like I could do anything.
When it was time for baby number three, I knew what I wanted. No epidural, no Pitocin (the drug given to almost every woman in a hospital, unless they specifically opt out, to speed up the labor process). I wanted a completely natural childbirth, which led me to pursue home birth.
My home birth was beautiful. I was in the comfort of my own home, with my own things. My midwife was with me the entire time. In a hospital, the doctor basically comes in when it’s time to push; it’s impersonal, rushed, and dehumanizing. At home, I didn’t have to ask permission to drink a cup of coffee. I didn’t have to ask permission to stand up and move around. There were no other patients for a doctor to tend. I felt completely taken care of.
When I gave birth at home, I felt the same way I did after my second. I can do anything. I felt euphoric because women have a natural hormone release that is supposed to happen during birth, which is vitally important for bonding with your baby and avoiding postpartum depression. An overly medicated birth can disrupt that important hormone release. Many women who have struggled with postpartum depression in the past choose an unmedicated birth for exactly this reason.
After I gave birth, my midwife stayed for about an hour and then left. We were able to rest. After being up all night, my husband, baby, and I took the best nap of our lives. No nurses came to wake us up every hour. Our baby wasn’t subjected to endless unnecessary tests that could wait until her first pediatrician appointment. We got what all three of us needed: sleep. We were comfortable, happy, and at peace with our beautiful baby girl. My midwife came back several times to check on us. I didn’t have to go anywhere.
Home birth isn’t for everyone, but my husband and I discovered it’s definitely for us. And if God continues to bless us with a healthy pregnancy, I am looking forward to another beautiful, unmedicated birth in the comfort of my own home.
***
Mary Clare Amselem is a stay-at-home mother and a former education policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

Baby sleeping on mother’s chest in bed at home

I Trusted The System For Two Births. Then I Decided To Take Control.

birth

Health

For generations, the conversation about motherhood has been framed as a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-girl-boss-dream-promised-women-everything-why-so-many-now-want-out">binary choice</a>: boss babe or homemaker? Corner office or weekly playgroup? But in more recent years, those two worlds have collided, with a quiet third option emerging as a viable alternative. Enter the full-time working mom who is also a full-time caregiver for her kids. It’s not a fringe phenomenon: One 2025 <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/03/21/remote-work-parents-kids-childcare/82228037007/">survey</a> estimated that 2.3 million workers either keep their children home with them while working remotely or bring their children to the office.
Women are more likely than men to seek out these arrangements — and not just because of childcare. The flexibility that comes with remote work is increasingly seen as non-negotiable by mothers of young children. Data from the Brookings Institution <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/articles/seven-economic-facts-about-prime-age-labor-force-participation/">found</a> that remote work is most common among parents with children under five, with mothers of young children logging the highest rates of fully remote work across all demographic groups.
When I put out a call on social media asking for mothers who were working from home without external childcare to share their stories, the response was overwhelming. No two situations were exactly alike. Some working moms had occasional help — from family, part-time nannies, or a spouse working different shifts. Others swapped childcare with other working moms. There were also plenty doing it completely alone: single mothers or married women whose husbands worked long hours outside the home.
Everyone was cobbling together a slightly different version of this seemingly impossible arrangement. What most had in common was a deep sense of gratitude, a heaping side of guilt, and the constant urge to prove themselves.
The nap time hustle is real
Molly, an SEO manager and mother to an eight-month-old and a six-year-old, does the majority of her work around her kids’ schedules. She describes her days as wholly dependent on them.
“The nap time hustle is a real thing. Sometimes I feel like I can get more done in that two-hour nap than I can in a four-hour time span when my son is awake,” she told The Daily Wire in an interview.
Molly checks email during school pickups. She gets back on her computer after the kids are in bed, often until 10 p.m., and is the first to admit that work-life separation isn’t her strong suit.
“I’m pretty awful about separating work and personal life right now, but I know that life won’t always be like this,” she said.
Kate, a content marketing writer for a fintech company with a 10-month-old, left a job she loved because its strict in-office culture left her no flexibility. Her new role pays more and allows her to work from wherever she wants.
“When I’m on a video call, I’m usually muted while [my son] throws blocks around the room at my feet,” she admitted. “I haven’t sat at my desk in months; my laptop is often precariously balanced on a surface high enough to keep him away from the keyboard.”
Nap time, when it happens, is sacred. Evenings and weekends are spent catching up. She wakes at 2 a.m. sometimes — not just because of the baby, but because her brain won’t stop working.
These mothers are staking a claim to something that doesn’t have a clean label yet: making money and achieving professional success, but also being there when the kids get home from school. Breastfeeding between meetings. Reading picture books on their lunch breaks. Being present, even imperfectly, for all of it. They’re doing it by necessity, by choice, or — more often than not — some complicated combination of the two.
There is a stigma associated with working from home with kids, though. One popular Instagram influencer with nearly 200,000 followers — who regularly shares her real name, profession, and work-from-home-with-kids content online — declined to be interviewed for this piece.
“It makes no sense with me sharing online, but something for an article feels too official,” she wrote in response to an interview request.
She wasn’t alone in her hesitation. Even on the social media thread where I solicited respondents, there was pushback from strangers. “[Women] shouldn’t be doing this,” one commenter wrote. “Let’s not normalize this.” 
The judgment comes from both sides: traditional working moms can be skeptical that someone is really pulling her weight while wrangling a toddler, and full-time stay-at-home moms sometimes assume the kids are running feral. Neither is exactly right.
Guilt that never clocks out
Unlike the influencer, dozens of full-time work-from-home moms were eager to share their strategies, triumphs, and challenges. One mom was candid with some of her tips for success.
“Full disclosure: I use a mouse jiggler to keep my Teams status green and computer from locking between the hours of 8:30 and 5,” she told The Daily Wire. But that admission doesn’t mean she’s a slacker.
In the same breath, this mom mentioned how important it is to her not to back off responsibilities or display anxiety about her workload. As part of a small team of parents with older children who largely trust her to hit her deadlines, she says the pressure to perform at pre-baby levels is constant. Still, she recognizes her most important role. 
“You are replaceable in your workplace, but the time with your children while they are young is finite and precious,” she said.
If there was one word that surfaced again and again in these conversations, it was guilt. If the moms focus on work, they feel like they’re neglecting their kids. If they step away to push their kids on the swings, they feel like they’re shortchanging their employers — even when their in-office colleagues spent the same 20 minutes making a Starbucks run.
Jenna, who works in tech sales and has a three-year-old and a four-month-old, described it by saying, “It’s so hard trying to repeatedly explain to [my daughter] that I have to work and can’t focus on her as much as I want to. And then it’s simultaneously hard to really focus on work when she’s constantly asking me to play. I feel guilty either way.”
Her employer knows her kids are at home with her and is understanding. But the voice in her head is the loudest critic. “I know that I’m way harder on myself about it than any of them are on me,” she added.
&nbsp;
<div id="attachment_1067407" style="width: 310px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1067407" class="size-medium wp-image-1067407" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-523428608-300x169.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="169" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-523428608-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-523428608-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-523428608-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-523428608.jpg 1200w" sizes=" (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />Getty Images</div>
Jessica, a director of marketing at a digital marketing agency with a two-and-a-half-year-old son, has the receipts to prove it can work.
“I have seen comments on social media from people who say that it’s not possible to work from home with kids without being a terrible employee — and I fully disagree,” she said. “I have a great working relationship with my boss, I never miss deadlines, and have received promotions and raises during my time working from home with my son.”
Not everyone is working from a home office. Laurel takes a different approach entirely: She brings her nearly two-year-old twins to the office where she works for a small vitamin and supplement company.
When she found out she was having twins, her company didn’t even have a maternity policy. Faced with the high cost of living in her state, she went to her boss — who has older children he used to bring to the office himself — and they agreed to try the arrangement on a trial basis.
That was almost two years ago. Now there’s a dedicated room in the office with two pack-and-plays, a changing table, and a sound machine. When the twins nap, the office runs normally. When they’re awake, they play in their mother’s office or attend meetings with her. She advocated for more companies thinking outside the box like this.
“I feel like everybody is just used to the status quo, and it’s just not something that we do. But I really wish that we would, because so many moms are going through this,” Laurel said of her arrangement. 
She’s floated the idea of the company hiring a part-time in-office babysitter, or creating a dedicated childcare space as an employee benefit — a model she believes is more feasible than most corporate cultures are willing to consider.
What do these mothers want employers to understand? Molly’s answer cuts to the heart of a disconnect that runs through nearly every story.
“I love seeing the term ‘flexible hours’ on job listings, but I’m not sure that most companies actually use that term correctly,&#8221; she said. &#8220;If you can find a working parent that is willing to work mornings, evenings, or weekends to make sure their job gets done and gets done well, I think you’ve found a really great employee.&#8221;
Challenging the status quo
For some of these women, the arrangement wasn’t a lifestyle choice; it was a means of survival. Micaela became a virtual assistant after leaving an abusive marriage and being financially cut off, building a career from scratch while raising a two-year-old alone.
“I feel a lot of pressure throughout the day to figure out how I’m going to fit all my hours in,&#8221; Micaela said. &#8220;Whenever my son is asleep or otherwise occupied, I feel torn between the pressure to get my hours in, take care of my home, or take care of my own self-care.”
She’s also become an advocate for how employers think about mothers more broadly.
“I think most employers undervalue mothers,” she told The Daily Wire. “Most moms are some of the hardest-working employees, and when employers are flexible and understanding in regard to children, it opens up the hiring pool and reduces work-life balance-related stress.”
Sarah, a Stitch Fix stylist and Amazon content creator in Minnesota with three children ages five, three, and almost two, has two part-time jobs totaling 40 hours a week and homeschools all three of her kids. 
“Some days, things go sideways and you’re going to feel like a failure. Some days, you’ll feel like you’ve totally got it all figured out,” she said. “The biggest benefit is that I get a front row seat to my kids growing up. Nobody knows them better than I do. There are only so many years of your kids being little — be there.”
The working from home with kids life has become a reality for millions of moms. Their children are learning independence, adaptability, and the value of hard work modeled by example. Their employers are getting employees who, by necessity, are more efficient, more motivated, and more determined to protect the life they’ve built.
Laurel put it best in the advice she’d give any mother thinking about trying this: “Try not to compare your old self to your current self because it’s easy to get in your head about productivity and all that. Just try to be grateful for the experience. In the end, you will look back and realize that it was such a blessing to have that opportunity.”
Not everyone will get that opportunity. But for the women who do, they’re not necessarily failing at both. They’re going down the long road to inventing something new.

GettyImages-1145103316

The Working Mom Shift That’s Challenging The Status Quo

Motherhood

Remote Work

Menu