To the Editor:
Re “Would $5,000 Bonuses Spur New Baby Boom?” and “E.P.A. Poised to Cancel Grants to Study Dangers to Children” (front page, April 22):
What an extraordinary juxtaposition of articles on the front page!
On the one hand, President Trump wants to encourage larger families (“I want a baby boom”), including a proposal to give $5,000 cash bonuses to mothers of newborns (child support that in itself would be supported by Democrats like me).
On the other hand, in the adjacent article we learn that the administration is set to cancel tens of millions of dollars in grants to scientists studying environmental hazards faced by children in America, especially in poor and rural areas, such as pesticides, poor air quality and “forever chemicals.”
Mr. Trump’s hypocrisy is clear. While wanting to increase the number of children being born, he cuts programs to protect their health before and after birth.
John Mason
Santa Rosa, Calif.
To the Editor:
“Would $5,000 Bonuses Spur New Baby Boom?” describes several incentives the White House is considering implementing to increase U.S. birthrates, including monetary compensation and medals for women who give birth. These incentives will fail because they focus on rewarding individual women rather than on improving broader economic, social and political factors.
Most young adults want to have kids in the future. But they want to do so in safe, stable environments where they feel connected across generations and supported in communities. The hardships of raising families at a time of increased social isolation, political polarization and soaring health care and child care costs give potential future parents pause. Furthermore, growing restrictions on reproductive rights and rising rates of maternal mortality make many women feel undervalued and unsafe.
If the U.S. government really wants to incentivize birth, it should work to improve the lives of women and children already living in this country. Start by improving the institutions that families depend on — from health care to schools, housing to infrastructure. If people experience a supportive world, they may want to reproduce and ensure its future.
Janelle Lamoreaux
Tucson, Ariz.
The writer is the associate director and an associate professor at the School of Anthropology, University of Arizona.
To the Editor:
I laughed out loud when I read about the policy proposals being considered by the Trump administration to induce women to have more children.
A “baby bonus” of $5,000 when the cost of raising a child is estimated to be at least $200,000 to $400,000? The proposal is insulting to prospective parents’ intelligence.
How about considering meaningful assistance to women and families such as subsidized child care and paid parental leave? And how about acknowledging that the risk of pregnancy to women in many states has increased since the Dobbs decision because of inhumane anti-abortion laws? How about ensuring affordable health care for parents and their kids?
Alas, the current administration is more likely to go in the direction of “The Handmaid’s Tale” than consider such measures.
Maureen Ratigan
South Hadley, Mass.
To the Editor:
Re “MAGA Natalism Is Doomed to Fail,” by Michelle Goldberg (column, April 27):
It’s good to see Ms. Goldberg call out the concerning pronatalist developments in the MAGA White House. The Trump administration’s approach to increasing the birthrate will only backfire because it completely disregards people’s preferences and circumstances.
Population Connection recently conducted a survey in which we asked 1,400 Americans which factors had a major effect on their ability or decision to have children. The top limiting factors for younger adults were concern over the state of the world and finances.
For Gen Z respondents and younger women, mental health and worries about how abortion restrictions would affect them or their partner during pregnancy also played a major role. More than half of respondents said that raising kids on a crowded and warming planet makes them uneasy.
In other words, to help all people achieve their desired number of children, we need policies that improve social welfare, health and environmental protection — the exact opposite of what President Trump’s broligarchy is doing.
We disagree with Ms. Goldberg on one point: that “rapidly declining fertility really is a problem.” While population aging does present socioeconomic challenges, these can be lessened by available and beneficial policy measures that increase productivity and reduce dependence.
Our finite planet is already overburdened. The sooner population growth ends, the better.
Olivia Nater
Washington
The writer is the communications manager at Population Connection.
