Fertility for Sale How baby bonuses, history, and policy collide in a dangerous game of control.

 Sexism is an age-old story. For centuries, women have been expected to produce children simply because "that's what they're made for." Although those beliefs persist, new priorities have shifted the social norms. This is causing a lull in the birth rate, which is gaining media attention. We all know the phrase, "Kids? In this economy?" which captures the anxiety parents feel before deciding to have kids.

Trump plans to add a "bonus" for raising children which then raises so many questions. On the surface, this could be seen as a step in the right direction - especially if it's paired with adding paid maternity leave and affordable childcare. But it could also drag the country backward. It plays into generic roles that put women back into this traditional role and relay troubling messages about who is deserving of giving or receiving support. Are some children 'the right' kinds of kids? Are some parents more worthy of children based on money?

Government bonuses are vulnerable to manipulation. During this year's March for Life, Vice President

JD Vance declared "I want more babies in the United States of America." But being pro-birth is not the same as being pro-life. If the only incentive behind the bonuses is to increase babies, how will this make women want to bring life into a country that doesn't guarantee dignity? Increasing the birth rate is not decreasing raping, abuse, and domestic violence. Any amount of money won't stop the harms that women face. This cash incentive is causing a danger that could be exploited and should not be used by rapists to get money off a child they don't want to take care of. This "bonus" is not tightly monitored and its lack of oversight makes it probable that it will be taken advantage of. There's also uncertainty in questions such as who "deserves" to be a parent. Love? Love doesn't buy groceries. Money? Wealth doesn't raise guarantee anything. So where's the balance? How can any government ensure this? Other countries have tried.

Poland offers a child allowance program that gives around 215 dollars per month, yet their birth rate is steadily declining. These policies look good on paper but they aren't solving the true problems. People need long-term support, not money. Once a bonus is introduced, it's impossible to go back.

This story is moving backward. This brings up bizarre and dangerous moments - like a wealthy man in Canada willing to give his fortune to whichever woman could have the most children in a decade just to prove a point about fertility. This policy is dressed up as help, but it's driven by the motives of men attempting to control something much deeper. Choice.

Almost 100 years ago, in 1926 a well-esteemed man known as Charles Millar died and left a significant legal contest in his absence. In his will, he promised a good portion of his fortune to the woman who could produce the most children in ten years following his death. It became known as The Great Stork Derby. On the surface, it was known that Millar was a jokester, and he just wanted to leave one more in death. But Millar was also known to be a supporter of birth control and this contest was likely intended to drum up some conversations about it. Although he reached his goal, he exploited women. The women fighting to win were not treated as people. Any news story at the time would indicate that they were just objects used to make a spectacle, a way for a dead man to stay alive. The three most popular candidates went to court and found "problems" with the births. There were no official rules left, which caused an outcry for the women competing. Those that were too poor to afford hospitals and home births were not counted and that took women with eleven to nine children out of the running, and who did that hurt? The children. These children then grew up in poverty. This reduced wages and lowered the standard of living.

The court ruled that there are "the right kinds of children."

Olivia Eichberg