Why the pronatalism of JD Vance falls flat on these Catholic ears.

As parents, my wife and I interact with countless other couples and discuss topics that are central to our lives. When we brush past the surface-level things like the beauty and pureness of children, we get to the nitty-gritty of topics that are quite daunting. One of those is childcare.

“We pay about $1,500 a month for daycare,” said one of my trusted teacher friends.

“Daycare is really a second mortgage payment for our household,” remarked another friend, who works in finance.

Regardless of where they work, how much they earn, or if they’re married or single, one thing is certain: The financial cost of having a child is something stressfully disconcerting. 

Since my wife practically works remotely, childcare hasn’t been a financial factor we have to account for, yet we feel the pain in areas such as medical care and transportation-related costs. Given this, we yearn for politicians who understand the plight of our sluggish economic climate and how it can play a decisive role in family planning decisions. 

This year, during his first week as vice president, JD Vance—the nation’s highest-ranking Catholic politician—attended the widely popular anti-abortion March for Life rally and spoke his view on the importance of embracing babies and being pro-life.

“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.” 
—Vice President JD Vance, March for Life 2025

In his speech, Vance highlighted that the country has dropped the ball on fostering a culture of life, in that it has neglected to equip young parents with the necessary tools to do so. 

More recently, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to support IVF treatments—which are prohibited by the Catholic Church, though most Catholics nevertheless embrace IVF as a resource for family planning. Vance himself supported the executive order.

In the past, I’ve touched on the macro-level political aspects in a post-Roe world, the pernicious system of medical racism facing Black women and couples, and our own family planning decisions. Still, there is a need to address the pronatalist message of the vice president as something to be unpacked and rebutted. After all, he is a major voice in determining how social policy is implemented. 

To truly be an effective ally to aspiring parents, the government must commit to tangible action. However, the Trump administration has demonstrated its withdrawal, cutting assistance to workers, families, and the nation’s most vulnerable. 

While his presidency is still just weeks old, if his future is anything like his past, we can expect that vital parts of the social safety net like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly referred to as food stamps, will be slashed as well. In his previous term, Trump even wanted to change SNAP’s income eligibility standards, which would have resulted in nearly a million children losing school meals.

Quite frankly, as many Americans wrestle with food insecurity and economic instability, a renewed effort from Trump to strip funding for a program that benefits families would be an insult.

In his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump tried to distance himself from the Project 2025 policy playbook at every opportunity. Produced by the notorious Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank rooted in limited government principles, the project has nevertheless been reflected in much of Trump’s agenda thus far, via his executive orders. If his actions continue to mirror the right-wing agenda, then the American family is in peril. 

Head Start, one of the crowning achievements of the War on Poverty and Great Society programs from President Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s, sought to provide low-income and those experiencing poverty an opportunity for education and adequate child development. Even this is slated for elimination under Project 2025, which reads:

“Research has demonstrated that federal Head Start centers, which provide preschool care to children from low-income families, have little or no long-term academic value for children. Given its unaddressed crisis of rampant abuse and lack of positive outcomes, this program should be eliminated along with the entire OHS.”

If Trump continues down this path, he will jeopardize the livelihood of millions of economically disadvantaged parents and parents-to-be. More specifically, it’s possible that a generation of Black households relying on Head Start will suffer because of the White House’s unwillingness to support and nurture the American family.

Childcare costs in this country are rising at an alarming rate. Research from the Department of Labor shows that families spend between 8% and 19.3% of their income on this vital necessity. It is documented that working families—already facing inflation, economic inequality, and wage disparities—are depleting their savings to fund daycare, after- and before-school care, and caregivers. If people adopt Vance’s proposition to “have more babies” while suffering under his economic policies, the constraint on the family will be paralyzing. 

Another factor to consider regarding the lack of births is the medical costs. Pregnancy, childbirth, and post-partum care average a total of $18,865, with an additional $3,000 for out-of-pocket expenses. This makes America one of the most expensive countries in the world to have a child. If there are any complications while delivering, the costs are even higher. Prenatal and postnatal care is expensive enough even with insurance, resulting in widespread medical debt for growing families. One in 12 Americans overall face such a situation currently.

This grave social issue is something that deserves the full attention of policymakers. Far from being just a simple reproductive issue, medical costs and the inability to access debt-free care put children and parents in danger. Couple this with the lack of paid leave policies to correspond with women’s postpartum health, and the implications are immense. For many, delaying parenthood seems like a reasonable option. 

Far from being affected by any single factor, the nation’s birth rate involves many additional considerations, such as housing affordability, economic stagnation, and even changing perceptions of the ideal family. 

Vance had a powerful opportunity at one of the nation’s largest anti-abortion rallies to call attention to a better future for the American family. He could have used that speech to outline bold investments in early childhood care, a vision for paid medical and family leave, and the successful COVID-era child tax credit. Unfortunately, he chose instead to elevate a sincere desire without the requisite governmental action.

To preach to a nation the importance of children yet undermine their existence can only be summarized as a desecration of the human person. This is a reality that can’t be ignored or trivialized. 

What the vice president says and does has significant weight. This is why echoing pronatalist sentiments without economic and social considerations was an affront to the dignity and sacredness of human life. Moreover, bypassing his own administration’s active decimation of the social safety net was an insult to American families, couples, and women who aspire to parenthood.

The current White House doesn't want healthy families. They want impoverished and tapped-out individuals to produce kids even when the constraints are abounding. To preach prosperity and the American Dream while neglecting the most important fertility factors is counterfeit rhetoric, serving only to energize social conservatives and those who claim to advance traditional family values. 

The Trump-Vance administration's vision of small government is poised to bring catastrophe for American families and soon-to-be parents. At the macro-level policy level, it will be considerably harder for working-class, low-income, and working-poor families to pay for the essentials of parenthood. 

Vance has pressed for “more babies in the United States”—a vision that ignores major socioeconomic realities. Despite encouraging more births, Vance is helping to fuel trends that would endanger the very networks of assistance that families require. Ultimately, his call for a higher birth rate runs the risk of being a hollow pledge.

Efran Menny is a husband, father, and regular contributor to BCM. His work is informed by his experience as an educator and his studies in social work. He has a passion for elevating topics on justice and theology for Black Catholics.

Want to donate to BCM? You have options.

b.) click to give (fee-free) on Zeffy

b.) click to give on Facebook