By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Heritage Foundation, instrumental in Project 2025, has released a new manifesto, “Saving America by Saving the Family,” which seeks to reverse declining birth rates by making independent life harder for women. This plan, seen as a social vision underpinning Project 2025, aims to roll back decades of women’s freedoms by discouraging careers outside the home and promoting dependence on men. The document blames feminism for encouraging women to rethink their traditional roles, proposing policies that reward married families, eliminate childcare incentives, and potentially restrict reproductive technologies like IVF. This agenda, driven by a vision of a patriarchal society, seeks to reshape political power by limiting women’s autonomy and public life.
Read the original article here
The group behind Project 2025 harbors a vision for America that, when examined closely, presents a chilling prospect for the nation’s women. Their proposed agenda, articulated in documents like “Saving America by Saving the Family: A Foundation for the Next 250 Years,” seems less about fostering a healthy society and more about a regressive rollback of freedoms and autonomy, particularly for women. The core of their strategy appears to be a pressure campaign, designed to steer women towards a singular role: motherhood, within a specific traditional family structure.
This plan hinges on the idea that if women aren’t producing enough children, the answer isn’t to make parenthood easier through accessible childcare, robust parental leave, or educational subsidies. Instead, the proposed approach aims to make women’s independence more challenging. It seeks to achieve this by cutting off opportunities outside the home, making the public sphere less welcoming for women’s independent pursuits, and ultimately crafting a system where dependence on a man becomes the most viable path for survival. In essence, it’s a blueprint for dragging the country back to an era where women’s choices were significantly more limited.
The stated goal of reversing a declining birthrate is presented as the driving force, but the methods proposed raise significant concerns. If the aim is indeed to increase birthrates, it’s worth noting that across many animal populations, a key factor in reproduction is a reduction in stress levels. The policies being considered seem designed to do the exact opposite of fostering a low-stress environment. By stepping on women’s independence and agency, it’s argued, these policies are likely to exacerbate the very problem they claim to solve, leading to further declines rather than increases in birthrates.
This approach appears to misunderstand the motivations behind modern family planning. The idea that women today prioritize autonomy and personal development over raising children more than previous generations is presented not as a societal shift but as a problem to be corrected. The opportunities women now have—access to education, fulfilling careers, and personal independence—are precisely what allowed them to envision lives beyond solely marriage and motherhood. This desire for a life with broader horizons is not an “opportunity cost” in the negative sense but a testament to societal progress.
Furthermore, some interpretations suggest this agenda is tapping into a misplaced anger, particularly among younger men who feel society is somehow hindering their romantic prospects. This perspective fails to acknowledge the systemic economic factors that genuinely make raising children more challenging. When tax breaks disproportionately benefit the wealthy while wages for the middle and lower classes stagnate, the financial burden of parenthood becomes insurmountable for many, regardless of cultural shifts in personal desires.
The notion that “today’s adults may favor autonomy and personal development over raising children” is also contrasted with the needs of children themselves. The absence of policies like mandatory paid parental and sick leave, adequately funded public schools, or effective measures to reduce child-related deaths suggests a societal default that prioritizes the desires of adults, specifically those in positions of power, over the well-being of children. This critique points to a broader societal failing that pre-dates and exacerbates the issues Project 2025 seeks to address, albeit with a radically different and, in this view, harmful approach.
The underlying objective, some argue, is to create a class of permanent second-class citizens. This vision sees women relegated to a sphere where they are not welcomed in politics unless it is to perpetuate the oppression of other women. This mirrors dystopian narratives, often drawing comparisons to “The Handmaid’s Tale,” where individual freedoms are suppressed in favor of a rigid, patriarchal social order. The perceived ideological similarity to regimes that are often publicly criticized by the same political factions adds another layer of concern.
This is not a novel strategy; it’s a plan that has been in motion for decades, championed by figures who advocate for a return to a pre-modern social structure. The emphasis is not on making parenthood accessible or desirable through support systems but on actively hindering women’s ability to pursue lives outside of childbearing and domestic duties. The critique highlights a fundamental disconnect between the stated goals and the likely outcomes, particularly in the context of an economy that increasingly requires dual incomes for survival.
The economic realities of modern life also present a paradox for this agenda. While promoting higher birthrates, the same forces are also driving toward job elimination through AI and reducing public spending on essential services. This creates a scenario where fewer resources are available to support a growing population, while simultaneously advocating for policies that could lead to greater financial insecurity for women. The concept of “corporate enshittification” is raised, describing how businesses prioritize profit through continuous fees and controlled access over quality products, a trend that mirrors the perceived extraction of value from workers without adequate compensation.
The Heritage Foundation’s proposals are seen by some as a deliberate attempt to force women out of the workforce, yet they are allegedly bankrolled by the very capitalist forces that rely on a robust labor force for profit. This ideological tension, between restricting women’s economic participation and benefiting from their labor, is highlighted as a significant internal contradiction. The sheer ambition of rolling back decades of equal rights gains is also a point of contention, with many women viewing “The Handmaid’s Tale” not as a guide but as a cautionary tale they are determined to avoid.
The blueprint’s specific policy proposals include reshaping tax codes to favor large married families while reducing support for single mothers, eliminating childcare incentives that enable women to work, and advocating for legal frameworks that could effectively ban IVF by granting embryos rights at fertilization. Critiques also point to the attack on no-fault divorce laws, which have been crucial for women escaping abusive relationships. This set of policies is described as “natalism and fascism: a love story,” suggesting a coercive and authoritarian approach to reproduction.
The assertion that the fertility rate drop is primarily a function of declining teen pregnancy rates also leads to disturbing implications, suggesting a desire to reverse this trend. The notion that this agenda is “chilling” stems from the fear that it represents a systematic effort to undermine women’s hard-won freedoms and confine them to a subservient role, stripping them of their autonomy, education, fulfillment, and respect, effectively reducing them to mere incubators. This sentiment is powerfully captured by the idea that “we are not fucking incubators.” The fear is that this vision, if realized, could lead to a society where women are simultaneously held responsible for the continuation of humanity while being denied the fundamental rights and dignity they deserve.