Moms.Gov

From Underbabied to Handmaids

image from moms.gov website

In a recent press conference, former TV host Dr. Oz and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. repeatedly mentioned the term “underbabied.” While it may seem like a bizarre addition to contemporary political language, given who said it, it's not entirely unexpected. They talk about a population crisis, arguing that declining birth rates are due to women delaying childbirth to focus on education, careers, and financial stability. Removing the branding and polished language, their concern seems more pointed: anxiety over the decreasing white, wealthy population and a desire to boost birth rates through specific policies.

Part of the ongoing discussion now involves making IVF more “affordable.” At first glance, this sounds encouraging for individuals struggling with infertility who have long viewed IVF as financially inaccessible. However, the proposal currently appears more conceptual than practical. The wording hints at expanding insurance coverage, but lacks specific details about accessibility, limitations, or which groups would realistically benefit. I suspect that, if implemented, this initiative will mainly assist those already covered by elite insurance plans and high-paying jobs. Essentially, the individuals most likely to gain will already hold positions of economic privilege. The core message begins to seem less like a universal family-support measure and more like a selective effort to promote reproduction among the already powerful.

The White House recently launched a website targeted at pregnant women and mothers, created by men, to provide updated recommendations for women’s healthcare, especially reproductive health. It starts with guidance on folic acid intake for pregnant women, along with recommendations for other vitamins and foods. I want to clarify that I am not opposed to access to accurate and helpful information for women who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant. However, I have several concerns about this website.

This site caters to those already in a position of privilege, including those who can afford regular prenatal visits and vitamins, and who have the ability, support, and flexibility to breastfeed. The site contains content that shames women, directs them to pro-life clinics, and promotes Trump’s latest schemes, including Trump accounts and Trump RX. Trump is branding children’s futures under the guise of family values.

When I clicked on the breastfeeding link, it immediately listed reasons why breastfeeding is the best choice. While that is true, it offers little information about formula feeding. The only noted disadvantages of formula are that it is less nutritious and that women should only use it if their bodies fail them.

Formula feeding is a necessary and valid choice for many women. It should not be stigmatized. Some women cannot produce enough breast milk, others choose to supplement with formula, and some do both. These decisions are personal and not made lightly by new mothers.

Initially, these websites appear harmless, resembling typical government resources for pregnant women, those planning to conceive, or those raising children. They cover topics such as breastfeeding, nutrition, preparing for pregnancy, and parental support. Some information is genuinely helpful. However, browsing through all of them collectively starts to give off this unshakable feeling of control. This website feels similar to the dystopian descriptions in Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale.

The underlying message is nearly impossible to overlook. It conveys that women are urged to constantly prepare, monitor, sacrifice, and optimize themselves for motherhood. Breastfeeding resources portray nursing as more than just a feeding option; they view it as a demonstration of devotion. The preconception discussions recommend women consider future pregnancies even before conception, emphasizing managing stress, altering diets, monitoring medications, and treating their bodies as if motherhood is always imminent. Although the language states “this is your choice,” the emotional tone makes it clear which option is deemed preferable.

What really caught my attention was how much responsibility is placed on individual women, while the reality of motherhood in America gets little recognition. There’s constant talk about what mothers should improve, yet little focus on the systemic issues making all this difficult—such as the lack of paid leave, high childcare costs, maternal burnout, inadequate postpartum care, financial pressures, and the expectation that women silently handle all of it while caring for everyone else. Though these sites mention supporting mothers, much of the burden still falls directly on women’s bodies, time, emotions, and labor.

This site places all the focus on women. The administration is rewriting decades of peer-reviewed research, for example, when it discusses breastfeeding. Instead of acknowledging that breastfeeding can be stressful for both mother and baby if it isn’t going well—and that it can lead to bonding issues and resentment—they omit these points. They also ignore postpartum mental health and the increasing support women need after childbirth. Women are treated like incubators for America’s future. While providing helpful information about healthcare options is valuable, when this messaging comes from the government and aims to shame women—especially when influenced by male policymakers—it clearly suggests that men want to control women to produce the exact outcome they desire.

These sites exemplify a broader cultural trend where womanhood is increasingly linked to caregiving, self-sacrifice, and reproductive responsibilities. They subtly suggest that women should constantly be preparing for others, caring for them, or aligning themselves with the needs of future children. Framed gently with words like “teaching,” “training,” and “nurturing,” women are often confined to roles such as nursing, childcare, or education outside the church. Men generally find it difficult to accept women in roles that do not involve caregiving.

Women are expected to succeed in their careers while simultaneously carrying the full weight of motherhood without complaint or support. Society often demands that women perform both roles flawlessly: excel professionally, raise children, maintain a household, and absorb the emotional labor of everyone around them. And if they struggle, the blame is usually placed back onto them.

When it comes to breastfeeding, that judgment becomes even more intense. The underlying message behind much of this rhetoric is that if a woman cannot breastfeed, it is because she prioritized work, ambition, or independence over her child. Stress, exhaustion, financial pressure, and the realities of modern life are ignored in favor of framing the issue as a personal or moral failure. The implication is that if women simply stayed home and devoted themselves entirely to motherhood, everything would work “naturally.”

Not only is that unrealistic for most Americans, but it also remains a fantasy. Our economy is built on two incomes, and it relies heavily on service and caregiving jobs, which are predominantly held by women. For many families, it simply isn't financially feasible for a parent to stay at home full-time; in many cases, it's outright impossible. The majority of women work because they have to, to provide stable housing, healthcare, food, childcare, and security for their families. At the same time, this administration continues to push policies and cultural narratives that make economic stability harder to achieve while also making it more difficult for women to advance professionally and maintain financial independence.

You cannot insist that women should stay home and raise children while refusing to address the conditions that make that life unattainable. You cannot romanticize traditional motherhood while ignoring inflation, stagnant wages, rising healthcare costs, unaffordable childcare, and the absence of universal healthcare or meaningful economic protections. It is impossible to demand a return to a single-income household while building an economy where surviving on a single income has become a luxury item, displayed behind glass like a vintage heirloom nobody can actually afford.

What makes all of this particularly disturbing is how women’s bodies are being discussed less as individuals with dreams, intelligence, ambition, creativity, and autonomy, and more as tools for demographic preservation. Women are not just wombs to stabilize birth rates or to produce the “right” kind of American family. We are not simply economic recovery strategies in disguise as mothers. The debate over IVF and declining populations often appears to be more about rebranding class and racial issues than showing authentic compassion for struggling families. In truth, the wealthy are the primary beneficiaries of costly fertility treatments, premium insurance, paid leave, private healthcare, and elite medical services. Conversely, many others encounter exorbitant costs, claim denials, inaccessible care, and jobs that do not allow them the time or resources needed.

Their cruelty is evident through their favoritism. Policies like these take advantage of women’s vulnerability and desire for children, while simultaneously reinforcing a system that supports parenthood primarily for the privileged. It’s not pro-family to create a society where motherhood is reserved for those wealthy enough to afford it.

If you enjoyed reading this, please consider subscribing. To keep this content free -for the first two weeks-, I rely entirely on paid subscribers. Thank you for sharing, subscribing, and supporting.