parenting

Breaking Research: What Drives Couples to Have More Babies?

More and more people are becoming aware that the number of human births is seriously tanking across most of the world. This fact creates great challenges for every country’s future prosperity and growth.

But not everyone is not having kids. Beliefs and attitudes matter significantly here.

For the last two decades, strictly-Orthodox Jews living in the New York City metro area averaged 7.5 babies born per woman. Their well-educated, native-born non-Hispanic more liberal white female neighbors had only 1.58 babies. Amish communities in rural Ohio average 6 children per woman. Ohio at large has below replacement fertility at just 2 children per woman.

Deciding against having plenty of children is certainly not a function of cost. Culture and personal beliefs matter greatly. An important new report from scholars at the Institute for Family Studies (IFS) and the Wheatley Institute explores the nature of these drivers of human fertility, and these insights are deeply needed given how fast global fertility is declining. This research report, entitled “Baby Nudges: How Social Influences Shape Fertility Choices,” explains how the make-up and nature of a couple’s social network can positively or negatively impact their lifetime fertility. In short, who we hang around with and allow ourselves to be influenced by has big consequences for the new people we bring into the world.

These scholars explain, “We know fertility is contagious, but we do not know exactly what is being ‘caught.’” They surveyed nearly 10,000 respondents from over a dozen countries, spanning the United States and the U.K., Japan, Israel, China and Korea, allowing this research team to provide “first-of-a-kind evidence” on what personal beliefs, behaviors and cultural norms lead to increased births in particular communities.

So, what did these scholars find?

First, they explain, “We find resounding evidence that peers do matter to fertility.” Drawing from their poll and published academic literature, they report that “across cultures, perceptions of peer support for childbearing matter a great deal.” When a couple has friends who are having babies and support one another in having and caring for those babies, this translates into higher birthrates. A pro-natality mindset is positively infectious. Specifically, they explain:

Believing one’s friends would celebrate a new baby is associated with a 10% increase in desired number of children and a 20% increase in the likelihood of intending to have another child, while parental encouragement to have children is associated with an 11% increase in desired number of children and a 30% increase in the likelihood of intending to have another one.

Friends and parents matter a great deal. IFS’s data chart on this looks like this:

Active and seriously held faith is also a positive fertility driver. This report asserts,

Being in the top third of respondents in religiosity is associated with having 9% more children than other respondents, with positive effects showing up in many countries. This is also associated with desire for more kids (+15%) and a higher likelihood of intending to have another child (+12%).

Interestingly, this is “not driven by the frequency of pro-family statements from religious leaders but is more likely due to greater support and encouragement from family and other religious community members.” These scholars further explain, “Thus, while religious leaders promulgating pronatal norms may not always be very effective, religious communities that choose to support young families, create role models for joyful family life, inspire higher family aspirations, and motivate communities of mutual support among members, can be very effective at encouraging family formation.”

What is more, religious people tend to have more fertility-supportive friends. This is true all around the world, except curiously, in Ireland.

This largely translates into higher birthrates among such people because our friends and family members impact our behavior in powerful ways. And the Anglo and Middle Eastern worlds are far more likely to offer such help than Asia.

Surprisingly, these scholars also found that having a positive perspective on the future and being more willing to take risks – not captured by high levels of “safety-ism” – are related to having more children over couples who do not have these qualities.

They also document how well-promoted celebrity pregnancies can boost the fertility of others who follow these celebrities and this can be a global phenomenon. But celebrities who do not have children can also have an anti-natal impact. Humans tend to follow the examples of those we admire, even if we do not know them personally. This chart shows how this works out across select nations.

These scholars explain, “Simply put, the fertility and family patterns of celebrities, politicians, athletes, influencers, and other public figures are very likely to shape the desires, intentions, and – ultimately – the behaviors of their young admirers.”

Humans are social creatures. We are not as inclined to increase our fertility when government leaders offer financial and policy incentives. That is because the decision to have a first, second, or third child is not fully an economic consideration. Policy levers can help to small degrees and should be wisely pursued. This report says that policy makers would be wise to emphasize the truth that family life can indeed be a pleasant and joyful experience. After all, important IFS research does consistently demonstrate that married moms and dads are markedly happier than their unmarried and childless peers.

But having babies (or not) is a much more visceral decision driven by more personal factors, like the behaviors and norms of our peer group. Research is now indicating that the behaviors and attitudes of people around us really make the biggest difference.

So, if you think having babies is an essential human virtue, and it most certainly is, seek out friends who are in the midst of growing larger families, and doing it well. You can also become an encourager in this regard to others around you, as well. Baby-making is contagious.

Related articles and resources: 

Fertility Decline is Widespread Across Education Levels

Troubling Fertility Decline: Fixed by Pagan or Christian Sexual Ethics?

The Pressing Need to Fix Global Fertility Decline and How to Do It

Married Mothers and Fathers Are Happiest According to Gold-Standard General Social Survey

New Family Study Shows Importance of Married Parenting

Is Inflation Driving Fertility’s Decline?

American Deaths to Exceed Births Faster Than Expected, CBO Reports

U.S. Fertility Rate Falls to Lowest on Record – Again

Global Population Has Passed ‘Peak Child’ – an Ominous Milestone

A Bold New Campaign for Classical Christian Education

“The Battle for the American School” is on.

A coalition effort, led by the Association of Classical Christian Schools (ACCS), Turning Point Education and the Heritage Foundation has announced plans to enroll 1.5 million new students and add 5,000 new or converted classical Christian schools over the next decade.

David Goodwin, president of ACCS, was blunt about the ambitious goals of the effort.

“What we’re trying to do is take enough of the public school share that we can change the country’s direction with powerful leadership coming out of these classical Christian schools,” he recently said.

The robust scope of the campaign is being made possible because of mostly conservative state legislatures, which in recent years have approved school voucher programs allowing parents to use taxpayer funds to cover the cost of private education. As of this month, 34 states have one or more private-school choice programs.

The ACCS, which was founded in the 1990s, is a Christ-centered, theologically Protestant organization, existing to help like-minded believers build unapologetically Christian schools. Here’s how ACCS defines itself:

We study all things, using scripture as an interpretive lens. Music, art, entertainment, culture, history, science, and much more are within our scope. We “pillage the Egyptians,” in the words of Augustine, by reclaiming all earthly treasures in subjection to Christ. 

“Classical Christian Education” looks at all the world through a biblical lens. It delves into the foundation and building blocks of knowledge, including grammar, logic, and rhetoric. It includes the reading and debate of great works of literature, languages, mathematics, science, music and art. 

But in the words of the late Dr. Warren Wiersbe, “The mark of a true Bible student is not a big head but a burning heart.”

Classical Christian schools work to develop not just the intellect of a student but their entire being.

The current coalition campaign is pivoting off Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s book, “The Battle for the American Mind,” in which he correctly observed, “Without classical Christian education, there would be no America.” He also notes that the current debate “Is a battle. A war—a war over correct ideas …. The classroom is our battlefield, the hearts and minds of our kids the prize.”

The ACCS network consists of 500 schools, but 200 of them have been added just since 2019.

“Turning Point Education” is an arm of Turning Point USA, the conservative organization founded by the late Charlie Kirk. TP Education strives to educate and mentor individuals and groups working to start a classical school. They believe true education should be “where all areas of study are rooted in God’s truth aimed at forming children into adults who glorify God and enjoy Him forever.”

The Heritage Foundation, founded in 1973, has long championed the policy of school choice and the use of vouchers for private education. Kevin Roberts, the organization’s president, is especially enthusiastic about the “Battle for the American School” because he notes, “There have to be schools where you actually want people to use their education savings accounts.”

Some Christians have understandably expressed caution or concern over the precedent of government funds potentially threatening the autonomy and independence of Christian institutions. Basically, once schools begin receiving money from Uncle Sam, they might be forced to comply with policies or curriculum that would violate their distinctively Christian mission and programs.

But Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Seminary, has pointed out the big difference between private schools receiving money directly from the government and mothers and fathers being permitted to use their own tax dollars to offset the cost of their children’s tuition. 

Speaking directly to the parents, Dr. Mohler observed, “You’re the deciding factor. You don’t have to sign on to anything ideological. No one’s going to come in and give you an ideological test for receiving that voucher.” 

He continued:

“I don’t think the voucher system is wrong. I think that’s actually an example of what conservative Christians should understand is a rightful government understanding of parental responsibility in education.” 

As many parents know all too well, schools have an oversized influence on children and their futures. We applaud the “Battle for the American School” campaign and encourage others to join us in praying for and supporting this visionary, Herculean effort to help instill in children a Christ-centered worldview when it comes to every subject in the classroom.

Religious Freedom Victory in Washington for Bible Education Program

A Washington state school district settled a lawsuit from LifeWise Academy after its school board publicly attacked the Christian organization and restricted participation in its Bible education program.

First Liberty’s lawsuit on LifeWise’ behalf detailed Everett Public Schools’ hostility toward the academy, which simply instructs students – who attend voluntarily with their parents’ permission – about the Bible and Christianity. 

In a vitriolic screed at a public school board meeting, board Director Charles Adkins said he held “animus toward LifeWise” and accused it of being a white supremacist and Christian nationalist organization working “to bring about an authoritarian theocracy.” 

Adkins alleged that LifeWise sought to “snuff out the cultures, religion, and language of native kids and other kids of color.”

That’s a lot of venom and anger about teaching children the Bible. 

Adkins vilified Christian doctrine about God’s male-female design for marriage, saying: 

I want to make it very, extremely, abundantly clear, that yes, I do in fact hold animus toward LifeWise Academy. … It is an organization of homophobic bullies who are active and willing participants in the efforts to bring about an authoritarian theocracy. … [W]hat I find offensive and ridiculous is their anti-gay agenda. Their curriculum teaches that any relationship outside a man and a woman is a sin.

In addition, the district showed deep hostility toward the Christian program, treating it differently from other school groups and creating obstacles for LifeWise, parents and students: 

• While other school clubs and groups advertised by taking part in a community fair or displaying flyers, LifeWise was not allowed. 

• Parents had to sign permission slips every week for their children to attend – rather than signing one form for the entire semester. 

• Students who attended had to hide religious education materials in an envelope in their backpacks. 

• Students could not read their Bibles during free-reading times. 

As First Liberty commented: 

While students are free to read Spider Man comics about Peter Parker, the District prohibits them from reading about Peter the Apostle. This violates the rights of LifeWise parents to direct the religious education of their children.

The religious freedom legal aid firm first sent a letter to the Everett Public Schools Board of Directors, asking them to change their policies. But they refused, so First Liberty, along with Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, filed suit.

U.S. District Court Judge Lauren King issued a preliminary injunction against the district, ruling it had engaged in viewpoint discrimination in its treatment of LifeWise. 

That’s when the Everett Public School Board decided to settle the case. 

First Liberty explained the terms of the agreement: 

The settlement … requires the Board to undergo religious liberty training, make changes to the District’s policies governing religious activities, issue a public written apology for its actions visible for six months, and pay $275,000 in attorney’s fees.

First Liberty will train the school board about religious freedom in public education, and the apology includes this message: 

The District recognizes that comments made at various Board meetings that concerned LifeWise, including by Directors, were offensive and hurtful to the families participating in LifeWise programming. For that, the District and its Board of Directors offer a sincere apology. We recognize that these statements negatively affected the exercise of your faith. 

The organization notes that release-time religious instruction is perfectly legal. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zorach v. Clauson, back in 1952, that parents may have their children released from school for religious instruction. This does not violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause.

Groups like LifeWise must simply meet three requirements for this: Parents must give their permission, instruction must be privately funded and group must meet off school property. 

On the contrary, as First Liberty explained in its lawsuit against Everett Public Schools, the release-time religious instruction aims “to develop students’ character through Biblical teachings, cultivating virtues such as patience, love, kindness, respect, and gratitude.” 

This is exactly what U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito predicted when the Court redefined marriage and the family in Obergefell to mean something it had never meant before: 

The decision will also have other important consequences. It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. … if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.

Justice Alito’s comments were prescient. Again and again, Christians have had to stand up to government and businesses to keep our First Amendment freedoms. We’re grateful to groups like LifeWise Academy that stand up to bullies like Everett Public Schools and for groups like First Liberty that defend them. 

Related articles and resources: 

Learn more about LifeWise Academy and First Liberty. 

Read the full apology from Everett Public Schools. 

Americans Are More Divided Over Same-Sex Marriage; Want Religious Liberty Protections

Biblical Perspective on Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage

California School District Reverses Course – Agrees to Protect Parental Rights

Oregon Denies Christian Homeschoolers Access to Public Benefits

Raising Children Who Honor Marriage

Supreme Court Defends Religious Freedom, Parental Rights Over ‘LGBT’ Curriculum

What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuality?

More Than 90 Advocacy Organizations Call on Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube to Adopt Child Safety Protections

More than 90 child and family advocacy organizations signed a letter late last week demanding Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube adopt the same child protections Meta implemented last month.

Spearheaded by the American Principles Project, the coalition emphasized the importance of a child safety standard spanning all social media platforms — not just Facebook and Instagram.

“We urge you to join Meta in creating an industry-wide standard for protecting our youth online,” the group, including organizations like the Focus on the Family-allied Family Policy Alliance and Melissa McKay’s Digital Childhood Institute, wrote in a letter published October 13.

“Families across the country deserve consistent, enforceable safe-design standards on every platform their children use.”

Meta added several dramatic new child safety protections to Facebook and Instagram as part of August’s $17.1 billion settlement with 47 states, the District of Columbia and three U.S. territories.

The agreement resolved all proposed lawsuits alleging the company intentionally addicts children to social media.  

The settlement requires Meta to correctly estimate its users’ ages using available data. Children under 13 are immediately removed from the platform. Children under 16 receive automatic default protections, like:

  • Daily two-hour time limits on Meta apps.
  • Blocks on Meta apps between midnight and 6:00 a.m.
  • Hiding likes and reactions on posts.
  • Blocks on push notifications during the school day, from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
  • Blocks on filters which edit users’ faces to show heavy makeup or plastic surgery lines.

Parents can lift or adjust many of these settings using Meta’s parental controls, which the company promised to strengthen and make more user-friendly.

The settlement required Meta allow parents and teens to disable or turn off some of the apps’ most addictive features, like:

  • Autoplay, which queues videos to play automatically.
  • Content-recommendation algorithms, which curate content based on users’ interests, likes and dislikes.

Meta also started reminding minors how long they’ve been on Facebook and Instagram. After every 15 minutes of continuous use, the apps will interrupt teen users with a reminder to use social media responsibly.

Similar alerts pop up when a minor uses Meta apps for an hour, and an hour and a half, in one day.

These features give parents a fighting chance to protect their kids on Instagram and Facebook. But they are far less effective when kids can simply spend more time on different social media apps with no meaningful protections for young users.

The American Principles Project and its allies argue YouTube, TikTok and Snapchat need child safety protections just as much as Meta and Instagram do.

“Instagram and Facebook are not the only platforms where kids face real risks,” the coalition letter insists, noting, “YouTube’s recommendation algorithm has long funneled young viewers from age-appropriate videos toward graphic violence, dangerous stunts and sexual content.”

The letter references a 2025 study exploring the ways TikTok, YouTube and Instagram deliver “harmful” content to users of different ages.

The researchers analyzed a total of 3,000 posts for “harmful” content using dummy accounts designed to look like teenage users. The scientists discovered YouTube served 13-year-olds nearly double the amount of harmful content (15% of all videos delivered) than its closest competitor, TikTok (8%).  

The harm TikTok causes children is well documented, both inside and outside the company. As the Daily Citizen previously reported, a series of lawsuits filed against TikTok in October 2024 exposed the company’s internal research finding its app could cause compulsive use.

TikTok further concluded:

Compulsive usage correlates with a slew of negative mental health effects like loss of analytical skills, memory formation, contextual thinking, conversational depth, empathy and increased anxiety. … [It] also interferes with essential responsibilities like sufficient sleep, work/school responsibilities and connecting with loved ones.

As video streaming apps, YouTube and TikTok hold unique power over young minds. A 2023 Institute for Family Studies analysis of Gallup data found the connections between youth mental health problems and social media use were “driven entirely by the popular video streaming apps YouTube and TikTok.”

“Even controlling for total social media time,” the institute continued, “TikTok and YouTube are the only two platforms who predict a negative effect on the mental health index, suggesting it is not only through time spent that they have their effects.”

The American Principle’s Project’s coalition also touches on the unique dangers of Snapchat, a social media platform known for its disappearing messages.

Snapchat and TikTok both appear on the National Center on Sexual Exploitation’s (NCOSE) 2026 Dirty Dozen, an annual list of 12 mainstream companies that facilitate, enable or profit from the sexual exploitation or abuse of children.

This is Snapchat’s fifth appearance on the list since its debut in 2016.

The problems with Snapchat, NCOSE writes, are structural.

“This is a platform that, in its very architecture, appears to intentionally allow the creation and sharing of sexually explicit material, including of minors,” the center notes, continuing:

Every day, sextortion, CSAM and images used to blackmail and traffic children continue to proliferate — a direct result of deliberate design choices.

The consequences of this design showed up in June, when The Social Media Victims Law Center and Holland law Firm filed a lawsuit against Snap, Inc., Snapchat’s parent company, on behalf of a Missouri teenager and her family.

The lawsuit alleges Snapchat’s features enabled 25-year-old Gabriel Joel Valentin-Rios to contact, groom and rape 12-year-old JF in September 2021.

“The assault did not happen in a vacuum,” Matthew P. Bergman, founding attorney of the Social Media Victims Law Center, wrote in a press release.

“It happened because Snap’s product design made it easy for a predator to reach and manipulate an unsuspecting child.”

The American Principles Project and its coalition supports legislation like the SCREEN Act, which would require adult websites to verify the ages of their consumers, and Melissa McKay’s App Store Accountability Act, which would:

  • Require app stores to provide accurate age-ratings.
  • Require app stores to verify the ages of their consumers.
  • Prohibit app stores from doing business with children.

But, until then, the organizations argue, young users will not be safe online until all social media apps start by adopting the basic child safety protections Meta rolled out last month.

The stakes are high. If TikTok and YouTube, specifically, refuse the coalition’s call, Meta will be released from some of its settlement obligations early.

Only $12.7 billion of Meta’s multi-state payout is guaranteed. The company only has to pay the remaining $5.3 billion if YouTube and TikTok agree to:

  • Implement a one-hour daily time limit.
  • Limit access to their apps from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
  • Spend more time and resources estimating users’ ages.
  • Each pay $5.3 billion.

If YouTube and TikTok agree to participate, Meta will abide by the same, longer nighttime restrictions and shorter daily usage limits.

If they don’t join in, however, Meta must only enforce its two-hour daily time limit and “responsible usage” alerts for five years — half the length of the rest of the settlement provisions.

Though Snapchat operates a different type of platform than YouTube, TikTok or Meta, it’s longstanding association with child sexual exploitation illustrates how badly it, too, needs even the most basic child protections

The coalition letter concludes with a clear call to action:

We ask you to put the health and safety of children first.

The Daily Citizen echoes that call.

Additional Articles and Resources

Counseling Consultation & Referrals

PluggedIn Parents’ Guide to Technology

Parenting Tips for Guiding Your Kids in the Digital Age

Melissa McKay Protects Kids, Restores parents’ Rights Through ‘App Store Accountability Act’

Meta Settles Social Media Addiction Suit for $17.1 Billion

Lawsuit Against Snapchat Latest in Social Media Accountability Push

Zuckerberg, Grok, Messaging Platforms Dominate 2026 Dirty Dozen List

TikTok Dangerous for Minors — Leaked Docs Show Company Refuses to Protect Kids

Proposed SCREEN Act Could Protect Kids from Porn

New Mexico Accuses Meta of Egregious Harm to Children in Court Case

Social Media Addiction Suits got to Trial — Here’s What You Need to Know

Instagram’s Sextortion Safety Measures — Too Little, Too Late?

Key Takeaways From Zuckerberg’s Tell-All

Zuckerberg Implicated in Meta’s Failures to Protect Children

Washington Ballot Measures Protect Girls Sports and Parental Rights

Washington state has two important measures on the ballot this November: Initiative 26-638 would protect fairness in girls sports, and Initiative 26-001 protects parental rights in education. 

Initiative 638, “Protect Fairness in Girls Sports,” was placed on the ballot after Let’s Go Washington collected more than 445,000 voter signatures. The Washington Legislature had the option to pass the measure, but since legislators would not vote to keep female athletes safe, voters will now decide. 

The measure will appear on the ballot with this title and description: 

Initiative Measure No. IL26-638 concerns participation in athletics at K-12 schools. This measure would prohibit students it defines as “biologically male” from competing in certain school athletic activities intended for female students only. It would require verification of biological sex by students’ healthcare providers. 

In support of the measure, Let’s Go Washington quotes two young Washington women who have been affected by boys in girls sports. 

In 2024, Ahnaleigh Wilson came in second to a male athlete in the 1,600-meter race at the Cashmere, Washington, Junior Olympics. Frances Staudt was subjected to verbal abuse and a school district investigation after she “bullied” and “misgendered” an 18-year-old boy – by refusing to play against him in a girls basketball game.  

The young ladies explained their support for Initiative 638: 

Biological men are competing in girls’ sports in Washington State, and it’s destroying fairness in girls’ sports. Title IX created opportunities for women and girls to compete in sports, and those opportunities are being erased. 

Advocates of boys in girls sports, such as Pro-Choice Washington, the ACLU of Washington, and the National Education Association, have contributed more than $2.1 million to the groups No Hate in WA State and Defend Washington to defeat the measure. 

They claim that Initiative 638 “could force tens of thousands of Washington girls each year to undergo invasive, embarrassing, and potentially harmful genital exams just to play sports.” They also spout the nonsense that these examinations could occur “in group settings in gyms.” 

Right. Doctors will examine girls in front of other students and reveal the results to the whole crowd. No HIPAA violations here! 

In reality, as the ballot measure explains: 

Existing Washington state law and school district policies require students to undergo a routine physical examination prior to participation in interscholastic sports, which includes documentation of the student’s sex assigned at birth. 

A health care provider simply has to verify a student’s biological sex based on: “The student’s reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels.” 

A simple cheek swab is all that’s needed to verify a person’s genetic makeup. 

A “yes” vote safeguards girls sports. 

Initiative 001 is commonly known as “Restoring the Parents’ Bill of Rights” or “Strengthen Communication Between Parents and Schools.”

The measure will appear on the ballot with this title and description: 

Initiative Measure No. IL26-001 concerns parental rights relating to their children in public school. This measure would repeal amendments to a statute listing certain rights of parents and guardians of public-school children and re-enact the law as it was originally enacted by Initiative to the Legislature 2081.

Initiative 001 has a convoluted history. In 2024, Let’s Go Washington submitted almost 450,000 signatures to send Initiative 2081, the first version of The Parents’ Bill of Rights, to the Washington Legislature. 

Among other things, The Parents’ Bill of Rights gave parents broader and quicker access to their students’ records, required curriculum transparency, mandated notice before medical services were given to a child, and required immediate notice after emergency treatment and if a crime was committed against a child. 

The initiative passed and was signed into law. 

But then, the Legislature went on to gut the new law, by passing HB 1296, which undermined local control of schools, supposedly “balanced” students’ rights with parents’ rights and actually eliminated some parents’ rights.

Citizens are battling back: Initiative 001 restores the original Parents’ Bill of Rights and rolls back the damaging effects of HB 1296. 

A “yes” vote helps protect parents’ rights in Washington. 

Photo from Shutterstock.

Related articles and resources: 

Christians: Go Out and Vote This November

Family Policy Institute Washington

Let’s Go Washington

Let’s Go Washington: Initiative 001

Let’s Go Washington: Initiative 638

Paradox Institute: Sex Screening in Sports: How It Works

Washington State Citizens Fight for Parents’ Rights, Girls Sports

World Athletics Announces Testing Protocols to Keep Men Out of Women’s Athletics

World Rugby Finds Men and Women are Different: Announces New Guidelines Protecting Elite Women Players