parenting

VP Vance to Radicals: Stay Away From Our Children

Speaking before a raucous crowd on Thursday night in Dallas at the Republican Midterm Convention, Vice President JD Vance hailed the nuclear family as the foundation of civilization.

“I can’t help but think about what it is that we’re fighting for and what it is that we want for all of our children,” Vance said. “What I want for my family, I want for your family, too.”

Noting that he and his wife, Usha, have recently welcomed Alec, their fourth child, into the family, the vice president praised the freedoms, opportunities and institutions that have been gifted by God and created by previous generations:

We live, of course, in an imperfect world of fallen men. We live in the city of man, not the city of God. But I believe that our founders built this nation on a promise that echoes our Creator, that every American child is born an heir, is born with a birthright, born with the right to inherit the blessings of the greatest country on earth, not because of who their parents are, not because of what they look like or where they come from, but because they are Americans, and this is our country.

Alec’s birth marked the first time in more than 150 years that a sitting vice president had welcomed a child while in office. VP Vance framed his remarks on Thursday around how God’s gift of family is influencing his own children’s view of the world:

It is inside of that nuclear family where I watch my four-year-old little girl, little Mira, beg to feed a bottle to her new baby brother.

It’s inside of the nuclear family where Alex’s older siblings just a couple of weeks ago witnessed the wonder of a new baby’s very first smile. It’s inside of that family where I’ve seen Usha show an almost divine patience with those four kids. 

The former Ohio senator suggested that attacks on the traditional family “come not from a love of country, they come not from a desire to serve you or our fellow Americans, but they come from a very deep emptiness in the soul.”

A student of classic Christian theology, Vance was likely alluding to Augustine’s famous observation in “Confessions,” in which the Bishop of Hippo wrote, “You have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.”

C.S. Lewis made a similar observation when he wrote, “If we find ourselves with a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that we were made for another world.”

Talking about the world that the vice president and Second Lady want their children to grow up in, Vance went from the theoretical and theological to the practical. 

“I want my son to grow up healthy and strong,” he told those gathered. “I want him to have access to clean water and real food. I want him to live in a country where you don’t need a PhD in chemistry to understand the ingredient list in the grocery store. I want to live in a country where my son’s doctors answer to parents and to the Hippocratic Oath, not to a bunch of far-left bureaucrats.”

He continued:

“I want him to get a real education. He’s gonna grow up and go to school. I want him to go to a school that teaches him to read, to write, that teaches him arithmetic, that teaches him to love his country and his fellow citizens.”

VP Vance went on to say he wants an America where children can find meaningful employment, enjoy affordable housing and live in safe neighborhoods. 

The vice president warned radical actors to stay away from his and other parents’ children. He then defended the nation’s hard-fought religious freedoms.

“I want them [our children] to be free to worship to the dictates of their own conscience,” Vance declared. “And I want our children to grow up in a country that doesn’t roll its eyes at people who pray but remember that this country itself was an answer to prayer 250 years ago.”

Vice President Vance put a ribbon on his remarks by alluding to marriage as the cornerstone of life, noting, “I want my kids to do the most important thing. I want them to fall in love. I want them to find somebody who’s worth building a life with.”

Thursday night’s address was in a political context, but the underlying message should be nonpolitical: children are gifts from God, entrusted to parents, and not political pawns to be exploited in culture. 

The Best Child Care Providers Are Mom and Dad

According to media reports, the Trump administration is planning to subsidize and incentivize married families who choose to have a spouse stay at home and care for their child or children.

The drafted proposal reportedly revises a current federal child care subsidy program.  

The existing “Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)” sends federal money to states, which then have the authority to distribute it to individuals and families. It evolved over the years following welfare reform, which attempted to tie assistance to work. With more parents working, government officials determined that parents needed more assistance to pay for child care.

Currently, over 870,000 families or 1.4 million children receive the subsidy under the program.

Since beginning his second term, President Trump has vowed to lead the way in advocating for policies that encourage and serve the traditional nuclear family. Two recent changes have included an increase in the Child Tax Credit to $2,500, as well as “Trump Accounts” – an investment vehicle that was made available for American children and launched with a $1,000 per child contribution from the government.

The proposed revision would allow eligible families to receive about $9,000 per child per year. Parents would not have to use the money to pay an outside child care provider; instead, the proposal would allow a parent to receive assistance for caring for his or her own child.

Saturday’s New York Times published an excerpt it had obtained from the actual draft of the proposal, in which the Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families said, “[The proposal] creates the option for a new category of care, parent-based child care, that will allow one married parent to receive CCDF assistance to care for their own child, while a spouse works at least 35 hours per week.”

Under the new proposal, eligible married parents would also have to demonstrate their family income is lower than 85 percent of their state’s median income.

A recent analysis has determined that mothers and fathers spend, on average, nearly $17,000 per child, per year. This includes the cost of housing, food, clothes, health care, etc. Of course, that figure can vary widely based on where the child is being raised and decisions made by the mom and dad.

At the root of the drafted proposal is a fundamental flaw with the current CCDF program. Whether intentionally or not, the government is favoring families where both parents are working outside the home – an issue that Vice President JD Vance has insisted must be addressed.

“Federal policy should not be forcing one particular family model,” said the vice president, who has also been critical of so-called universal child care, which is a public system that would use taxpayer money to pay for taking care of children. Vice President Vance has called that “a massive subsidy to the lifestyle preferences of the affluent over the preferences of the middle and working class.”

Back in 2021 as a senator, Vance was blunt in his opposition, suggesting, “It turns out that normal Americans care more about their families than their jobs, and want a family policy that doesn’t shunt their kids into crap daycare so they can enjoy more ‘freedom’ in the paid labor force.”

Rather than an expansion of the current $12 billion Child Care and Development Fund, the drafted proposal would reportedly be budget neutral and reallocate funds in a way to comport with new eligibility rules. This would effectively mean some families who are currently receiving the subsidy would no longer be entitled to it.

Critics of the proposed change are not only objecting to that shift but also questioning whether a government program can legally tie marriage to eligibility. Daycare providers are also objecting. The New York Times story quotes Krystal Gastineau, who owns a childcare facility in Colorado, and who says half of her clients receive the federal subsidy. Her objection, though, is telling.

“If they could, I think parents would choose to take the money and stay home,” she said. “That would take away a major source of income.”

It would be impossible to overstate the many benefits a child receives from growing up with a stay-at-home mother in the home. Studies have confirmed that it’s an ideal arrangement and that boys and girls need their mothers to emotionally thrive during those early years of development. As a ministry, Focus on the Family has long acknowledged that it may not always be possible – but has nevertheless encouraged mothers and fathers to prayerfully and creatively navigate those challenges.

Focus on the Family applauds policy efforts to prioritize and incentivize the nuclear family. Please join us in praying for this effort and for an outcome that will encourage and best serve married mothers and fathers.

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock.

Marriage Before the Baby Carriage? More Americans Are Saying ‘Yes’

“First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes a baby in the baby carriage.”

Until recently, no generation questioned the logical natural progression of family life. Marriage first. Babies second. In 1940, just 4% of births occurred outside of marriage. For the last few decades, that number has sat at a remarkably high level of 40%.

In late 2020, Gallup asked an important question: “Is marriage becoming irrelevant?” Only 29% of Americans in that year believed it was “very important” for men and women to be married before they have children together. But the latest Gallup data shows a notable and encouraging turnaround. In August, Gallup reported that “roughly four in 10 Americans say it is very important for a couple to be legally married if they have a child together (39%), up 10 percentage points from the prior reading in 2020.”

While encouraging, this is merely a return to 2013 levels, well below the 49% who said it was morally unacceptable to have a baby outside of wedlock in 2006.

But what is most significant about this shift is where it’s happening. It is taking place among independents, to be sure, from 30% in 2020 who believe couples should marry before having children to 39% today. It is improving just slightly among liberals, from 18% in 2020 to only 21% at present.

The shift is clearly most pronounced among conservatives. In 2020, only 36% of conservatives believed marriage was essential for having children. Today, that number has spiked to 58% as we see here.

The gain is also most pronounced among weekly church attendees, with a strong 24 percentage point increase over 2020 figures. This is very encouraging news for those who care about children and their well-being, as it is well-documented that children thrive in all important measures of well-being when born and raised by their own married parents.

Why the Increase Among Conservatives?

So what caused the strong increase in conviction about married childbearing among conservatives, especially those who are faith-filled?

University of Virginia sociologist Brad Wilcox took up this important question. He believes “we can attribute this trend in large part to the work that Right-leaning think tanks – like the Institute for Family Studies and the American Enterprise Institute – have done in recent years to spotlight the value of marriage.” Professor Wilcox also believes Charlie Kirk and his strong message about the goodness of marriage played a strong role:

Of course, Charlie Kirk’s life and message were especially important in driving this conservative interest in marriage. Kirk was famous for urging his followers to “Get married. Have children. Build a legacy. Pass down your values. Pursue the eternal. Seek true joy.”

The Daily Citizen agrees with Wilcox when he observes, “If more growth is to happen, conservatives can lead the way.” Wilcox adds, “Through culture, research, public policy, and leading by example, conservatives can speak clearly about the necessity of married, stable families for the next generation.”

Public conviction about the essential nature of marriage for the good of children and society is a critical cultural issue resting upon our larger beliefs about how human life is ordered.

The present research collected over the last few decades is crystal clear and strongly persuasive on how marriage boosts every important measure of human well-being. This is why creating the next generation of humanity through married fertility must happen in greater frequency than it currently is. And faith-filled conservatives seem to understand this better than others. We must see that this wise conviction spreads for the good of society and the future of humanity. This new Gallup data should give us hope and encouragement in this critical task.

Related articles and resources:

Marriage and the Pursuit of Happiness

Research Shows Marriage Boosts Well Being

Are Men or Women More Likely to Be Married?

New Research Shows Married Families Matter More Than Ever

Why You Should Care About the Growing Positive Power of Marriage

Important New Research on How Married Parents Improve Child Well-Being

New Research: Marriage Still Provides Major Happiness Premium

Cohabitation Still Harmful – Even as Stigma Disappears

Don’t Believe the Modern Myth. Marriage Remains Good for Women

Don’t Believe the Modern Myth. Marriage Remains Good for Men.

Yes, Married Mothers Really Are Happier Than Unmarried and Childless Women

Marriage and the Public Good: A New Manifesto of Policy Proposals

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock.

DOJ Sues Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools Over ‘Transgender’ Secrecy Policies

The U.S. Department of Justice announced it had filed a lawsuit against Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools (KCKPS) for “facilitating secret ‘gender transitions’ for children at school without their parents’ knowledge or consent.” 

The complaint, from the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and the U.S. attorney for the District of Kansas, alleges: 

The District maintains policies that direct staff to help students socially transition to a different gender at school and to withhold this information from parents as confidential.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon posted about the lawsuit on X, saying it was a “first-of-its-kind suit.” 

While parents and teachers have filed lawsuits against school districts that force educators to lie and hide information from parents, this is the first time the DOJ has sued a district over a “transgender” policy. 

In one such case, Mirabelli v. Bonta, the U.S. Supreme Court said parents are likely to succeed because secrecy policies violate their rights. That case remains ongoing.

Dhillon stated the significance of the suit in the DOJ’s press release: 

Parental rights are paramount in the operation of America’s public schools, and Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools does not know children better than their own parents. 

The Department will not tolerate school districts playing fast and loose with federal law in the service of radical gender ideology.

The complaint says KCKPS’ transgender policy violates the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which guarantees that “parents can see their children’s school records, seek correction of those records, and prevent disclosure of identifying information without consent.”

The secrecy policy also violates the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), the DOJ alleges. This federal law prohibits schools from requiring minor students to submit to any survey, analysis, or evaluation revealing sensitive information without prior written consent from their parents.

Schools that talk with students about sensitive, serious mental health issues like “gender dysphoria,” then help them “transition” and hide this from parents, are definitely violating these federal laws. 

In 2017, the school district implemented a policy, “USD 500 Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Students Internal Guidance Document,” but does not post this on its website. The DOJ quotes from the current “Transgender Guideline,” showing how schools work with students to create a plan to change their “sexual identity” and hide this information from their parents: 

If the student asks to exclude the student’s parent(s)/legal guardian(s) from the school planning meeting, that request will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Likewise, if the student does not want his or her transgender or gender non-conforming status disclosed to the student’s parent(s)/legal guardian(s), that request will also be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Kansas City, Missouri’s KSHB reported the complaint “is the latest development in a months-long dispute between the district and DOJ.”  

KCKPS Superintendent Anna Stubblefield disputed the allegations, saying, “It also is not policy, it is guidance.” 

The NBC affiliate reported, “KCKPS receives almost $70 million from the federal government and stands to lose this funding over the dispute,” adding that Stubblefield could not recall any instances of the district hiding information from parents.

U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon explained why lawsuits like this are important, applauding the DOJ for its actions: 

For decades, schools operated with little accountability as federal parental rights laws like FERPA and PPRA went unenforced, allowing some districts to cut parents out of deeply personal matters involving their own children. 

She emphasized, “That era is over,” adding: 

The Trump Administration is enforcing these laws at an unprecedented scale and making clear that schools cannot hide sensitive information from parents and expect to operate with impunity. We are grateful to the Department of Justice for taking this next step and for its continued partnership with the Department of Education to enforce federal law and protect the fundamental rights of parents.

The case is U.S. vs. Unified School District No. 500.

Related articles and resources: 

Barrett v. Kagan: Key Takeaways From Supreme Court Ruling on ‘Transgender’ School Policies

BREAKING: Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Says California School District Cannot Force Teachers to Lie to Parents About Their Children’s ‘Gender Identity’

California Teachers Told to Hide Information About Students’ ‘Gender’ From Parents – They’re Suing

California Schools May Not Hide Students’ ‘Gender Identity’ From Parents

Exclusive Interview: Colorado Parents Expose ‘Gender Cult’ at Public School in New Documentary

Moms for Liberty Sues New Jersey School District for Hiding ‘Gender Transitions’ From Parents

Supreme Court Affirms Parents’ Rights Over California’s ‘Transgender’ School Policies

What’s Your School District’s ‘Transgender’ Policy?

Student Walkouts: When Activism Hijacks Education

Student-led walkouts weren’t always received favorably by the left.

When Civil Rights leaders in 1964 announced plans to organize a widespread student-led boycott of New York City schools to protest racial segregation and alleged inequality, the otherwise liberal New York Times Editorial Board denounced the tactic and accused its champions of having “a stubbornly closed mind.”

“What do they hope to prove with a boycott?” wrote the Old Grey Lady. “That children can be persuaded to stay out of school? What do they really hope to attain? We do not claim to know, but we do know that by their unreasonableness these civil rights leaders are going to alienate public opinion rather than win sympathy for their cause.”

They continued:

It is, under the circumstances, utterly unreasonable and unjustified. It is the violent, illegal approach of adult‐encouraged truancy. The children should be in school getting the best education they can to cope with a world in which they are bound to be at a regrettable disadvantage anyway.

In the 62 years since that massive walkout involving 464,361 pupils, the disruptive and counterproductive tactic has become a staple of radical protesters for all kinds of causes – most recently, to push back against the legal enforcement of the country’s immigration laws and policies.

Extremist operatives recognize that in far too many situations, America’s students are vulnerable prey and helpful tools for the spread of coercive and destructive ideologies.

For example, Colorado parents will want to know about a statewide “Walk Out for ICE Out” spectacle. As of Wednesday morning, the group “Libs of Tik Tok” is reporting that 71 schools are planning to participate.

That means thousands of students could feel pressured to go along to get along — and many will merrily oblige.

While the group organizing the protest hasn’t published a list of demands or clearly articulated what it hopes to accomplish by disrupting classes, similar protests have centered on opposition to the actions and policies of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the deportation of those who are here illegally.

To date, the Colorado organizing group has simply stated, “Students, we want your voices to be heard.”

Would that include those students who support government officials protecting our country’s borders? What about young women and men who don’t appreciate the public schools being co-opted by radical propagandists who are attempting to brainwash those who are still developing their ability to think critically for themselves?

Our friends at the Colorado Parent Advocacy Network (CPAN) have created and published an excellent resource to help mothers and fathers talk with their child ahead of time about “protests, politics, and what they’re hearing at school.”

CPAN leads with a refreshingly blunt and clear-minded objective: Education should trump activism. They state, “Instructional time should prioritize academic learning and critical thinking, not political mobilization.”  They also note classroom lessons should be balanced and not driven by highly emotional rhetoric.

Although created for Colorado parents facing the bullying tactics of groups both outside and inside the school system, the resource has broad applicability for mothers and fathers of students everywhere. The group does an excellent job of offering suggestions for age-appropriate questions parents might ask their children during the school year:

Elementary age students: “What did you hear today?” “How did that make you feel?”

Middle school students: “What information might be missing (from the lesson)?”

High School students: “What’s the argument on the other side?” “Who benefits from this message?” “What facts can you verify?”

Sadly, radicals who target the nation’s public schools see students as pawns in their game. They capitalize on the “herd mentality” of many young people and exploit the willing and cooperative accomplices in public education systems.

Fathers and mothers must not cede their authority nor remain silent as radical activists attempt to flex their collective muscle in schools. Courageously, boldly and prayerfully, moms and dads can and must retain their parental rights and resist any and all efforts to hijack their God-given roles inside and outside the home.