• Skip to main content
Daily Citizen
  • Subscribe
  • Categories
    • Culture
    • Life
    • Religious Freedom
    • Sexuality
  • Parenting Resources
    • LGBT Pride
    • Homosexuality
    • Sexuality/Marriage
    • Transgender
  • About
    • Contributors
    • Contact
  • Donate

parenting

Jul 14 2026

Could Taylor’s Marriage Spark a Global Swiftie Baby Boom?

So Taylor and Travis are married, finally. What took them so long?

The mega-famous power couple wed in a sweltering blaze on July 3 in Madison Square Garden, just to make sure there was enough room at their star-studded celebration. She walked down the aisle to an instrumental version of her own song “Love Story.” Adam Sandler officiated the ceremony. Kansas City Chiefs coach Andy Reid said Sandler’s best advice to the couple was “keep kissing.”

So now they settle into family life. Will a baby be coming soon?

At the news of their engagement last August, American Enterprise Institute fellow Timothy Carney posted on X, “Pregnancy is contagious. Familism and Natalism are conveyed culturally.”

He added, “If Kelce and Swift have kids and quickly, this could trigger a Baby Boom.”

We should all hope it will because the world’s most pressing long-term need is many more babies being born today so that we have a tomorrow. Two-thirds to nearly three-fourths of humanity live in a nation well below replacement level which translates into what one leading global analyst called “mass extinction numbers.”

So, the question is certainly worth considering: Could impending news of a little Swiftie in the oven trigger a baby boom, or at least a bump? Possibly. 

First, it is important to recognize that Carney is correct. Pregnancy is indeed contagious. Academic studies here, here, here and here demonstrate that pregnancies happening within a woman’s personal network can stimulate her entry into motherhood. The decision to have a baby is less individualistic than most assume. The behaviors of others affect our own.

In an interview with the Daily Citizen, Carney contends, “Pregnancy is contagious on a local level, among extended family circles and on a cultural level.” How does this happen? Carney explains, “People are motivated by what fills their imagination, what they see, what they are exposed to.” He notes, “If you were the CIA and you wanted to drive up birthrates, you would simply expose people to the rewarding experiences of lots of families with lots of kids.”

So yes, familism and natalism are conveyed culturally. Carney told Daily Citizen, “What I articulated in my X post was a hope, not a prediction, not an expectation.”

But he admitted, “I think celebrities having kids, especially married celebrities having kids, raising them in a happy family, enjoying life together — that is analogous to actually seeing kids running around on your street.” He confessed, “It is not as good as that, but certainly analogous.”

As Veronica Clarke noted over at First Things last August, Taylor’s “engagement signals to Swifties and lovelorn women worldwide that finding love in the twenty-first century is not a fairy tale.” If she and Travis welcome a wedding baby, that news could have the same effect.

Lyman Stone, director of the Institute for Family Studies’ Pronatalism Initiative, also sat for an interview with Daily Citizen. He told us, “I definitely share the perspective that major celebrity figures, social influencers, role models, whatever, they absolutely have an effect on people’s family decisions.” Stone adds an important angle though,

When elites, people in positions of great social influence on others, not only have kids, but have kids in a way that seems happy and attainable, that can be predictive.

He adds the larger population must see those things as attainable for themselves. Buying a new plane or an expensive second home in Italy does not have the same effect. But something that is clearly in reach for most young adults, like marriage and parenthood, can be driven by the influence of others.

Stone notes, “So to the extent that Swifties look at Taylor and say, ‘Well, if the woman who did four break-up albums can find love with the football star, maybe I can find love too.’” He observes, “Maybe that could happen with motherhood too, if she gets pregnant soon enough.”

What if Taylor outsources her mommy wish and gestational labor to a surrogate? The motivation to keep her famous starlet body and her more than ample financial resources make this a very real possibility. But this makes her pathway to motherhood unattainable (and hopefully undesirable) for most Swifties, thus having no baby bump effect.

But it also matters how Tay Tay talks about motherhood, if that time comes. Stone explained, “If we get Taylor Swift’s Lullaby Album for her beloved baby, we’re there, on the path to a prenatal culture.” He counters though, “But if we get her ‘Honest Reflections on the Difficulties of Motherhood’ i.e., negative comments about motherhood, that’s unlikely to go in a great direction.” Stone concludes, “If Taylor talks about her family life in a way that is encouraging of others, then I think we could get a Swiftie baby bump.”

As Carney noted in the Washington Examiner, the day after his X post went viral: “If someone who is constantly watched by millions of people starts living a married life and a mother life, then the idea of being married and a mother becomes more imaginable – even if her life is inaccessible in so many other ways.”

Such is the power of modern, mediated entertainment culture. Sometimes its upside possibilities are worth hoping for.

Let’s hope for a baby boom.

Written by Glenn T. Stanton · Categorized: Culture · Tagged: parenting, population decline

Jul 02 2026

California Will Continue to Allow ‘Transgender’-Identified Male Athletes in Girls Sports

Despite the recent Supreme Court ruling in favor of girl-only sports, California will continue to allow “transgender”-identified male athletes to compete in girls and women’s sports. 

According to Fox News Digital, a spokesperson for Governor Gavin Newsom said that “the Supreme Court ruling will not impact California’s current setup.” 

Reporter Jackson Thompson posted on X about the governor’s office’s response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of West Virginia v. BPJ that states are allowed to protect girls and women’s sports with laws that keep sports separate based on biology.

Newsom's office has responded to the SCOTUS Title IX ruling, saying California will continue to let males compete in girls' sports, and boasting his record of appointing trans judges and making it making it easier to update gender markers on documents.https://t.co/vgIL8DOV78

— Jackson Thompson (@JackThompsonFOX) July 2, 2026

But the Court’s ruling did not overturn state laws that allow boys to compete on the basis of “gender identity,” a spurious, completely subjective individual and social construct. 

Fox News Digital received a statement from the governor’s office which read: 

The Governor has said discussions on this issue should be guided by fairness, dignity, and respect. He rejects the right wing’s cynical attempt to weaponize this debate as an excuse to vilify individual kids. The Governor’s position is simple: stand with all kids and stand up to bullies.

That position seems to be at odds with what Newsom said just a year ago in a conversation on his podcast, “This is Gavin Newsom.” Charlie Kirk, who was Newsom’s guest on the podcast’s launch, asked him, “Would you say no men in female sports?” 

Newsom replied, “Well, it’s I think it’s an issue of fairness. I completely agree with you on that it is an issue of fairness.” The governor went on to mention his wife and two daughters’ involvement in sports. 

So which is it, Gov. Newsom? He has taken no steps to protect his daughters and preserve girls and women’s sports for female athletes. 

California was one of the first states to allow boys who identify as female to compete on a girlsteam, after the legislature passed Assembly Bill 1266 in 2013. The law applied to kindergarten through 12th grade, requiring that “a pupil be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”

That legislation also affected girls’ privacy and safety, as it opened school locker rooms, showers and restrooms to boys who identify as girls. 

The California governor has taken no steps to implement “fairness” and protect female athletes. Instead, his administration has fought to keep boys who reject their masculinity in girls sports. 

For example, the state is battling a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice against the California Department of Education and California Interscholastic Federation for violating Title IX. The lawsuit described numerous incidents of boys taking spots on teams and victories from girls, as well as violating girls privacy and safety by changing with them and watching them undress in locker rooms. 

In addition, California filed its own lawsuit against the Department of Justice over its demand the state prohibit male athletes from competing in women’s and girls sports.

In addition to California, Illinois officials have stated that males who claim to be female can still compete on girls teams. The Chicago Sun-Times reported on a statement from Attorney General Kwame Raoul: 

In Illinois, transgender students have the right to fully participate in school activities, including sports. Nothing in today’s opinion prohibits states like Illinois from allowing student athletes to participate on teams consistent with their gender identity and pursuant to [Illinois High School Association] guidelines.

Raoul misses the point completely: “Transgender” students have always been allowed to take part in school activities. But they should participate based on their sex – not on a misleading “gender identity.” 

According to the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBT activist organization, 21 states and Washington, D.C., do not protect girls sports. 

Hopefully, the Court will take up a case soon challenging these states that reject biological reality in favor of false and destructive transgender ideology. 

Related articles and resources: 

Blockbuster Supreme Court Ruling: Girls Sports Are for Girls

Department of Justice Launches Title IX Task Force to Protect Women’s Sports

DOJ Lawsuit Describes California Department of Education’s Infuriating Treatment of Girls

Ed Dept. Finds San José State Violated Title IX With Male Athlete in Women’s Volleyball

Feds Sue California Department of Education, Interscholastic Federation For ‘Illegal Sex Discrimination’

Girls Shouldn’t Apologize for Protesting Boys in Girls Sports

President Trump: ‘There are Only Two Genders: Male and Female’

Top 5 Moments From Supreme Court Arguments Over Girls Sports

Transgender Ideology is Inherently Destructive

Transgender Ideology is Inherently Destructive Part 2

Trump Signs Executive Order Protecting Women’s Sports and Spaces

Yes, Girls Care When Boys Take Their Trophies

Written by Jeff Johnston · Categorized: Culture, Sexuality · Tagged: parenting

Jun 16 2026

New York Bill Would Remove ‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ From State Law

New York Governor Kathy Hochul is expected to sign SB 9316 into law, stripping the fundamentally important familial words “mother” and “father” and all references to sex distinct parenting from state law. The official explanation of the bill proudly admits this law “Replaces the terms father, mother, and filiation to gender neutral language.”

The bill substitutes all references to fatherhood and paternity to the sex generic term “parentage.” It also offends all natural mothers and fathers, referring to them as “gestating parents” and “non-gestating parents.”

Make no mistake, this will not only mean the deconstruction of the family in New York law, but it deconstructs our understanding of humanity itself.

You cannot speak sensibly about what it means to be human without speaking truthfully about that which uniquely creates humanity. That is mothers and fathers, and it is a universal truth across all cultures at all times. But the New York Legislature has now ignored that and created a new nonsense world where mom and dad are not allowed because of their natural exclusivity.

Why would New York legislators do such a moronically antiscientific and malevolent thing? The bill’s sponsor, Senator Luis Sepúlveda of the Bronx, explained during floor debate, “The bill is really to adjust to modern times and different families that you have today.”

He is precisely right. “Same-sex marriage” created these new “families.” When the U.S. Supreme Court, under the facade of “marriage equality,” redefined marriage 11 years ago this month in Obergefell v. Hodges, it also redefined parentage and the family itself. It necessitated declaring mother and father meaningless.

This is reflected in the U.S. Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) being rewritten in 2017. The National Center for LGBTQ Rights explains, “The UPA of 2017 fully protects both married and unmarried same-sex couples, and includes many important provisions protecting LGBTQ parents, including provisions addressing children with multiple parents.” They add, “Reproductive justice means fully protecting all families under the law.”

Obergefell, by codifying same-sex families, fundamentally relativizes and de-sexes the family.

This is precisely what S9316 does too. And it must do so under Obergefell because gay and lesbian adults require the purchasing of eggs, sperm and wombs in order to obtain children. New York law is recognizing this reality and challenging nature to allow for the creation of intentionally motherless and fatherless boys and girls so that men and women with abnormal sexual interests get what they desire. That is unethical.

Remarkably, Andrew Sullivan, one of the earliest and most vocal pioneers of redefining marriage, is very disturbed by the passage of SB 9316. Writing just days ago, he lamented, “On all questions gay and trans, the Dems are now entirely controlled by trans and ‘queer’ extremists.” Sullivan fails to appreciate that it is not promoters of transgenderism that created this mess. Same-sex marriage did, and that is demonstrated in this wildly vivid example:

Gay couple LAUGH as their surrogate baby CRIES for 'mama'

'Who do you want? Dada or pop?'

Baby: 'Mama'

'NO MAMA' pic.twitter.com/8fq19pyQok

— RT (@RT_com) April 16, 2026

Gay “marriage” is fundamentally set against mother and father having any meaning at all.Individuals in naturally infertile relationships deny the children they purchase or adopt something essential – their own mother or father.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board fully gets this. They observed,

Ms. Hochul has time to decide what to do with this bill, and it’s possible her answer won’t come until after the November election. Too bad, since a veto on June 21 would be a nice gift to millions of voters celebrating, uh, Non-Gestating Parent’s Day.

The New York Legislature has done something truly evil. As Dr. Albert Mohler explained in World magazine, “The goal of this insanity is nothing less than the collapse of truth, creation order, marriage, morality, and civilization itself.”

He is correct. You cannot speak truthfully about human reality or civilization without the terms “mother” and “father.” Both are required for anyone’s existence and healthy development.

Photo by Roy Rochlin/Getty Images.

Written by Glenn T. Stanton · Categorized: Culture · Tagged: new york, parenting

Jun 08 2026

JD and Usha Vance Say Erika Kirk’s Regret Shaped Their Fourth Child Decision

In his forthcoming book, Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith, Vice President JD Vance suggests that the assassination of his friend Charlie Kirk led to the Vances’ fourth pregnancy.

The vice president writes:

“For years I had asked Usha to have another baby, and for years she had told me she was done—especially now that public service had elevated us into the national spotlight.”

The Vances are busy raising three children: Ewan (8), Vivek (6) and Mirabel (4).

Prior to being elected vice president, Vance served as a United States senator in Ohio, beginning in 2023. He served in the U.S. Marines then met his wife, Usha, while they were both attending Yale Law School. They married a year after graduation. 

Vice President Vance and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk forged a strong friendship after Vance had been elected to the Senate. They would get together whenever possible and spoke regularly on the phone – especially as the media spotlight homed in on the Ohio senator during the 2024 campaign.

When Senator Vance expressed concern that son Ewan was beginning to resent the family’s fame and attention, Kirk counseled him.

“Don’t try to convince your son it’s not a sacrifice,” Charlie told him. “It is. Just try to take some solace in the fact that it’s a worthy sacrifice. I’ll say a prayer for you.” 

But then came the awful day in September 2025. After news of Charlie’s murder, the Vances flew to Utah to minister to Erika. VP Vance writes about it in his new book:

“As my wife held Charlie Kirk’s widow on the first day of her terrible sorrow, Erika told Usha between sobs that she regretted having only two kids with Charlie.”

There’s little doubt the Kirks wanted more children and they likely would have if Charlie had not been assassinated.

“Get married,” urged Charlie Kirk back when he was alive. “Have children. Build a legacy. Pass down your values. Pursue the eternal. Seek true joy. Having children is way more important than having a good career.”

According to Vice President Vance, the time grieving with Erika Kirk had a profound impact on his wife.

“Something changed for Usha, and not long after we buried my friend, she became pregnant with our fourth child, a boy,” Vance writes. 

He then added:

“One life was stolen from us, but another was given. I don’t know why God does things like this. But I am grateful to Him that there will soon be another source of joy in our lives. Another person added to the communion of our family and hopefully to that of the Church. Another person to whom I will sing, ‘Jesus loves me, this I know.’ Another beautiful soul to wonder at, and fall in love with, God’s beautiful creation.”

Few people know anyone who regrets having too many children, but we all know people who wish they had more.

As Christians, we should be the most vocal and effective promoters of marriage and children – and we do that by modeling the blessings of a happy family filled with as many souls as the Lord sees fit to loan us.

Written by Paul Batura · Categorized: Family · Tagged: Charlie Kirk, Erika Kirk, parenting, Vance

Jun 03 2026

New Study Shows Becoming a Father Rewires the Male Brain

We know that when men become fathers, God has designed it that their bodies start to change, making them more attuned to their new role as their child’s essential male parent. 

For instance, university-based research shows that dads’ testosterone (T) levels decline in helpful ways. Men with lower T tend to be more focused on their marital and fatherly duties because it lowers libido, aggression and infidelity risk.

Motherhood also changes the woman’s body in profound ways as well, getting her ready for one of the most important jobs she will ever have: mothering. But how fatherhood changes men’s brains is less understood.

A new German medical study just published in the journal Translational Psychiatry demonstrates how the paternal brain turns more fatherly in the weeks and months after his child is born. In general, this research team observed, “The critical role of fathers is being increasingly recognized, with research emphasizing the significant impact of paternal involvement on infant socioemotional and cognitive development.”

In this longitudinal study, scans were made of 25 new fathers’ brains over the 2 years following their child’s birth and it appears their brains prune certain neural pathways and rewire others in order to put these men in a more fathering frame of mind. This makes them more protective, empathic, responsive and tender toward their child and wife.

This takes place in different ways over the first weeks and months of their child’s life. These scholars explained they observed “early structural reorganization supporting the adaption to fatherhood, whereas later adaptations help refine essential caregiving skills” as these new dads grow in their new fathering roles. The most dramatic changes in gray matter volume and neural rewiring were observed in the first six weeks postpartum.

Similar findings were discovered in a 2022 study studying new fathers in Spain and the United States, thus establishing science’s understanding of what this new study’s authors referred to as a “parental brain network” associated with enhanced mothering and fathering. 

These scholars concluded, “These findings outline a clear trajectory of paternal neuroplasticity and adaptation during the early postpartum period, followed by maintenance and fine-tuning processes that likely facilitate paternal caregiving behaviors.”

This research demonstrates that humans are carefully designed and equipped to reproduce and parent as men and women – and become better at this essential task as their babies grow.

We are indeed fearfully and wonderfully made.

Written by Glenn T. Stanton · Categorized: Family · Tagged: parenting

  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 8
  • Go to Next Page »

Privacy Policy and Terms of Use | Privacy Policy and Terms of Use | © 2026 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved.

  • Cookie Policy