You know we’ve hit an odd chapter in American history when the government is basically saying, “Get hitched, make babies, and here’s five grand to sweeten the deal.” That’s not a parody headline — it’s real policy brainstorming coming out of the White House. According to recent reports, the administration is entertaining proposals to address our nation’s declining birth rate and marriage numbers. Some of the suggested strategies include reserving 30% of Fulbright scholarships for married folks or parents, awarding a $5,000 “baby bonus” to new mothers, and launching federal programs to teach women about their fertility cycles.

On the surface, it all sounds like a blend between a public health campaign and a Hallmark movie. But underneath the weirdness is a serious issue — America is facing a demographic crisis. Our birthrate is below replacement levels, marriages are down, and people are delaying or avoiding family formation altogether. That’s a societal problem with long-term consequences. The real question is, should the government be trying to fix it? And if so, are these proposals the right way to go about it?

Let’s unpack it all from an independent Christian conservative perspective, grounded in biblical truth and good old-fashioned common sense.

Should the Government Even Be Doing This?

There’s a compelling argument to be made that the government ought to care about declining marriage and birthrates. Marriage and family are not only biblical institutions — they’re the backbone of a stable, thriving society. When families fall apart or fail to form at all, we don’t just see demographic shifts. We see increased poverty, mental health issues, crime, and government dependency. That’s not just theoretical. It’s been happening for decades.

The Bible is clear on the value of family: “Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward” (Psalm 127:3). And in Genesis 1:28, God didn’t stutter when He said, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” Children are not burdens — they’re blessings. And marriage is a covenant, not a convenience. A society that rejects these truths is sowing the seeds of its own undoing.

But with all that said, we need to be careful. The government should support the family, yes — but that doesn’t mean it should start playing matchmaker, midwife, and moral compass all in one. Conservatives have always been rightly suspicious of top-down social engineering. When government steps beyond its proper role, even with good intentions, it tends to create more problems than it solves. We want a government that protects life and liberty, not one that micromanages how and when people marry or have kids.

Evaluating the Proposals

Let’s talk brass tacks and take a closer look at the three main proposals being floated.

The first idea — reserving 30% of Fulbright scholarships for married individuals or parents — is the most problematic of the bunch. On paper, it aims to elevate marriage and parenthood as societal goods worthy of reward. That’s not a bad instinct. But implementing it this way creates a whole new set of problems. Scholarships, especially prestigious and competitive ones like the Fulbright, should be awarded based on merit, academic achievement, and clear purpose. Tying them to marital status undermines the credibility of the program and risks alienating hardworking, qualified individuals who aren’t married. It also raises ethical concerns: are we really going to tell a gifted, single applicant she’s less deserving because she doesn’t have a ring on her finger or a child in tow? That’s not conservatism — that’s clumsy favoritism dressed up as virtue. There are better ways to support families than tampering with academic fairness.

Now, let’s move to the “baby bonus” — the proposed $5,000 cash payout to new moms after delivery. Of the three ideas, this one has the most immediate appeal. It offers practical support to women and families who are doing the hard, beautiful work of raising the next generation. In a time when groceries are expensive, rent is sky-high, and childcare costs a fortune, five grand can go a long way. And unlike many government programs, this one is refreshingly simple and direct. It recognizes the value of childbirth and provides tangible encouragement. From a pro-life standpoint, it also subtly reinforces the idea that bringing a child into the world is something worthy of reward and respect.

But let’s not be naïve. Handing out money can come with unintended consequences. There’s always the risk that some people will have children primarily for the financial benefit — not because they’re ready or willing to take on the responsibility. And if you think people can’t or won’t game the system, you haven’t seen a government office at the end of the fiscal year. There’s also the broader philosophical concern: does this promote long-term independence and family strength, or just increase dependence on government programs? That’s a line conservatives don’t want to cross. Still, if the program is designed carefully — with strong accountability measures and a clear moral framework — it could be a useful tool to support the families who are already on the right path.

Finally, we have the idea of government-funded fertility education, especially for women, to help them better understand their cycles and know when they’re most fertile. This one might sound a little strange at first, but it’s actually the most promising of the proposals — and the least intrusive. At its core, it’s about education and empowerment. And when done well, that’s something conservatives should support. Many women — especially in today’s hyper-sexualized, morally confused culture — have been fed misinformation or outright lies about their bodies, their fertility, and their purpose. Teaching young women how their bodies work, helping them understand their cycles, and encouraging them to think about marriage and children in a positive light? That’s not government overreach — that’s just good public education, especially if it’s done through local or private partnerships and not hijacked by ideologues.

Of course, we have to be cautious about who’s delivering the information. If this program becomes a front for pushing abortion, contraception, or gender ideology, then it needs to be shut down before the ink dries. But if it respects life, honors womanhood, and encourages natural family planning rooted in biblical values, it could do a world of good.

What Should the Government Actually Do?

At the end of the day, the role of government isn’t to bribe people into forming families. It’s to create a society where forming families is not just feasible but fulfilling. That means protecting religious liberty so churches can preach the truth about marriage. It means fighting inflation so young couples can afford to buy a home and raise children. It means reforming taxes to support parents instead of penalizing them. It means getting pornography out of schools, putting virtue back into culture, and reminding people that the highest calling in life isn’t chasing careers or followers — it’s faith, family, and legacy.

We don’t need a government that forces people into family formation. We need a government that gets out of the way so people can do what God designed them to do. Of the three ideas on the table, the fertility education program has the most promise, provided it stays true to Christian principles. The baby bonus might be workable with the right safeguards. The Fulbright quota system? That one should be left on the cutting room floor.

America needs a revival of the family — but it won’t come from Washington. It’ll come from pulpits, kitchen tables, and parents raising their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

“Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it” (Psalm 127:1).

Let’s let the Lord build the house — and make sure the government doesn’t tear it down while trying to help.