(LifeSiteNews) — A draft proposal by the Trump administration to make stay-at-home moms eligible for federal subsidies (publicized by the New York Times on September 4) has split the Right. Some claim that the proposed move is a pivot toward big government-style socialism; others are praising the policy, saying that it tilts government incentives toward the nuclear family and the home.

“The foundation is the Child Care & Development Fund, a longstanding Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Administration for Children & Families (ACF) fund established in the 1990s to give low-income and working parents approximately $9,000 per child (up to age 13) annually for daycare,” LifeSiteNews reported. “Qualifying parents must have an income below 85 percent of their state’s median income.”

Dana Loesch called the move a prime example of the “new socialist right,” while Tomi Lahren claimed that it would turn into a “giant fraud boondoggle.” Erick Erickson called it “welfare for married people” and said the Republican Party was becoming the “Diet Coke of socialism.” Others pointed out that Hungary’s family policies had failed to boost the birthrate to replacement level. Vice President JD Vance is said to be a primary supporter of the policy, and is a longstanding advocate of pro-natal programs.

I understand the “socialist” criticisms (although President Trump floating a $5,000 payday for every American is a better example of this). It is true that no government program can fix the profoundly spiritual crisis afflicting the West, and that the societal chaos wrought by the Sexual Revolution cannot be set in order with federal subsidies or even cash payouts. But many in the pro-life movement have also recognized that a government oriented toward the family as a fundamental civilizational priority is a good thing.

After the fall of Roe v. Wade, I participated in the drafting of a statement of “Post-Roe Principles” with several pro-life leaders advocating for such policies, including:

• Accessible and affordable healthcare for parents and children – including expanding Medicaid funding for prenatal care, delivery, and postpartum expenses – to reduce the financial barriers to welcoming a new child;
• Expanded child tax credits that promote family formation and lift children out of poverty;
• Paid parental leave that ensures every infant can receive the close attention and nurturing care they need from their mothers and fathers in the early months of life;
• Flexible work hours to enable families to establish a tranquil home life, with predictable work schedules and better options for meaningful part-time employment;
• Affordable childcare options that support working parents, without disincentivizing the choice to raise young children at home that many families say they would prefer;
• Fully enforce existing prenatal child support laws while seeking effective new ways to demand that all men take responsibility for children they father.

READ: Britain just proved that assisted suicide is not inevitable

The statement was signed by a broad range of pro-life leaders, scholars, and religious figures, including Melissa Ohden, Dr. Michael New, Kristan Hawkins, Patrick T. Brown, Bobby Schindler, Ben Domenech, Abigail Favale, and many others. Pro-life leaders have also been pushing a policy to “make birth free” – not because they are enamored with socialism, but because they recognize that when an abortion costs hundreds of dollars and giving birth can cost up to or exceed $10,000, the perverse incentive is clear.

I also think that conservative critics have been too swift to dismiss the Hungarian experiment in pro-family policy as a failure. It is true that the aim of boosting the birthrate to replacement level was not achieved, and it is also true that the results were mixed. But that’s not the entire story. The marriage rate doubled between 2010 and 2021; divorces per marriage have halved during the same period.

While abortion is still legal up until 12 weeks in Hungary, the abortion rate halved since 2003, and the teen abortion rate has fallen since 2016. As Laurie Rose at the Institute for Family Studies noted with more than a little surprise: “In sum, Hungary’s pro-marriage culture seems robust enough to survive given the increased age at marriage and the decline in divorce.” Hungary’s pro-family policies did not accomplish what they hoped. But the results they did achieve, I would argue, are far from “failure.”

The Hungarian example provides plenty of fodder for both the critics and fans of the proposed Trump plan. The Hungarian policies proved that you cannot solve a fundamentally spiritual crisis with government subsidies, tax incentives, or state intervention. But they also proved that you could create the conditions in which families can more easily flourish, and that when you do, more people will choose to get married, stay married, and have children. At the very least, neutralizing the many incentives pushing people toward abortion or children into daycare should be reconsidered.

Share