The Government Does Not Belong in the Bedroom

Pierre Trudeau famously said, “There’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.” He said it in 1967 while discussing reforms to laws governing private sexual conduct between consenting adults. The context was different, but the principle remains powerful: deeply personal decisions about sex, family, reproduction, and bodily autonomy should not be dictated by the state.

And yet, around the world, governments are increasingly anxious about declining birth rates.

The concern is not hard to understand. Aging populations, shrinking workforces, pension pressures, and slower economic growth all raise legitimate policy questions. But somewhere between identifying a demographic trend and responding to it, the conversation too often shifts from supporting people to pressuring them. That is where we should all become uncomfortable.

China is a striking example.

For decades, China enforced its one-child policy, limiting many families’ reproductive choices in the name of population control. That policy was in place from 1980 to 2015. Now, facing the opposite problem, China has moved in the other direction, introducing policies designed to encourage people to have more children. Reuters reported that China plans to cover out-of-pocket childbirth-related expenses by 2026, including prenatal checkups, as part of broader efforts to encourage births. The country has also used maternity leave, financial incentives, tax benefits, housing subsidies, childcare subsidies, and free preschool education as part of its pronatalist strategy.

But the results have not followed the government’s plans.

The Straits Times reported that China had 9.54 million births in 2024, about half the number recorded in 2016, while the country’s population had shrunk for three consecutive years. More recently, The Guardian reported that China’s population fell for a fourth consecutive year in 2025, with registered births dropping to 7.92 million — the lowest level since records began in 1949.

The issue is not simply that people have failed to respond to incentives. It is that governments often misunderstand what they are asking.

Having a child is not like buying an electric vehicle, installing a heat pump, or opening a registered savings account. A tax credit may influence some economic decisions. It may even help make parenting more financially manageable. But it cannot erase the lifelong physical, emotional, financial, professional, and social consequences of becoming a parent.

For women in particular, the burden of pronatalist policy is rarely neutral.

When governments say “people should have more babies,” the pressure lands disproportionately on women’s bodies, women’s careers, women’s time, and women’s freedom. It is women who are more likely to experience pregnancy, childbirth, health risks, career disruption, caregiving expectations, and the social judgment that comes with either having children “incorrectly” or not having them at all.

That is why this issue matters to Child-Free Women in the Workplace.

Child-free women are already familiar with the assumptions. We are asked why we do not have children. We are told we will change our minds. We are treated as though our lives are less full, our time is more available, and our choices are open for public discussion. For women who are child-free by circumstance - those who wanted children but could not have them, have not had them, or are still navigating grief or uncertainty - pronatalist messaging can be especially painful. It turns a deeply personal reality into a public policy failure.

And for women who are child-free by choice, it sends a different but equally troubling message: your decision is not socially useful.

That message is wrong.

Women do not owe the economy children. Women do not owe the labour market children. Women do not owe the pension system children. Women do not owe the state children.

If governments are worried about declining birth rates, the answer is not to shame, pressure, or manipulate people into reproducing. The answer is to build societies where people who want children can actually afford to have them, care for them, and raise them with dignity.

That means affordable housing. Accessible childcare. Meaningful parental leave. Healthcare. Fertility support. Workplace flexibility. Pay equity. Protection from pregnancy and caregiving discrimination. Support for single parents. Support for children with disabilities. Mental health resources. Safe communities. Food security. Education.

In other words, if the state wants to talk about children, it should start by supporting the children and families who already exist.

This is where many pronatalist conversations become hollow. Governments speak about the economic need for more babies but fail to provide the social infrastructure required to support those babies once they arrive. They worry about future workers but underinvest in present children. They want births, but not necessarily the long-term public responsibility that comes with them.

Statistics Canada has reported that fertility intentions are shaped by practical realities, including affordability, work-life balance, housing, childcare, and parental leave. In 2022, only 44% of Canadians aged 15 to 49 believed they could afford to have a child in the next three years, while 37% did not. That should tell us something important: people are not making decisions about children in a vacuum. They are looking at the world around them and asking whether it is possible, sustainable, or desirable to bring a child into it.

Some will say that declining birth rates are an economic crisis.

Maybe they are.

But reproductive autonomy is not the problem to be solved.

If an economy depends on women having children they do not want, cannot afford, or cannot safely raise, then the problem is not women. The problem is the economy.

A better policy conversation would begin with respect. Respect for parents. Respect for non-parents. Respect for those who desperately wanted children. Respect for those who never did. Respect for those who are undecided. Respect for those whose lives do not fit neatly into a demographic model.

The decision to have children is personal. It is complex. It is emotional. It is medical. It is financial. It is relational. It is sometimes joyful, sometimes heartbreaking, and sometimes very clear.

It is not a patriotic duty.

It is not an economic development strategy.

And it is certainly not the government’s business to compel, pressure, or shame people into parenthood.

The state may have a role in supporting families. It may have a role in reducing barriers for those who want children. It may have a role in making sure every child has access to the supports they need to thrive.

But the state does not belong in the bedroom.

And it does not belong in the private reproductive choices of women.

Alysia Christiaen

Creator of CFW² and a child-free woman.