"No Child Has Two Moms": Biological Parenthood and the Rights of Children
Source: Katy Faust. "‘No Child Has Two Moms’ Is Controversial In An Anti-Child Society." August 11, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that every child has one biological mother and one biological father, and that laws, schools, entertainment, and fertility clinics have worked together over the past decade to erase this basic fact by treating parents as interchangeable regardless of biology. She claims this cultural shift causes real pain to children who lose a biological parent, and that a billboard stating this obvious truth was wrongly attacked as hateful when it was simply acknowledging children's suffering.
Conclusion
Every child has a fundamental right to their biological mother and father, and cultural, legal, and technological efforts to redefine parenthood as a matter of adult choice rather than biology harm children by denying and stigmatizing this reality.
Premises
- Every child biologically originates from one mother and one father; this is a universal fact of human existence recognized across cultures and history until very recently.
- Since Obergefell v. Hodges, U.S. law (e.g., Pavan v. Smith, the revised Uniform Parentage Act) has increasingly redefined parenthood as a legal status assignable by the state rather than a biological relationship, replacing 'mother' and 'father' with sexless terms.
- Educational institutions (e.g., NEA guidance) have shifted from acknowledging mothers and fathers as the ordinary family framework to discouraging such language, teaching children to view parents as interchangeable.
- Entertainment media has increased portrayals of same-sex parented families, reinforcing the message that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.
- The fertility industry profits by helping adults obtain biological connections to children while children conceived this way often lose a biological parent.
- Testimonies from donor-conceived children and children raised by same-sex couples reveal persistent longing, confusion, and guilt over the absence of a biological parent, despite being told such feelings are unwarranted.
- Telling children the truth about their biological origins is not cruel; rather, denying this truth or shaming children for feeling loss is the actual cruelty.
Assumptions
- Biological connection to both a mother and father is a necessary component of child wellbeing, not merely a preference.
- The emotional testimonies of some children raised by same-sex parents can be generalized to represent the experience of most or all such children.
- Legal, educational, and media changes described are causally connected and represent a coordinated ideological effort rather than independent responses to social change.
- Acknowledging children's biological origins is incompatible with also affirming the legitimacy of same-sex parenting relationships.
- The primary purpose of parenthood recognition in law and culture should be to reflect biological origin rather than caregiving relationships or family stability.