Even famous and successful women can’t avoid the reality of trade-offs.

Earlier this month, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announced on Instagram that she is freezing her eggs. The 36-year-old congresswoman even gave herself an injection on camera. AOC told her followers that she would have to give herself another round of shots before her upcoming appearance on ABC’s “This Week.”

“I want you all to see that, because women can do anything,” she said. “And I think it’s badass that I’m gonna be, you know, giving myself shots in the green room, get my glam on, roll out, talk international events, domestic policy, elections, pop out, live my life, do my thing.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has different priorities. The 28-year-old recently had her second child, a girl named Viviana. On Wednesday, Leavitt said she was leaving her job to spend more time with her kids.

“Since returning to the White House after the birth of my daughter, I have felt in my heart that I cannot be the best mom my two young children deserve while devoting the constant time, energy and attention required of the White House Press Secretary,” she wrote on X.

These are two radically different approaches to motherhood. And these two women are representative of a much larger debate.

AOC is living out the dogma of modern feminism. She’s putting her career aspirations above having children. She’s using modern technology in an attempt to avoid biological realities that men don’t face. She is prioritizing her own independence. It later came out that AOC had split up with her former fiance.

What a contrast to Leavitt’s embrace of traditional values. She’s putting her children above her career. She’s embracing the biological reality that children change mothers. She’s prioritizing the needs of her children over her own independence, although she seems likely to remain engaged in some professional pursuits.

These two worldviews aren’t compatible. And libertarian passivity is a bad option. A society is eventually going to orient itself to one aim or the other. Which goal it aims toward will significantly shape government policy and the future of the country.

While the government shouldn’t force any woman to have a child, society should nudge young people towards Leavitt’s path. There are two reasons for this.

First, it’s better for women. As the Institute for Family Studies has detailed, moms are happier than women without children. This is because children are both a lot of work and a source of deep meaning and connection. In contrast, many women who spend years climbing the corporate ladder one day realize that they’re lonely. As many women have learned years too late, frozen eggs are no guarantee of a successful pregnancy either.

Teenage girls don’t know what it’s like to be 40 years old. Over the millennia, most women have eventually viewed motherhood as an indispensable part of being a woman. It is cruelty, not kindness, to deceive young women about this. Or to not let them know that female fertility declines significantly after a woman turns 30.

Second, the future of our country — the freedoms, culture and material prosperity so many take for granted — depends on American moms having kids. The more, the better.

Here’s a good way to judge the merits of an idea. Imagine what would happen if everyone did it. If every woman prioritized her career over children, the country would cease to exist as a recognizable entity as the years went on. If every woman got married and had multiple children in her 20s and prioritized raising them, many of the country’s most vexing social problems would decline precipitously.

If you have daughters or granddaughters, encourage them to imitate Leavitt, not AOC.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM