That is the actual title of a New York Times profile (gift link) on Heritage Foundation Senior Policy Analyst Emma Waters -- an ideologue in the mold of Phyllis Schlafly, who also famously traveled around the country telling other women to stay home.

It's not the first. As writer Jessica Shortall pointed out on Bluesky yesterday, Waters has been the subject of at least two other New York Times profiles on her quest to replace standard fertility treatments with some bullshit called "restorative reproductive medicine" and downplaying her desire to force other women back to the 1950s: "White House Assesses Ways to Persuade Women to Have More Children," published in April of 2025, and "As Trump Weighs I.V.F., Republicans Back New 'Natural' Approach to Infertility," published in August of 2025.

I guess they figured that after a whole year we'd need a reminder.

Waters and other advocates try to present "restorative reproductive medicine" as some kind of "all natural" approach that takes into account infertility's "root causes." As per the August 2025 article, "[p]hysicians who specialize in the approach analyze patients' diet and exercise habits, while helping them "chart" their menstrual cycles, a process that can help expose certain reproductive health conditions, like endometriosis, that may lead to infertility." (Nota bene: "restorative reproductive medicine is not a recognized medical specialization.)

. . .

I, personally, would like to point out that we do not even have enough ob-gyns for all of the people currently giving birth, particularly in areas run by people who are ideologically aligned with Emma Waters. Areas where it is now even more dangerous to give birth than it used to be, thanks to the anti-abortion laws that force doctors to wait until the last possible minute before providing care to patients in crisis. Also, there are 330,000 to 345,000 children living in foster care in the United States and 10 to 11 million living in poverty. Maybe we should consider taking care of the pregnant people and children we have before we start talking about any "birth rate crisis." Certainly before we start exploring "rolling back the last century of cultural progress" as a viable solution.