California’s Child Trafficking Agenda: Is Virginia Next?
California recently joined seven other states (Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York) when it enacted a law mandating that specific health care insurers cover in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments for couples experiencing infertility. This law was paired with another piece of legislation that redefined infertility to include same-sex couples and single individuals. While proponents argue this promotes inclusivity, it raises serious ethical concerns about the commodification of children and the erosion of the traditional family structure.
Historically, California has been a bellwether for where the left is headed and what they will soon push in moderate and conservative states across the nation. In this instance, the state has chosen to disconnect biology from reality, thereby commodifying children and trivializing the genuine struggles of real families.
However, progressive lawmakers in Virginia have also been pushing the limits on traditional family structures. HB 1979 (2019) expanded surrogacy agreements beyond nuclear families, while HB 560 (2024) sought to mandate private insurers to cover IVF treatments for people, including same-sex couples and single individuals, stealing the page from California’s playbook. This year, Del. Rip Sullivan (D-Mclean) introduced HB 110 that removed the prohibition against payment to third party entities that help facilitate surrogacy transactions, which leads to the commercialization and profit-driven commodification of surrogacy. These bills reflect the growing progressive influence in Virginia’s General Assembly, mirroring California's push to reshape family norms.
It is clear that, fundamentally, the only combination capable of naturally producing children is a man and a woman. For most of human history, dating back to the time of Abraham, infertility was understood as a heavy burden borne by many heterosexual married couples. While some heterosexual couples may face infertility, no single individual has ever reproduced alone, nor has any same-sex couple ever been able to conceive naturally. These biological truths are unchangeable, regardless of ideological redefinitions.
At the core of this movement to radically redefine the purpose and principles of child-rearing lies a troubling commodification of children and an assault on the nuclear family. Human lives are being reduced to mere products—bought, sold, and used as accessories to satisfy social trends and selfish desires. Meanwhile, the God-designed nuclear family is being mocked and discarded in favor of radical hyper-individualism.
With laws like California’s, children will be bought and sold, with state-mandated funding, into intentionally motherless or fatherless homes. Same-sex couples and single individuals are now being empowered and supported in a quest that ultimately traffics children. Children need both a mother and a father, and California's latest move seeks to deprive them of that fundamental right.
There are circumstances where children are raised without either a mother or a father due to death, divorce, or abandonment. These are tragic situations that often result in setbacks for the children involved, and we should strive to prevent them whenever possible. Allowing single individuals or same-sex couples to intentionally bring children into the world, fully aware that they are depriving them of either a mother or a father, is inherently wrong. It reveals the selfish motives behind those who choose to engage in this practice.
In addition to enabling this injustice, the state of California is now mandating that insurance companies fund the trafficking of human beings. This is not about adopting children who are already parentless; rather, it involves the intentional creation of children for profit, aimed at satisfying the desires of buyers. This practice commodifies children, trivializes the genuine challenges of infertility, undermines the nuclear family, and coerces insurance companies into supporting actions that violate their conscience.
As we witness this troubling trend, it is essential to recognize the potential consequences for society. The redefinition of family undermines the very foundation of what it means to nurture and raise a child. We must advocate for policies that prioritize the well-being of children and uphold the values that have historically supported family structures. The cautionary tale of California should inspire vigilance across the country to stand up against this state-sponsored trafficking of children and serve as a reminder that God’s ways are always better.
