A proposal by Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey to fund statewide postpartum home visits is drawing sharp criticism from conservative commentators, who argue the voluntary program could become a vehicle for government intrusion into families’ private lives.
Writing for American Thinker, Eric Utter characterized the initiative as a step toward a nanny state, saying the governor is seeking millions of dollars to fund the effort. The program, as described in the editorial, would offer free home visits to every new parent, ostensibly to screen for mental health issues.
The question Utter raises is what else those visits might entail. “Besides depression, what might a typically ‘progressive’ government ‘visitor’ screen for?” he wrote, listing a MAGA hat on a table, a cross on a wall, or Lee Greenwood music playing in the background as hypothetical things a visitor might note. He also predicted they would be looking for firearms.
Utter’s commentary echoes a broader skepticism among some conservatives about government programs that begin as voluntary or temporary but, in their view, tend to become mandatory and permanent over time. He cited no specific evidence that the Massachusetts program would follow that path, but he argued that “no problem has ever been made better by inviting government bureaucrats into our homes.”
A Personal Anecdote Raises Concerns
Utter’s piece leaned on reporting from Townhall writer Amy Curtis, who described her own experience with a similar program after the birth of her second child. According to Utter’s summary of Curtis’s account, a government employee arrived unannounced to check on her. Tired, sore from delivery, and home alone with a toddler and a newborn, Curtis was too surprised to say no, according to the account. Looking back, she described the visit as “creepy,” noting the woman walked around the entire apartment even though the baby was sleeping in the living room.
That anecdote formed the basis for Utter’s suggestion that the “Welcome Family” program would be better branded as the “WTF?” program.
The source of these concerns — the American Thinker editorial — did not include a response from Governor Healey’s office or from proponents of the program. It also did not detail the specific screening criteria the program would use, beyond the stated goal of addressing mental health issues.
Program Details Remain Sparse in Critique
What is known, based on the editorial, is that the program would be voluntary and free to new parents. The governor is seeking funding for it. Neither of those details is in dispute in Utter’s piece; his objection is rooted in a broader distrust of government motives and a belief that such programs inevitably expand their reach.
It is a familiar argument in conservative media: the camel’s nose under the tent. Utter asked how many other government programs “began by being ‘voluntary’ or temporary and ended up becoming mandatory and permanent.” He answered his own question with “a great many,” though he did not name specific examples.
He also invoked the well-known line often attributed to Ronald Reagan: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” In Utter’s framing, the phrase is a warning, not a reassurance.
Utter went further, suggesting that the program could lead to child removal. “Quicker than Michael Moore can snap up a jelly donut, the baby in that home would be gone with the proverbial wind,” he wrote, in a passage that mixes humor with an alarming hypothetical about child protective services taking a newborn from a home based on the parent’s reading material or political affiliation.
That is a significant claim, and it is offered as speculation rather than as something the Massachusetts program has proposed or done. The editorial does not cite any instance of a child being removed because of a postpartum home visit. Instead, it extrapolates from a general distrust of government and from Curtis’s anecdote about an unannounced visit that made her uncomfortable.
The Broader Cultural Argument
Toward the end of the piece, Utter shifted from the specific program to a larger cultural critique. He argued that a “better and more effective way to address the issue of growing violence being visited on babies and toddlers” would be to “truthfully face the devastating degradation of our culture, mores, and morals brought about by ‘progressive’ big government policies themselves.”
He did not elaborate on what specifically he meant by that degradation, nor did he provide data on violence against babies and toddlers. The assertion functioned more as a closing argument about the root causes of social problems than as a policy proposal.
The editorial ended with a pitch for donations to American Thinker, framing the outlet’s work as essential to free speech and the republic.
What’s Missing From the Critique
For readers trying to evaluate the merits of the Massachusetts proposal, the American Thinker piece leaves several questions unanswered. It does not specify how many visits would be offered, who would conduct them, what training they would receive, or what happens if a parent declines. It does not say whether the program has been enacted or is still under consideration in the legislature. It does not quote any state official defending the program.
The piece is an opinion column, not a news report, and it is written in a polemical style. But it captures a sentiment that could shape the debate in Massachusetts and beyond: that even voluntary, well-intentioned programs can feel intrusive, especially to parents who are exhausted, vulnerable, and wary of government involvement in their families.
Supporters of home-visiting programs typically argue they are a lifeline for new parents, connecting them with resources and support during a stressful transition. Critics like Utter see them as the first step down a slippery slope. The truth likely lies somewhere in between, and the details of the Massachusetts program — if and when it is funded and implemented — will determine which vision prevails.
For now, the American Thinker editorial serves as a window into how one corner of the conservative media ecosystem is framing the proposal: as “Big Brother” knocking on the door, just after you’ve brought a newborn home.
Source: www.americanthinker.com — https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/09/gave-birth-in-massachusetts-expect-a-visit-from-big-brother/