Yet, in the end, children are a collective resource, and their needs should take precedence in our national agenda.

I can't decide which is worse: the treatment of children as "collective resources" or the hubris of claiming that their needs (as interpreted by the authors of course) should trump all else in the supposed "national agenda."

A worse brew of collectivism and hubris will be hard to find on any day.

Update: I wonder whether the authors would feel okay if someone substituted the word"women" for" children" in that sentence. Would they be okay thinking of women as" collective resources" in particular? If so, then welcome to Gilead where women are, in Offred's words,"national resources."