It’s only a matter of time before Elon Musk goes from the face of tech support to the poster boy for child support. The billionaire owner of X (formerly Twitter) is currently embroiled in some serious baby-mama drama with Ashley St. Clair, the conservative influencer who claims to be the mother of his 13th child.

St. Clair caused quite a stir late last week when she used the social media platform owned by Musk to announce she had his baby five months ago. She claimed she went public because a reporter was planning to do so — against her wishes — and ended her statement by asking the media to honor her privacy. The New York Post published an exclusive interview the next day about her “whirlwind romance” with the billionaire.

The belief that a man’s bank account can replace his presence in the home ignores a fundamental truth: Fatherhood is about more than money.

The relationship between St. Clair and Musk is a private matter, but the response to her announcement from conservatives says a lot about the state of pro-family discourse on the right.

Several congratulated St. Clair, 26, on her new baby. It’s easy to see why pro-life activists and influencers on the right would celebrate the birth of a new baby. Children are a blessing from God, regardless of the circumstances of their conception.

Acknowledging that reality is important in a society that determines the worth of babies by how wanted they are by their mothers. If the mom-to-be is excited to be pregnant, the baby is a “bundle of joy.” But if she doesn’t want the child, then the same life at the same stage of development is called a “clump of cells” that can be destroyed at the nearest abortion clinic.

No one disputes the inherent worth of every child. But when conservatives congratulate adults who intentionally create broken homes, they undermine their pro-family bona fides.

It is difficult for an influential figure to publicly celebrate a child in this circumstance without appearing to endorse the parents’ decisions. Consider this: If a Republican politician known for his strong pro-life stance announced that he was expecting a baby with his mistress and planned to divorce his wife of 25 years, how would his conservative allies react? It’s unlikely they would take to social media to offer their blessings.

The response to St. Clair highlights a stark contrast between what many conservatives claim to support — intact, two-parent families raising children — and the culture they reinforce through their public affirmations.

Musk has had more than a dozen children with four women. He’s previously stated that “a collapsing birth rate is the biggest danger civilization faces by far.” He is a pro-natalist with the mindset of Malcolm X. He wants more babies to be born — by any means necessary.

His views align closely with pro-life Christians, the most socially conservative faction of the Republican Party. But a pro-baby movement that ignores the benefits of a married mother and father is hardly “conservative.”

Stripping marriage from the family formation equation paves the way for commercial surrogacy, unregulated IVF, and same-sex adoption. This shift has consequences.

Today, 40% of American children are born to unmarried parents, and one in four grows up in a single-mother household. For years, conservatives have lamented the breakdown of the black family, where 70% of children are born out of wedlock. They have correctly linked this crisis to the cycle of multigenerational poverty that plagues many inner cities.

Their analysis has never been limited to economic security. Every time a multimillionaire entertainer like Nick Cannon or an athlete like Cam Newton announces a new baby, social commentators predictably criticize their lack of commitment, the consequences of broken homes, and the argument that children need presence over presents.

Yet, when the father in question is a billionaire with ties to the most beloved Republican president since Ronald Reagan, some right-wing commentators suddenly apply a different set of rules.

One conservative commentator made his standard crystal clear:

Pretending that what happens far too often in the black community — getting knocked up by brokeys and bringing into the world children that have to be raised on the taxpayer dime — is similar to procreating with a billionaire is intellectually dishonest.

I responded online, pointing out that his argument only makes sense if a father’s primary role in the home is financial. This assumption has driven left-wing thinking for decades.

Progressives often respond to discussions about family structure by calling for more social spending. To many liberals, a father in the home is nice to have but not necessary, as long as government programs support low-income single mothers.

Apparently, some on the right share the left’s low view of men. Only partisan tribalism could justify the belief that a child is better off with a wealthy, conservative-friendly father who won’t acknowledge them, sees them sporadically, and refuses to commit to their mother.

Children need more than financial support. They thrive with a father’s affection, protection, direction, and correction — things a man juggling a dozen children across multiple states cannot possibly provide consistently.

The belief that a man’s bank account can replace his presence in the home ignores a fundamental truth: Fatherhood is about more than money.

Marriage establishes the duties and obligations husbands and wives have toward each other — not just their financial responsibilities to a child. Men need women, women need men, and children need both parents. The best way to meet those needs is within a loving, low-conflict household where a married mother and father are committed to each other and their children.

Despite what some conservatives may believe, a child raised in that environment is far more privileged than one with a wealthy but absent dad.