Svetlana Bessarab, a member of the State Duma Committee on Labor, Social Policy and Veterans’ Affairs, argues against tying maternity capital to the mother’s age. During a conversation with a 360 TV channel, she weighed in on proposals to narrow eligibility for this support to women aged 25 to 30, framing such a cutoff as an uneven and potentially harmful limitation that would affect many families in diverse situations. She emphasized that motherhood and family planning are deeply personal matters, influenced by a wide range of social, economic, and personal factors that can vary significantly from one case to another.
In her view, selecting a single age band risks creating discrimination that does not reflect the realities of modern life. She pointed out that a great many women in their late teens and early twenties are pursuing higher education, advancing their careers, building partnerships, and making long-term plans for their families. The timing of childbirth is often shaped by education deadlines, career development, financial readiness, health considerations, and cultural circumstances. Bessarab reminded lawmakers that a one-size-fits-all policy could unjustly penalize capable women who choose to start families sooner or later than a prescribed age, regardless of their readiness or desire to have children.
She also noted that while there is a recognized norm in Russian legislation that supports young mothers who give birth between the ages of 18 and 25, the existing framework already provides both a lump-sum payment and the option to arrange housing assistance under maternity capital. The idea of linking ongoing aid to the exact age at birth would, in her assessment, blur the line between social protection and age-based discrimination. Such a link could undermine the fundamental purpose of maternity capital, which is to enable families to acquire stable housing and improve their living conditions, a goal that remains central to the program’s design and implementation.
According to Bessarab, the intent behind maternity capital has been clear since its inception: to support families in obtaining housing and to alleviate some of the financial pressures associated with raising children. She stressed that these funds should be accessible to eligible families regardless of how young or how old the mother is when the child arrives. The broader objective, she argued, is to create an environment where families can thrive, not to gatekeep benefits behind demographic criteria that do not account for individual circumstances. She urged policymakers to consider strengthening the program’s scope rather than constricting it with age-based limits, ensuring that families in need can rely on this critical form of support as they work toward stability and growth.
In the current discussion, several lawmakers have proposed restricting maternity capital to the first-born child based on the mother’s age, asserting that such measures could contribute to stabilizing or increasing birth rates. Proponents argue that focusing resources on specific age groups could help channel funds more effectively and address demographic trends. However, critics insist that birth rates are influenced by a complex mix of economic, social, and personal factors, and that age alone does not determine family formation or child-rearing readiness. They caution against policies that may inadvertently stigmatize or marginalize women, or that fail to account for the diverse ways families choose to grow. The debate remains unsettled, with experts and citizens alike calling for a balanced approach that respects individual choice while aiming to support family welfare and housing security.
Nina Ostanina, who chairs the State Duma Committee on Women, Family and Children, also commented on the proposal, urging caution and highlighting the potential social impact. She described the initiative as a dramatic shift that could narrow opportunities for women across different life paths and expressed concern about how such a policy would be received by society at large. The concerns center on fairness, the risk of unintended consequences for families with varied timelines, and the broader message conveyed about the value of motherhood at different life stages. Ostanina’s position reflects a broader call for measured policy design that protects vulnerable families while avoiding punitive age-based distinctions that could undermine gender equality and the stability of family life.