Breakpoint

How HRC’s Corporate “Equality” Index Harms Children

Written by Breakpoint | Apr 8, 2026 10:00:00 AM

Author: John Stonestreet and Katy Faust

One of the most effective tools to shape culture in recent years has been the Corporate Equality Index from the Human Rights Campaign. Today on Breakpoint, Katy Faust of Them Before Us explains: 

You may be surprised to learn that when you picked up that matte red lipstick at Ulta, you were helping fund cross-sex hormones for gender-confused kids. Or that when you ordered that chicken al pastor with extra guac at Chipotle, you were subsidizing IVF and surrogacy, which is intentionally creating children who will be separated from their mother or father. 

That may sound extreme, but according to a new report published by my non-profit Them Before Us, there’s often a pipeline between our daily purchases and child harm. This harm is thanks to The Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index. 

Launched in 2002, the CEI presents itself as a benchmarking tool, rating companies on how well they implement “LGBTQ inclusion” policies in the workplace. It promises to help businesses create fair, equitable environments for employees. But far more than shaping office culture, it has quietly reshaped how corporations think about children, families, and even the human body itself. And whether we realize it or not, most of us are participating. 

Companies don’t just earn points for preventing workplace discrimination. They’re rewarded for adopting a slate of policies that reach far beyond the office into medicine, reproduction, and family structure. That includes offering “family formation” benefits like IVF, surrogacy, and gamete donation. It includes covering gender-transition procedures. And it includes financially supporting organizations that promote these practices, even among minors.  

In other words, a high score isn’t just about tolerance. It’s about aligning with a specific vision of what it means to be human. And that vision has consequences, especially for children. This isn’t just about corporate policy. It’s about anthropology. What does it mean to be human? What is a child? Where do children come from? And what do they need? 

For most of human history, these answers were obvious. Children come from a man and a woman. Those two adults are their literal biological origins. And children are most likely to flourish when raised, whenever possible, by the mother and father who brought them into the world. 

But our culture is replacing that reality with something else. Children are redefined—not as persons with origins, but as products of intention. Not as gifts to be received, but as outcomes to be achieved. And when that happens, the logic of the marketplace begins to take over. 

Think about what it means when companies are incentivized to subsidize IVF and surrogacy. IVF encourages the mass production of embryos so they can be eugenically screened for fitness or sex or other characteristics. It also allows for the use of third parties severing children from one or both biological parents. Surrogacy adds an additional layer of child loss and risk, substituting contracts for relationships. 

Or consider the push for “inclusive” health coverage that covers irreversible medical interventions. On minors, it harms their physical bodies. On adults, it often steals a child's father by facilitating his presentation as a “mother.” These corporate policies aren’t neutral. They reflect a belief that the body itself—a child's own or those of his or her parents—is optional. It’s something to be reshaped according to identity rather than received as a given. And the kids are the constant losers. 

A Christian worldview offers the kind of clarity people need right now. Human beings are creatures, not the Creator. We are embodied souls, male and female, designed for relationship—with God, and with one another. Children are not lifestyle accessories or subjects of irreversible medical experimentation. They are image-bearers and unable to protect themselves from corporations like Coca-Cola or Procter & Gamble. 

Throughout history, the Church has defended children against a variety of cultural threats. Whether female genital mutilation, abortion, infanticide, or Chinese foot binding, God’s people have stood athwart all manner of child victimization. Now we have a chance to join that great cloud of witnesses by doing something as simple as purchasing mulch from Lowe's rather than Home Depot. 

To be clear, none of this means that all employees or executives are acting with malicious intent. Many are unaware of what their “perfect score” produces and are motivated by compassion, inclusion, or a desire to do what’s right. But good intentions aren’t enough.  

So, what should we do? First, see clearly. Systems like the CEI aren’t neutral. Christians should critique their comprehensive moral vision, not accept it. Second, we should think carefully about where we shop, the companies we support, and how we engage as employees or shareholders. Finally, we need to speak truthfully and compassionately. Not with outrage for its own sake, but with a commitment to defend those who cannot defend themselves. 

In the end, the question is not whether we value equality. It’s whether our vision of equality still has room for children.