The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act tests the integrity of the pro-life movement

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would ensure that all pregnant workers can get minor workplace adjustments they need to continue working during pregnancy.”

This is not a rare problem for women who cannot afford to lose their income. The National Women’s Law Center has compiled a six-page list (.pdf) of real cases involving real women all over the U.S.

Jill Filipovic has a sampling of those cases here. Go read them.

These women are being confronted with an awful set of choices: Lose your job or terminate your pregnancy or take a big health risk.

None of those choices is good or fair. No one should be forced to choose among them. I don’t want anyone to lose their job, and I don’t want anyone compelled to terminate a pregnancy, and I don’t want the health of pregnant women or their future children put at risk.

Anti-abortion Christians in America are rightly outraged by reports of compulsory abortion in places like China. We have compulsory abortion here in America too — it’s just compelled by market forces and the private sector rather than by the state.

Like about a third of my fellow evangelicals, I’m pro-choice. That means I don’t want anyone — the government or some corporate employer or some evangelical institution — dictating to women what they must choose. So I support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

The more vocal two-thirds of my fellow evangelicals who identify as “pro-life” ought to support it too.

This is yet another one of those places where such pro-lifers get to show the rest of us whether or not they are who they claim to be. If they are really motivated by the value they place on the lives and health of the unborn, then we ought to see them lining up to support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

But if they are really motivated by an anti-feminist impulse to control and punish women, then we should not expect to see them supporting the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Or if abortion politics are really just a convenient tool for getting the “social conservative” rubes to support anti-worker and anti-union policies, then likewise, we shouldn’t expect to see the “pro-life” claim translate into support for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

This legislation matters first of all because it would protect the rights of pregnant workers. But it also matters because it tests the integrity of the pro-life movement. So far, that movement is failing that test.

"Can you please explain how you separate evangelising from politics?"

Sunday favorites
"Many people know each other in lots of places.When you say "everyone is welcome" does ..."

Sunday favorites
"Or decide if they've just gone full Russia and can't even be bothered coming up ..."

Sunday favorites

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • One thing that would probably help is changing the unemployment insurance rules to say that pregnancy is an allowable condition to claim for UI benefits.

  • Hilary

    Repeating what I had said earlier, a company that allows their employee’s some flexability to deal with life will have much more loyal employees and better moral.  A company, even a very small one, that accomodates a pregnant woman would have her come back with even more reason to work hard, to repay her part of a social contract that her work is valuable enough for the company to help her when she needed minor, reasonable accomodation for a limited time. 

    Especially at the more ‘desposable’ jobs with people more on the edge of one paycheck away from disaster, reasonable help that recognized a pregnant woman as a human being not a thowaway piece of human shaped equipment would be an incredible gain in moral, both for her and for the other workers who saw that they would also be treated well in the same condition (if female) or respecting that their mothers/sisters/wives/female friends would be reasonalbly well treated.  My wife Penny worked 25-35 hours a week ‘part time’ quote as a cashier for a crafting chain store (not hobby lobby).  The bosses that respected her, respected her time and work, and allowed her to sit on a tall stool that we bought out of pocket when she badly twisted her ankle so she could keep cashiering won her loyalty and a lot of hard work.  The bosses who didn’t see her as human and complained about the chair, and a cane when she needed it, got a competant minimun of work.

    This type of legislation should be a no brainer.  It shouldn’t even be needed.  If a boss/supervisor/employer was a human being enough to let a preganant woman swap duties with a non-pregant employee so she could still work, there would be no need for any outside agency to step in and say, “Don’t be an asshole, and don’t be a stupid one at that.”  I had no difficulty making chemical buffers that were more toxic or taking raw material that was tetragenic for a pregnant coworker, knowing that if I ever needed the same help I could get it.  Reciprical, win-win empathy is good for moral which is good for a bottem line.  No. Fucking. Duh.

    The best part of my OSHA standards for work?  I get to wear jeans, a t-shirt, and closed toes sneakers every day for work.  No makeup, no panty hose, no corperate casual, no busness three piece suits, none of that crap.  Just jeans, t-shirt, sneakers, a pony tail, and a lab coat.  And cool lab glasses, and my own personal set of pipettes.  Protein purification is where it’s at, and colummn chromatography rocks my world.  So now you guys all know protein science is my day job, and Jewish theology my hobby.  And I have three cats, and a wife.

  • Hilary

    Good for morale.  Spelling is not one of my hobbies. 

  • Be careful, that poster’s ears and eyes shut down whenever they see an ‘insulting tone’. Because obviously, when you’re arguing jackass things like a jackass at great length, everyone should be careful at all times to make sure they don’t slip up and call you a jackass.

  • P J Evans

     Someone with severe morning sickness or prescribed bed rest is effectively disabled, because they can’t work in the usual way. (I had a boss who got hit with that. She couldn’t work for about half of the pregnancy.)

  • AnonymousSam

    Oh, I know. I was making a joke based on the lines quoted in that post, about safety equipment only being effective most of the time and this being an era of readily available birth control.

    Say we consider birth control to be a form of safety equipment. Employers (who don’t suck) now effectively provide birth control via the ACA. If an employee becomes pregnant without prior intent, then worker’s compensation would be a possible outcome. Either that or the employee could sue and claim it was due to a lapse in birth control coverage caused by some fault of the employer…

    In fact, even better, let’s blame it on the sucky employers instead. The ones who don’t want women to have any access to contraception on their watch, even through the alternative access proposal (that’s where an employer can opt out of providing contraception, but when that happens, their employees are granted coverage under a second plan at no extra cost — it’s a sign of true misogyny that this proposal got just as much hate and religious freedom violation claims as the original).

    If it is the employee’s desire not to become pregnant and they depend on contraception for this to remain the case, and the only reason they become pregnant is because of their employer… why couldn’t they sue?

  • AnonaMiss

    When the one person who has given you a chance in a thread takes an “insulting tone” with you after you post again, it would behoove you to do some self-examination.

  • Kirala

    I’d like to point out that allowing companies to make statistically-reasonable self-interest policies results in a lot of needless costs as well. Fortunately, my first employers were decent people who absorbed the cost despite being a struggling startup, but they were shocked to find that my health insurance would cost them double that of their male employees because I was a young woman and therefore prone to pregnancy. Never mind that I was a thoroughly single young woman with no plans of sex until marriage (and no desirable partners on the horizon to test those plans – not to mention intimacy issues). Allowing the insurance companies to work in their own self-interest did nothing to genuinely help them (apart from increasing their profits, presumably) and genuinely hurt my employers. Because they refused to pass the cost along and hurt me instead, which they legally could have managed.

    I dislike being taxed for having ovaries, especially since, if we’re arguing that pregnancy is a choice, it’s as much the choice of the person with the testes who’s getting off scot-free.

  • fraser

     Actually it’s not that far off from ADA rules: Employers must make reasonable adjustments if it will help a disabled employee do a job, and can’t discriminate against them in hiring. And there’s no comparable benefit for the able, so it’s unequal too.
    And this has nothing to do with the current legislation, really. “She’s going to quit and get pregnant” was a standard argument against hiring women 60 years ago too.

  • fraser

    I wonder if Guest Poster has any reservations about conscience clauses, which obviously enable a pharmacist or nurse to shirk their duties and push them off on someone else?

  • Wednesday

    Here’s why the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act shouldn’t actually discourage employers from hiring women: statistically speaking, between two equally-qualified, equally-experienced workers in the same field, one a woman and one a man*, the woman will be paid less**. In other words, women are cheaper to employ from a payroll standpoint. Various studies have shown this in different fields; offhand I can dig up a citation showing this for academia as a whole that includes controlling for time taken off to have kids, and one for a lab tech job showing identical applicants will be viewed as less competent and offered a lower starting salary if they have a female-gendered name.

    So women are already, statistically speaking, cheaper to employ than men for equal qualifications and equal quality work. The PWFA just makes people who use their uterii for reproduction more expensive to employ than women who do not use their uterii or do not have one. It does not necessarily make them more expensive to employ than men; without more specific data we cannot know whether the added cost of PWFA compliance outweighs the gender paycheck difference.

    *Using inherently binary terms not because genderqueer people don’t exist, but because the studies I’ve seen only compare men and women, and don’t discuss what those categories mean.

    **Anyone who replies to this by saying “this is just because women don’t negotiate” will be eye-rolled and condescended at and treated with exactly the same impatience and disdain that I was when I, a cis woman, attempted to negotiate a job offer.

  • Beroli

    But you ask why I spend time talking about the barriers, rather than just shouting ‘equality’ all the time?

    Mainly, I’d ask why you didn’t start out with “These are potential solutions” rather than, “The first step is that all of you admit that it’s unacceptable that employers have to deal unprofitably with pregnant employees.” If I believed for a minute the answer would be anything other than “because I wouldn’t have brought up the solutions at all if I hadn’t gotten thrashed so hard for pushing for sympathy for employers who lose profits due to pregnant employees.” Which I don’t.

  • Carstonio

    “this is just because women don’t negotiate”

    Eye-rolling and condescension are exactly the right reactions to that. I have the same reaction to the very common claim that disparities in pay and advancement are mostly about women “putting their families first.” All parents make sacrifices for their children, and find balances between work life and home life, yet these are assumed to affect only mothers. The people who make that argument should just come out and admit that they want mothers to stay home.

  • MaryKaye

    I was for a decade or so a very small employer (embedded within a much bigger one, but my three employees were in fact paid by me, off my grants).  One of my employees did in fact get pregnant, twice, during that time.

    I count myself lucky, actually.  She was brilliant and I couldn’t really afford her on what I was able to pay (NIH caps my pay scales at about 2/3 what industry offers).  But I could say, “Take as much time as you need, work flex, work from home, leave if you have an emergency” and that got me an excellent employee for a decade.  (I can verify she could have made a lot more, because when my grants ran out she took a job in industry, and now she is making a LOT more.)

    Also when the black mold appeared on the lab ceiling and Building Services wanted to ignore it, I got to call them and say “I have a PREGNANT employee, get your butts down here” which worked beautifully.  (They came in, took off the tiles, swore and got protective gear before continuing–it was actually something quite dangerous.)

    If you value these people as people, you can find ways to deal.  We do not need to protect employers’ rights to not value their employees as people.  It’s bad for everyone.  (Even the employer.  My employee was  made some nice offers during that decade from businesses that presumably really wanted her, but they didn’t get her because they were not as willing to accomodate as I was.)

  • The_L1985

     When I was still hardcore pro-life, I honestly didn’t understand that there weren’t already programs in place to make sure that everyone who wanted kids could have them.  I also didn’t understand how strong the human sex drive is, or that it was possible for married people NOT to afford or want children.

    I honestly thought that the only reason anybody would want abortion to be legal was because they looked down on motherhood.  I had never seen contradicting evidence, and once I did, I went pro-choice because I don’t like being lied to by people who claim to be protecting children.

  • The_L1985

     And why wouldn’t the fathers of new babies want time off?  If nothing else, the new father is generally the one who drives that new mother to the hospital in the first place, and childbirth can take several days.

    And if you don’t think that a newborn’s crying is just as likely to wake up Dad as Mom, then you have no idea how noise works at all.

  • fraser

     It’s been argued elsewhere that if a business wants to act ethically, it can always find ways to justify that as a smart financial move.

  • The_L1985

     It is very clear to me that either:

    1. You are male;

    2. You are completely unaware of just how much of the economy has been bought out by a small handful of extremely wealthy corporations, who have, in turn, made it prohibitively difficult to run your own small business; or

    3. Both of the above.

    Otherwise you wouldn’t make such horrible arguments.

  • Si

     The false idea that anything that is a “choice” does not deserve accommodations by the state is one that drives me up the wall.

    We have accommodations for choice written into the Constitution. It’s called freedom of conscience, folks.

    It goes like this: I’m a Jew. While I was born into the religion, there’s nothing stopping me from converting out of it. It’s my choice to remain a Jew. And yet the government is bound to accommodate my choice, and the majority of conservative thinkers would agree that’s right and fair, and that it would be bad and wrong for the state to penalize me for my choice of religion.

    This is why I heave a mighty sigh whenever the culture-war question of sexuality as innate or as a “lifestyle choice” comes up. It doesn’t matter, people. The civil rights struggles of the last century emphasized that a person should not be condemned for an attribute he or she has not chosen, ie, the color of their skin. But that is not the only model of civil rights, and we Americans are bound to fight oppression of those who chose their difference as a matter of conscience, as much as we fight the oppression of those who were born to their difference.

    We hold that people have a right to freely choose their religion and their religious expression (or to have none).

    I think the right to choose your family and to choose the form that family takes is equally sacred and inalienable. That’s why I’m pro-marriage equality and why I’m pro-choice.

  • smrnda

    I think the show is just pro big business propaganda. I’m sure after a few weeks, the policies return to ‘business as usual.’ It also exaggerates the impact of employers’ sense of noblesse oblige, and obscures the fact that improvements for workers came from workers agitating, not because some would-be scrooge had a change of heart.

  • Si

    When concern trolls turn up, we all find ourselves arguing points that have been universally agreed upon since at least the last century. Today’s edition: Why Decent Accommodations For Workers Actually Helps Society.

    The one nice thing about rehashing these already-won battles is as an exercise to examine the sound principles behind them. For that, we thank you, concern troll.

    Here’s my go: First, as someone already pointed out, these rules exempt very small businesses, so your “john and sally” example is rubbish. Second: there is a greater good being served that benefits the employer as well as the employee, and the benefit is NOT LIVING IN A WORLD WHERE PEOPLE ARE EXPLOITED and discriminated against, the world that Fred would call “Potterville.” Potterville is the world Dickens lived in, the world of prisons and workhouses. Potterville is the company town. Potterville is the demonic mill. Potterville is the favela. Potterville sucks. No one wants to live there. Even the rich in their walled citadels don’t want to live there.

    So when employers complain about having to pay for an employee’s pregnancy leave, when retired people complain about having to fund schools for other people’s children through their taxes, when conservatives complain about having to fund universal health care through taxes, I don’t understand. No one wants to live in that world because that world is full of crime and despair and plague and unhappiness and violence. Justice is not just a sentiment, it’s a tangible good. A tangible good we all share.

  • Anon_Ymous

     I know I’m late to the party and others have answered you, but I actually agree with you about the unfairness of maternity leave, and the incentives it brings to discriminate against women in the hiring process.

    Where I differ from you is in my proposed solution to the problem. I say: mandatory 12 week paternity leave! The co-parent (whether male or female) must also take off the same amount of time as the bearing parent (or both parents in the case of adoption), though they can choose whether they want to take it at the same time to support the other parent, or at a different time to be the one at home as caregiver while their spouse re-enters the workforce.

    This gets rid of the incentives to discriminate against women in the workforce, as men are exactly as likely to become parents (basic maths, here), and either gender is required to take the same amount of time off. Making it mandatory gets rid of the pressure certain employers might place upon a man to just waive his rights, and it also will encourage men to connect more with their children (something quite a few men I know would greatly appreciate).

  • Anon_Ymous

     Just posted this as a reply to GuestPoster, but my solution would be to make Paternity (or co-parent) leave, make it as long as maternity leave, and make it mandatory.

    Bonus points for getting men involved in raising their young – at least, for making it *expected* rather than *exceptional*.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    How does they handle it in Europe?  I’ve heard that they give months of vacation time and a whole YEAR of maternity leave in some countries, [SARCASM] but that’s clearly impossible because then all their businesses would go bankrupt.[/SARCASM]

  • syfr

    Princeton (I think) had a “stop-your-tenure-clock” option if you have a child.  Very few men took advantage of it, and fewer women than one would expect did either.  (They didn’t want to be seen as uncompetitive and undedicated.)  The solution?   Required tenure-clock-stoppage for everyone!  And it worked!

  • Leum

    (I think) had a “stop-your-tenure-clock” option if you have a child. 
    Very few men took advantage of it, and fewer women than one would expect
    did either.  (They didn’t want to be seen as uncompetitive and
    undedicated.)  The solution?   Required tenure-clock-stoppage for
    everyone!  And it worked!
    Today, of course, no one gets tenure so that system wouldn’t work.

  • P J Evans

     Your blockquotes will work better if you put the ‘u’ after the ‘q’ instead of after the ‘o’. (Also, your comment will show up better if it’s after [/blockquote].)

  • Czanne

    Alternately, though less favorably towards pregnant women, it could be mandated that such women can make use of sick or vacation days up to, say, 5 years in advance to cover extended maternity leave, or if they were unable to do their jobs as they were set when hired. Then, the employer has an incentive to retain the worker, not merely a lack of motivation to fire the worker.

    The reason this is not currently done and not currently legal is because it’s indentured servitude. It is an employer making a claim on future labor and the employee contracting for an advance of compensation. It is the same concept as payment in scrip and the company store. And it’s utterly insulting to suggest that anyone be subjected to that, but it is more so when it is being applied only to one class of employee.

    Under this proposal, what happens a year later when a woman who accepted the 5 years’ advance of PTO gets a better job offer? Is she prevented from persuing it? Is her employer allowed to give her a poor reference or put a mark on her credit until her debt is paid off? Can her employer sue her for that advance if she does leave? What if she’s laid off or the company goes under due to a market shift or… ahem… aggressive accounting? Can the corporation’s bankruptcy settlement come after her since that debt would be considered an asset on the company’s books? Can she be denied unemployment compensation if she is laid off? Is the advance transferrable to her new employer? If the latter, then debt bondage has become saleable, which is slavery. What about interest? Is the employer allowed to charge 3% on that advance of compensation? How about 8%? How about 29%? How about 75%? What happens if the company cuts her hours or her pay due to that market shift? Suddenly, it will take ten or fifteen years to earn up to the advance. Like that won’t be exploited. We’ve done Dickens, thanks.

  • Daughter

     May I just say Amen, Ditto, Co-Sign, This, Word, and any other expressions that indicate my hearty agreement?

  • Buck Eschaton

    I’m pro-life. I have no problem with long, extended mandatory maternity and paternity leave. I also have no problem with the government throwing money at new families, or any families and people to pay their debts and get them on firm footing. 
    The government would just have to tell Wall Street that “Hey, we’re going to stop giving you 100’s of billions of dollars for no conceivable reason.” 
    It’s time to start supporting American families and not the looters on Wall Street.

  • Persia

    Also, and I can’t quite believe I have to say this, every human being has a vested interest in the continuation of the human race.

  • AnonymousSam

    ? Where does that come from?

    While I won’t debate its veracity, the thing you have to keep in mind about such a statement is that any vested interest in the continuation of the human race is still going to be under the terms and biases of whoever has that interest. Even if we didn’t have movements like the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, there are plenty of people who’d be happy for the human race to survive — minus all the poor people and those dirty foreigners.

  • Carstonio

     What relevance does that have? In my experience, the continuation argument is most often used to shame single women and gay couples for valuing their own allegedly selfish desires above the future of the species. With the human race topping 7 billion, the idea that underpopulation is a serious threat is worse than laughable. We’re probably more in danger from nuking, polluting, or antibioticking ourselves into extinction.

  • Persia

    Okay? Pregnancy – which at its core is the continuation of our species – is still an event worth medical leave, not a random special privilege that ladies want to have so they can take ‘vacations.’ (A woman acting as a surrogate should get medical leave too, as should a single parent, and really this argument is just odd.)

  • Carstonio

    Your post originally didn’t have the In Reply To” at the bottom, so I assumedyou were answering Buck and not Ursula. No disagreement with your overall point about medical leave. My issue is that ” every human being has a vested interest in the continuation of the human race” sounds very much like “every human being has an obligation to continue the human race.”

  • Persia

    Oooh, I see, that makes more sense now – I would’ve been confused too. No, not at all! Part of the reason we give people leave (IMO) is so people who WANT to can have kids so the rest of us don’t have to….

  • Under this proposal, what happens a year later when a woman who accepted the 5 years’ advance of PTO gets a better job offer?

    The company could then pay the equivalent wage, or negotiate some kind of buy-out.

  • Czanne

    Invisible Neutrino wrote: The company could then pay an equivalent wage, or negotiate a buy-out.

    The first employer can refuse a negotiation with either the employee or the third party, or place the cash-out value of the advanced PTO so high that no second company will consider buying it, or that the employee can’t manage to pay off in a lump sum. No party of a contract is required to negotiate with a third party who is not part of that contract. They have no requirement to meet a third party’s offer. This is handing indentured servitude to the employer.

    It’s saleable debt tied to labor. Debt bondage. Slavery.

    But just for the wimmins, so nobody should worry.


  • Actually, my thinking was that if the PTO hasn’t been used by the employee yet, then the company and the departing employee would negotiate what the employee should be paid for those unused days.

    I got a payout like that when a company I worked for paid out some vacation days I didn’t take.

  • EllieMurasaki

    The question was about paid time off that the employee has used but not yet earned, I believe.

  • K. Mac

    Not to mention the fact that most employers offer paid vacation, while maternity leave is largely unpaid time off, so it’s really no different than another employee coming down with, say, mono and having to take a leave of absence.

  • Eh. If it has been used but not earned, any reasonable person would, I suppose, just call it a day and say, “S’ok”.

    As I have discovered however some people appear to be alarmist in their assumptions as to how that would work.

  • EllieMurasaki

    The people you call ‘alarmist’, I call ‘possibly exaggerating but definitely have a point’. If I take paid leave I have not earned (and it is my own leave that I will have later earned, not a gift from another employee who has already earned it), I owe my employer either the money they paid me for those leave days or the labor that my employment obliges me to provide in order to earn those leave days. If that debt exists when I change jobs, fuckery is going to happen. The nature of the fuckery is up for debate, but the fact of its existence is not.

  • Czanne

    Okay, Invisible Neutrino — first, I’m not being alarmist. This stuff has happened, in the United States (see this recent story about immigrant workers who were paid substandard wages, malnourished and confined to employer provided housing [], and also the practices of several of the long-haul trucking firms that are currently under DoL investigation for pay advance irregularities), and was a not terribly distant reality for most coal miners and textile workers as late as the 1920s. If it is happening now, to workers with an unequal power relationship (as visa workers do), it is a safe assumption to assume that if extended, the same chicanery and abuses will be perpetuated.

    Second: Paid Time Off (however it exists) is generally a defined, deferred benefit. One is granted X number of days and earns some fraction of a PTO day each pay period. (At least, that’s how it’s always been for me, whether with big companies or government or education or start-ups.) I get 6 paid holidays and 160 hours of PTO per year. I used 80 hours each of the last two years and rolled over 80, so I’m currently carrying about 190 hours. The holidays are defined, I earn 6 hours of PTO for each pay period. I’m allowed to accumulate up to 480 hours (12 weeks); more than that and I must use it or lose it. If I quit today, I will be paid through today and get the balance of my PTO in my final check. My uni does not allow us to go in the red on PTO. In theory, assuming a perfectly spherical, self-interested employee, my uni could just pay me an extra $2-3 per hour and make it my responsibility to save that cash for sick days, vacations and ski emergencies. But they know, and I know, that most people suck at discipline when faced with cash in pocket. PTO is a sort of forced savings plan. My uni owes me that compensation, and will pay on demand, whether that be a vacation, extended sick leave or me going somewhere else. They are in debt to me, per the contract we agreed upon when I took the job.

    Going into the red with PTO is reversing that — now I would owe my employer. It’s a Yog’s law sort of thing — money flows towards the author/employee. Any time an employer is also a creditor, the employee is in a doubly disempowered position.

    Would most employers forgive the PTO debt? Perhaps. Would most negotiate in good faith? Probably. Would most be flexible and accommodating to disability, be it temporary or permanent, sudden or chronic, related to pregnancy or related to a slip on ice? I think so, because most people are flexible and accommodating. It’s not the decent, humane, sensitive people we have to legislate for — it’s the jerks who abuse whatever system they’re in and anyone over whom they have power.

  • Point taken.

    Seems to me that the solution would be:

    1. Labor law should prohibit docking an employee for any paid time off in excess of that allowed by company policy.
    2. The company can get an allowable deduction on its taxes for the amount in excess.

    So the company is made whole and the employee doesn’t get penalized.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the existing tax rules already cover this contingency and the companies screwing their employees by “debiting” them on their last paycheck are double-dipping just to be cheap skinflints.

  • guest

    There already are disability benefits for expectant mothers.

  • Jenny Islander

    Yup. My husband had to go back to work after a week off and a week on half days, leaving me with a baby and two children too little to be any help, because he had a written promise that he would still have his job if he stayed home with us for a much longer period . . . but no promise of a paycheck if he did. All of our savings accounts were earmarked for unavoidable future expenses; obviously there was no money for child care assistance either. I’m lucky that I had no birth injuries. Imagine taking care of a C-section scar and a baby and a toddler at the same time, all by yourself.

    Anybody who feels the urge to start womping on about how we should have magically foreseen my boss’s boss’s boss’s committee’s adjustments to the company parental leave plan before we planned out our family 9 years ago can shut up right now, because I have no patience for smuggery masquerading as wisdom.

  • I’m a pro-life woman, and OF COURSE I’d support this act. Rethink your stereotypes.

  • You’re one of a minority. Most of the pro-life advocates I’ve seen comment on this have called it “needless government interference,” “a waste of money,” and uttered words to the effect of “employers shouldn’t HAVE to hire pregnant women” (or inversely, “pregnant women shouldn’t be working anyway!”)

  • P J Evans

    I have to say that that particular employer is really good when it comes to people: (They’re not kidding about being an equal-opportunity employer, either).