awesome. my sister is pregnant with her first and agonizing over going back to work after the measly family leave act time she gets.

But what about people who adopt? Parents who adopt should get time off too.

AWE and SOME.

(...on another note the automated ads never fail to piss me off, though of course y'all here are not to blame. But ads for Expelled? Ugh. And I just hopped over here after reading Pharyngula. Bite me, ID assholes.)

But what about people who adopt? Parents who adopt should get time off too.

trisha, it says it covers birth and adoption, just like the FMLA that covers both but on an unpaid basis.

I've been reading... both Clinton and Obama only support expanding FMLA down to 25 worker companies (from 50).
Neither appears committed to federally mandated family leave...

Wow uh, it's a start? I hate to be negative but giving six weeks with two thirds paid is really the least every state could do. Even after 12 weeks unpaid, if you can afford that, babies are still so young. I was just expecting more when I read the title of the post. And I can't believe neither candidate has a plan for this. It is good that it covers adopting parents though.

You're right. Paid care leave is important, but please tell me where this 'right' is found in the constitution.

All this sounds more like a responsibility families or individuals should cultivate for themselves through life choices and financial planning.

But I'm silly that way.

If everyone who wanted to have kids (biological or otherwise) waited until they were in a position where they could go for 6 mos - 1 year without regular income, no one would reproduce or adopt before 35. This is clearly not feasible.

locomotivebreath1901:

Wow, reading the phrase “to give employees the right� and conflating that with constitutional rights (if don’t like the New York Times’s wording, maybe you should take it up with the NYT) and insinuating that the bill only covers maternity/paternity leave…please tell me that you seriously misread that short quote and that you aren’t being deliberately obtuse.

I have mixed feelings about this.

I just had a discussion with my parents about it, as I work in a small home office - I was hired in October due partially to their increase in business, but mostly because their only office worker was pregnant, and they couldn't operate without at least one assistant. The strain it has put on the office while she's been out has been pretty strong, because the work is growing as they get more busy.

It turns out she couldn't manage to find any kind of reasonable daycare. Her 12 weeks is up this week, and it was just confirmed that she's not coming back.

So now the bosses are trying to find someone new, in the middle of a business surge.

I'm not going to insult the woman I worked with - I thought she was fantastic. I feel pretty bad for her that she has to give up a good job (our bosses really are fantastic - I can't imagine working for a better company). But having children is a choice in absolutely every sense of the word. It shouldn't be on employers to make sure their employees can have families if they want to, ESPECIALLY if it's a small company.

I wouldn't want a politician to push for it for companies with less than 25 employees. I think even that is a low number, and companies that small would be very strained.

A bigger solution, in my opinion, would be some sort of reasonable, affordable childcare, since that's pretty much impossible to find.

"But having children is a choice in absolutely every sense of the word."

...if one has access to abortion.

Some people don't. Some people don't have enough access to contraception. Given that rape exists, some people don't even have genuine access to abstinence!

From the artcile:

---
The program would be paid for through a payroll deduction that legislative officials estimated would cost workers $33 a year. Workers who take leave would receive two-thirds of their salary, up to $524 a week, with an estimated average weekly benefit of $415.
---

If every father and mother is eligible to take 6 weeks of partenity leave with average benefit of $415*6*2 per child then how are they going to cover it with $33 a year salary reductions? That is if I work for 40 years then I would pay $33*40 = $1320. If I have 2 children during these 40 years I would get $415*6*2 = $4980. These numbers are not equal at all...

This would fit if it is mothers who take these paid family leaves while fathers still continue to work. But wouldn't this practive create just another incentive for employees to discriminate against women?

A bigger solution, in my opinion, would be some sort of reasonable, affordable childcare, since that's pretty much impossible to find.

I agree that affordable or even free childcare is a part of the solution, but it's only part of it. Knowing that you can take the time off that you need while receiving your paycheck and feeling secure in the fact that your job will still be there when you return is also part of the solution.

On the maternity leave issue, I strongly urge everyone to check out Wikipedia's page on maternity leave. It has a nice chart showing every country's maternity leave policy. The U.S. is one of only a 3 or 4 countries in the world that doesn't require paid maternity leave of some kind. Why does virtually every other country in the world have paid maternity leave? Because IT WORKS, plain and simple. People in this country have the odd attitude that having children should be a privilege reserved for those that are "financially ready" (what is "financially ready" and who determines it?) instead of a human right. And, I'll never understand this country's incredible aversion to doing anything that benefits it's children.

Also, a reminder that this particular bill doesn't just cover maternity leave. It covers paternity leave, leave for parents adopting, as well as leave to take care of a sick child, parent, or spouse (and, sorry, but people can't "plan" on someone in their family getting terminally ill or getting in a terrible accident and needing their care – that's just not feasible). So, can we stop boiling it down to maternity leave? It's a bill that almost everyone can benefit from at some point.

"employees" to be replaced by "employers". Sorry.

"A bigger solution, in my opinion, would be some sort of reasonable, affordable childcare, since that's pretty much impossible to find."

Or have the government give part of the pay for small companies? Affordable daycare would be great for one and two year olds but what if a parent wants to spend more than three months with their baby and keep their job and have some pay for that? What if the dad wants paid time off? What if a baby is born prematurely and is in the hospital for weeks? Currently it seems only the rich in America can afford for both parents to take time off. How can we get equality if men are not encouraged to spend time with their babies in the first month or more?

As a legal resident of New Jersey, I'm pretty psyched by this. I understand the feeling that this still isn't enough, and I can agree, but I'm of the mindset of taking what we can get right now. It's a tough issue, and the arguments about businesses (especially small ones!) funding it is valid.

As someone who's currently living in Europe, though, I definetly think more needs to be done, for parental leave and day care and all that. Scandinavian countries have a quality of life rating through the roof, and they're one of the few European countries witnessing a rise in the birth rate. Why? Employment policies and child care that actually help us remember that having your family is a joy, and not a chore.

Mina - In the absolute extreme that you live in the US and really, truly cannot choose to not give birth, there is still always adoption. You don't HAVE to raise a child. When I said having children is a choice, I meant more that starting/raising a family is a choice.

Lyndorr - To me, "want" is about the most important word in your comments. I mean, what if I want to stay home for three months and do whatever I feel like to make me happy, and get paid for it? Where are the people pushing for laws requiring my company allow that?

Honestly, I think benefits should be completely equal for new mothers and fathers. I don't think only women should be allowed to not go to work and still keep their job. I think it should be more encouraged that men spend time with their children.

The problem is that this country is just screwed up. The wealth is so unevenly divided that, yes, it is getting near impossible to be one of the not-blazingly-wealthy majority and be able to afford a family. I really think that making policies where companies have to pay people who aren't doing work for them is only going to make it worse, because only the larger companies will be able to eat the cost and not flinch. As smaller companies die out from laws like this, the wealthy people in charge of the larger companies will only get more wealthy...

And the rest of us will still be struggling to care for our families.

To the commenter who suggested that people don't have children until they save enough money to live without working for mat leave and to the commenter who resents that a coworker took mat leave, thereby causing the company undue hardship:

When did we decide that only well-off people could have children? When did we decide it was a hardship for companies to accomodate the biological act which actually guarantees the continuation of the species, and from a business point of view, ensures workers will be available in the future.

But I'll leave it to Bitch who posted about this:

Let me reminds you, once again, that people do not "choose" to have kids. A lot of people choose *not* to have kids--birth control, wealth, and modernity certainly contribute to this decision, which is perfectly irreproachable, by the way--but reproducing is not a conscious decision. It is something that the bodies of living creatures simply DO. It is, in fact, part of the definition of "living."

And it's not funny, feminist, "reasonable," or acceptable to talk about children as things, or to imply that people who "choose" to have kids are crazy or stupid. When you do those things, you implicitly support the idea that women's reproductive systems are abnormal, that women with kids are fools, and that children and reproducing women are not part of human society.

To the commenter who suggested that people don't have children until they save enough money to live without working for mat leave and to the commenter who resents that a coworker took mat leave, thereby causing the company undue hardship:

When did we decide that only well-off people could have children? When did we decide it was a hardship for companies to accomodate the biological act which actually guarantees the continuation of the species, and from a business point of view, ensures workers will be available in the future.

But I'll leave it to Bitch who posted about this:

Let me reminds you, once again, that people do not "choose" to have kids. A lot of people choose *not* to have kids--birth control, wealth, and modernity certainly contribute to this decision, which is perfectly irreproachable, by the way--but reproducing is not a conscious decision. It is something that the bodies of living creatures simply DO. It is, in fact, part of the definition of "living."

And it's not funny, feminist, "reasonable," or acceptable to talk about children as things, or to imply that people who "choose" to have kids are crazy or stupid. When you do those things, you implicitly support the idea that women's reproductive systems are abnormal, that women with kids are fools, and that children and reproducing women are not part of human society.

To the commenter who suggested that people don't have children until they save enough money to live without working for mat leave and to the commenter who resents that a coworker took mat leave, thereby causing the company undue hardship:

When did we decide that only well-off people could have children? When did we decide it was a hardship for companies to accomodate the biological act which actually guarantees the continuation of the species, and from a business point of view, ensures workers will be available in the future.

But I'll leave it to Bitch who posted about this:

Let me reminds you, once again, that people do not "choose" to have kids. A lot of people choose *not* to have kids--birth control, wealth, and modernity certainly contribute to this decision, which is perfectly irreproachable, by the way--but reproducing is not a conscious decision. It is something that the bodies of living creatures simply DO. It is, in fact, part of the definition of "living."

And it's not funny, feminist, "reasonable," or acceptable to talk about children as things, or to imply that people who "choose" to have kids are crazy or stupid. When you do those things, you implicitly support the idea that women's reproductive systems are abnormal, that women with kids are fools, and that children and reproducing women are not part of human society.

I'm really torn on this, honestly. I live in New Jersey and our budget is an absolute fucking mess and a LOT needs to be cut. The idea of paid family leave is idyllic and I'm afraid of getting caught up in "oh how nice we have paid family leave" while our state government threatens to take away other budgeting that matters just as much if not possibly more. I'm not convinced NJ is really prioritizing and I just feel like we're being given this so we shut up about the state budget.

Wanderwoman - I'm pretty sure the commenter who mentioned waiting until you can afford to not work to have children was saying that's not really feasible, and not that people better not try to have children until they can afford to quit their jobs and not get paid leave. I'm also pretty sure that's I made it clear I didn't 'resent' the actions of my coworker - rather, I felt badly that she was both having trouble affording her newborn AND that she had to leave her job because she could not find daycare.

I think you should read things more thoroughly before jumping to conclusions about what people are saying.

I'm also pretty sure nobody called children "things."

And nobody is saying that it has been decided only well off people can have children. Anyone can have a child who CHOOSES to - it just might be really difficult to care for the child if your resources are scarce.

If you can CHOOSE to not have children, then you can also CHOOSE to have children. It can't be a choice to not do something if doing the something is not a choice; in other words, if something has to be, you can't choose for it not to be.

And reproduction doesn't just HAPPEN, unless you're an asexual organism that spontaneously spawns copies of yourself. And even in that case, it often will not happen unless the environment is right for it.

Let me know the next time you spontaneously get pregnant while sitting around doing nothing, and maybe I'll believe otherwise.

"'A bigger solution, in my opinion, would be some sort of reasonable, affordable childcare, since that's pretty much impossible to find.'

"Or have the government give part of the pay for small companies? Affordable daycare would be great for one and two year olds but what if a parent wants to spend more than three months with their baby and keep their job and have some pay for that? What if the dad wants paid time off? What if a baby is born prematurely and is in the hospital for weeks?"

Meanwhile, what if an employee in the employer's local childcare center wants to take a year off to bond with her or his new daughter or son? Solid support for affordable childcare could enable that center to hire help to cover the absence, thus also enabling the other families who rely on that center to keep relying on it... :)

"but reproducing is not a conscious decision. It is something that the bodies of living creatures simply DO."

If that was true, then I'd have been pregnant by now. IRL, the body of this living creature didn't simply do that. ;)

"Anyone can have a child who CHOOSES to - it just might be really difficult to care for the child if your resources are scarce."

While the point about scarce resources is true (even if someone has a ton of money, she or he may still not have enough time or energy for one more child), it's definitely not true that *anyone* can choose to have a child.

Sometimes, someone is infertile. Sometimes, someone can't attract a sex partner to conceive with (and doesn't want to conceive by raping someone instead). Sometimes, someone can't get accepted by anyone (new mother, foster care agency, etc.) with a baby who's looking for an adoptive family. Sometimes, someone can *neither* conceive *nor* adopt.

"If you can CHOOSE to not have children, then you can also CHOOSE to have children."

True, *if* one has a choice. Unfortunately, not everyone does. For a couple of examples, what about women and girls who get pregnant while struggling to fight off rapists or while making love with guys whose condoms break, and who don't have access to abortion?