There’s also the choice society makes that we have duty to defend life, the whole ‘sanctity of life’ thing, and accordingly, a duty to be respectful of the mother who chooses life, to be considerate of the care one would logically agree is necessary for that baby to be healthy.
The employer has a choice to fire a mother who chose life because that mother had the audacity to ask for “reasonable accomodation.” That’s not “pro-life.” That’s the very “moral decay” of which you speak – putting profits above the sanctity of life.
The title of this article is misleading, and the thread discussion is more or less moot. The Congressman is not saying that pregnant or nursing mothers should just quit because he doesn’t want to give them accommodations. He literally said “we can pass this law.” However, he is also simply pointing out that if you’re working for an employer who doesn’t believe in giving you those extra accommodations, then you shouldn’t be working for him/her in the first place, because he’s probably a mean old curmudgeon.
You’ve completely missed his point. If an employer needs a government regulation to provide reasonable accommodations, and doesn’t provide such accommodations independently and voluntarily, it is not a good idea to work for that employer.
Sort of like…if a doctor was willing to provide abortions, and was only stopped by government laws and regulations, that doctor would be a very poor choice for anyone’s OB/GYN.
Ironically, using the force of law to make companies accommodate pregnant women will make it harder for career women to advance.
If I have to choose between a man and a woman with the potential to have kids, I am going to hire the man simply because I do not have to pay maternity leave, work my schedule around her kid, and do whatever else feminists deem to be a “reasonable accommodation”.
Your body, your choice, your responsibility, not your employer’s.
Yes, there definitely need to be boundaries in place. If your job requires heavy lifting and there is no alternative work for you to do for a few months, that’s different than expecting to be able to go to doctor’s appointments and go to the bathroom and have a clean, private place to pump.
Well, I know that for a lot of women, first pregnancies simply were more physically demanding than subsequent ones, so that might help explain that. The way I see it, pregnant women are already doing a full-time job. I read somewhere that women, just by being pregnant, are burning more calories than some people burn during a workout. So you’re right, a physical job either in the fields or at the docks isn’t fitting. (Yet saying that will also get one in trouble with feminists.) Point is, each woman is different. I’ve met a woman who said she never felt physically better than when she was pregnant. Lucky woman!
Anyway, this is a little besides the point. But I will never agree with a one-size-fits-all pregnancy attitude. It flies in the face of evidence. I have three older brothers, and none of those pregnancies were complicated, though the first was hardest. With the third she was doing a week’s worth of walking tours in Jerusalem, in the heat, in the third trimester.
However, I think my Mom would have died without modern medicine during my pregnancy. She got sicker and sicker, and couldn’t keep ice-chips down. Finally, on Christmas Eve, the older brothers were left with someone else, and Dad drove Mom 120 miles to the embassy hospital. Her urine was the color of iced tea. (And after it was clear she was taken care of, my Dad drove back in time to set up Santa for the boys on Christmas morning. Good man.) And just to be clear, my parents have never been the types to have victim mentalities. She ended up on bed-rest for the remaining months of pregnancy.
Now, the pertinent question in the above scenario would be what obligation my Mom’s employer would have had, had she been employed and working faithfully up to that point. We were blessed to be military, and to use some of the benefits that come with that. Granted, it’s an extreme example, but I think you’re sensitive to extreme examples. What if she had been a single mother? I’m not aware of the ins and outs of insurance, or current laws regarding this kind of thing. I don’t know the answer. There is no easy one.
I’m wondering if it wouldn’t be possible to provide some kind of assistance to help a woman find a job that would be suitable and able to meet her needs to provide? However, what about men who are just as desperate to feed their families? I know appeals to emotion aren’t your thing, but it does make me wonder. Given the ease of abortion’s availability, I can easily see a woman choosing abortion if she feels she has no means to provide.
It’s like people didn’t actually read what he said:
“… if a person’s not allowing you to breastfeed at work or making appropriate accommodations at work … you don’t want to work for that guy.”
He says that they can pass the law, but it doesn’t change that the person who won’t, not can’t, make accommodations is a jerk you don’t want to work for. The whole point is forcing the jerks to accommodate someone will not make it a more pleasant place to work. The suggestion to quit was not tied to doing what you want, but don’t work for jerks that don’t want to help where they can.
Recovery after a c section is much more difficult, as well. I couldn’t believe how much faster my friend who didn’t have one recovered! I couldn’t lift anything heavier than my baby for two months. Including the baby plus car seat.
Yes, but even jerks should have to follow certain requirements and not everyone is in a position to up and quit. It is very difficult to find a new job as a visibly pregnant woman or as a mom with a newborn!
Please don’t lecture me with emphatic exclamation points on how difficult it is for pregnant women to find jobs. I am well aware of it, without you wagging your finger in my face as it were. I was pointing out that people are treating the lawmaker as a jerk, when he was saying you should not work for someone that only accommodates you if their arm is twisted.
Some people are fine living in a nanny state that says government will ensure all your needs. Others of us aren’t. Many of us are realist and say job x has more benefit even if I have to put up with A, B, and C. If I find A to be too onerous then I can chose to leave. It is not the government’s purpose to accommodate my wants and needs and tell every company that they cannot require A. If society changes where the majority refused to do A then market pressure will eventually force companies hand. If they still refuse then they are subject to market forces reducing the pool of workers. This can eventually impact their economic viability.
I am all for companies offering accommodations, but they should be done because it is the right thing to do. Just like I support charitable giving, but do not accept governmental redistribution of wealth, neither do I support goverment from coercion to accommodate special classes again their will. It just leads to resentment and likely a more hostile environment. Noone likes someone wagging their finger in their face and being told they cannot do what is right without an 800 pound gorilla breaking their arm.
Long and short is we all have choices. If breastfeeding rooms is an absolute must for someone, but an employer doesn’t offer it then the person needs to say is looking for another job worth the effort. Is it worth quiting to get what you are “owed”? None of us have a right to a job or income. We all make compromises to balance our wants and our needs. This is in the same realm as far as I’m concerned.