As mothers, the topic of paid family leave is near and dear to our hearts—whether we’re juggling work and kiddos or just hoping our partners can stay home for a bit longer. It’s mind-boggling that only three countries globally—Papua New Guinea, Oman, and the United States—don’t offer guaranteed paid maternity leave. Instead, we have the Family Medical Leave Act, which allows up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave, with the job security of not getting fired, but that hardly pays the bills.
I remember my husband’s experience when my mental health took a nosedive. He took the full two weeks of unpaid leave after our last baby was born. Two weeks postpartum, I was bleeding and wrangling three kids under three. Let’s just say we need a serious overhaul in maternity care, and fast.
Hillary Clinton’s Stance
Hillary Clinton is on the same page. Back in May, she stated, “Too many moms have to go back to work just days after their babies are born. […] And too many dads and parents of adopted children don’t get any paid leave at all. […] None of this is fair at all to families.” Her plan promises up to 12 weeks of paid leave for welcoming a new baby or caring for a sick family member, with at least two-thirds of wages covered. The catch? It would be funded by making the wealthy pay their fair share, aka taxing the rich. However, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CFRB) suggests her ambitious proposals fall short by $250 billion over ten years.
Donald Trump’s Proposal
Meanwhile, Donald Trump acknowledges the need for more support for women post-childbirth. His campaign site cites that only 12% of U.S. private sector workers have access to paid family leave. Trump’s approach? He wants to fold paid maternity leave into unemployment insurance, offering mothers six weeks of paid leave (which varies by state). He claims this would only cost $2.5 billion annually at an average payout of $300 a week. However, this plan currently only applies to biological moms, leaving adoptive parents and same-sex couples out in the cold.
On September 16, Hillary’s senior advisor for policy criticized Trump’s proposal, arguing, “We’re not living in a Mad Men era anymore where only women are taking care of infants. It’s completely unserious.” And the CFRB estimates his plan could cost around $30 billion a year, far exceeding Trump’s figures.
Other Perspectives
Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, stands firmly against federally mandated maternity leave. He believes private businesses should determine the leave benefits for their employees, aligning with the libertarian philosophy of minimal government interference. Spoiler: this opinion is not winning him any popularity contests among mothers.
On the flip side, Green Party candidate Jill Stein supports paid maternity leave, suggesting the federal government should take on the financial responsibility rather than businesses. However, specifics of her plan remain sparse.
Marie Claire points out that Trump’s proposal of six weeks is half of what Hillary offers. Not to mention, Hillary’s plan includes paternity leave and provisions for adoption, while Trump’s would leave many parents high and dry. When it comes to comprehensiveness and fairness, Hillary’s plan takes the cake—and I think it’s safe to say I’m #TeamHillary.
Further Reading
For more insights on family planning, check out this blog post on home insemination techniques. If you’re looking for the best at-home insemination kits, they’re an excellent resource. And for those navigating the world of infertility treatments, this article is a must-read.
In summary, the debate over maternity leave in the U.S. is far from settled. While Hillary Clinton presents a robust plan for comprehensive parental leave, Donald Trump’s approach appears more limited. The conversation continues, and as mothers, we need to advocate for the support we deserve.