Independent Women's Forum RSS feed

Kids Are The Biggest Losers In Bernie Sanders’ Child Care Plan

Carrie L. Lukas — Thu, 5 Mar 2020 09:03:00 CST

Bernie Sanders’ child care proposal is exactly what you’d expect. According to his website, Sanders would: “Guarantee every child in America free full-day, full-week, high-quality child care from infancy through age three, regardless of income.”

Sanders would spare no expense. He promises that all child care workers would receive a “living wage” and includes a long list of regulations, from educational requirements for all daycare workers and preschool teachers (who would be required to have bachelor’s degrees) to teacher-per-pupil ratios that would make the program much more expensive, though not necessarily better for children.

The most jaw-dropping aspect of Sanders’ proposal is the extent of the daycare service parents could expect: “at least 10 hours a day.” The website suggests this will be great for kids:

“It should come as no surprise to learn that when children have early care and education, they perform better throughout school, are less likely to interact with the criminal justice system, and report higher earnings later in life and increased overall happiness. The benefits of high-quality care and early childhood education for children’s wellbeing is well-established.”

Really? Proponents of government daycare typically point to research on small programs serving very disadvantaged communities to show that daycare has positive results. But, as Steven Rhoads and I detail in this National Affairs article, the research of daycare used by the general population suggests the opposite. Encouraging more families to use daycare results in worse outcomes for children in terms of education, health, welfare, and even criminality, especially when the youngest children are put in daycare full-time.

People evaluating Sanders’ claims don’t even have to dig into the research. Common sense works well enough. Does anyone really think that putting an infant into a daycare center for up to 50 hours a week, to be cared for by even a well-qualified stranger, is really better than being cared for by a loving parent?

It’s also notable that the Sanders’ proposal doesn’t limit benefits to working parents. He talks about child care being necessary to help lower-income families while they work, but the child care entitlement would cover everyone. This suggests that his plan really isn’t about helping over-burdened parents, but is better understood as a part of Sanders’ socialist refashioning of American life, and meant to loosen the ties of parents and children, so that government has a big role in care and daily life from cradle to grave.

Why Are We Sending Mixed Messages On Substance Use To Teens?

Carrie L. Lukas — Tue, 25 Feb 2020 13:02:00 CST

During a recent trip to New York City, I walked past a corner shop with vibrantly colored window displays, brimming with rainbows, cookies, candies, oversized gummy bears and stuffed animals.

A high-end candy store or bakery?

No, it was Times Square’s Weed World, which sells CBD infused candies and other edibles and cannabis-themed merchandise.

The store appeared to be doing a hopping business. Online reviewers complain that the products lack the punch they were looking for, suggesting it is more tourist trap than a true drug dispensary. But the store certainly attests to the changing sensibilities surrounding drug, and particularly marijuana, use: No longer taboo, Weed World marketed itself as a happy and silly stop, appropriate for anyone at any age.

I thought about Weed World when I read about the latest efforts to ban flavored tobacco products, both in vaping, menthol cigarettes, flavored cigars and dipping tobacco products. These restrictions are justified as necessary to make these products less appealing to teens.

As the mother of a teenager, I understand the instinct to use any mechanism available to discourage teen smoking. But before succumbing to the “do something” impulse, I know that one actually needs to consider if that “something” would actually help. Unfortunately, a century of government attempts to discourage or prohibit the use of unhealthy products— whether that’s alcohol or food high in sugar, salt, or trans-fats—shows that these interventions rarely work as they are supposed to, and often create as many problems as they solve.

Certainly that has been the argument behind the push to legalize marijuana, which makes it particularly bizarre that the same policymakers who have celebrated not just the decriminalization but the increased normalization and even glamourization of marijuana use are calling for a new war on tobacco and vaping relating products. Consider New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. The Governor cheerleads the effort to legalize marijuana in the state, but then is pushing a plan to ban flavors and further regulate the sale of vape products.

The case for legalization of unhealthy substances has always rested on the idea that teens, and people generally, like to experiment, even if they know that there are risks. Making them illegal just creates a black market, rewarding criminal activity and making these products even less safe. Why is this logic less true for flavored tobacco products than for cannabis?

Efforts to regulate and even outlaw tobacco and vaping products to discourage teen use ignores other policy realities. For starters, it’s already illegal for anyone under age 21 to use any of these tobacco products. If teenagers are obtaining them, they are already breaking the rules. Enforcing existing laws specifically meant to prohibit underage use would be a better focus for policymakers than creating new rules that will similarly go unenforced.

The proposed new regulations also ignore that these flavored products are used by many adults, and often these adults rely on these flavors in order to transition from more harmful behaviors (like traditional combustible cigarette use) to those that have lower risks. Banning these products and encouraging former smokers to resume their old habit would be a terrible public health outcome.

In fact, if public health is the foremost priority, then our public health system needs to do a much better job in informing the public, including teens, about relative risks. Currently, with the war of vaping and glamorization of marijuana, many teens might be under the impression that vaping is the most dangerous choice they could make, while smoking pot is comparatively harmless.

Yet the facts suggest otherwise. In traditional smoking, it’s the combustion — the burning of tobacco — that causes cancer, not the nicotine. E-cigarettes contain no tobacco and unlike smoking marijuana, vaping does not involve combustion. Instead e-cigarettes use water vapor to deliver nicotine.That’s why studies have found that vaping is 95 percent less harmful than smoking. Last year’s lung condition outbreak which fueled alarm about vaping was found to be linked to illegal, black-market cannabis products that teenagers were vaping, not to legal vaping products.

E-cigarettes also don’t produce smoke so there’s no risk to non-smokers from second hand smoke. Similarly, smokeless tobacco products, which often contain flavorings, are recognized by the Food and Drug Administration to be reduced-risk tobacco products. That’s good for those addicted to nicotine.

Studies on the health impact of marijuana is fiercely debated, and likely depends on the delivery mechanism, with combustion being worse for health than edibles. At a minimum however, the public ought to be concerned about the increasingly prevalent image, advanced by stores like Weed Word, that mind-altering drug laced products are harmless and appropriate for any cool kids’ birthday party.

Parents and society will never be able to prevent all teen experimentation. But we can offer clear public health messages that layout the relative health risks and have a rational, rather than contradictory, approach to substance and marketing regulation.

Coalition Letter: Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2020

Carrie L. Lukas — Fri, 7 Feb 2020 07:02:00 CST

Dear Representative:

As organizations representing hundreds of thousands of women across America, we write to endorse H.R 5702, the “Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2020.” This bill amends Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to clarify,

“It shall be a violation…for a recipient of Federal funds who operates, sponsors, or facilitates athletic programs or activities to permit a person whose sex is male to participate in an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls.”

It is unfortunate that this bill is even necessary, but what is happening in female athletics today makes it essential. Although no basis exists in federal law, middle and high schools, colleges, and the NCAA are twisting the intent of Title IX, the federal law which prohibits discrimination in educational programs on the basis of sex, by allowing men who claim to “identify as women” to compete on women’s teams and against female athletes.

Title IX’s purpose and benefit are negated for women whenever the playing field is accessible to male athletes claiming status as women. Title IX’s prohibition of sex discrimination is based on sex – male and female. It does not define sex based on “gender identity.” It does not sanction males, with distinct physiological advantages regardless of treatment, to compete in female sports.

Policies allowing for inclusion in sex-specific sports on the basis of “gender identity” have no substantiation in biological fact or valid medical research to defend males competing in female athletics. Studies attest to the reality that puberty, testosterone, and innate biological differences give physical advantages to males that cannot be mitigated and, therefore, disqualify female athletes from fair competition when males compete in women’s sports. To deny these facts is to deny science.

The Karolinska Institutet of Sweden concluded that “muscle strength, size and composition following 12-months of gender-affirming treatment in transgender individuals retained advantage” for males identifying as women. Exercise physiology expert, Dr. Gregory A. Brown of the University of Nebraska published an exhaustive review of existing research, concluding that “men and adolescent boys perform better in almost all sports than women and adolescent girls because of their inherent physiological advantages that develop during male puberty.” 2

We applaud Rep. Greg Steube (R-Florida) for introducing H.R. 5702. Protecting fairness and equality for women and girls in sports should not be a partisan issue. It should be an issue that unites all members to stand for women’s rights and the intent and purpose of Title IX. We ask you to cosponsor this legislation and urge its swift passage.

Sincerely,

Penny Young Nance

CEO and President

Concerned Women for America LAC

Natasha Chart

Chair

Women’s Liberation Front

Carrie Lukas

President

Independent Women's Forum

Kaeley Triller Harms

Co-founder

Hands Across the Aisle Women in Coalition

Beth Stelzer

Founder

Save Women’s Sports

Kara Dansky

Chair – DMV chapter

Women’s Liberation Front

Jessica Anderson

Vice President

Heritage Action for America

Jennifer Bryson

Founder

Let All Play

Inga Thompson

3-time Olympian

Founder of the Inga Thompson Foundation

Jade Dickens

Co-Founder

XX Fair Play Rights

Kristopher Hunt, MD FACEP

Medical Director

USA Powerlifting

Marlo Tucker

State Director

Concerned Women for America of California

Ruth Smith

Area Director

Concerned Women for America of California

Terri Johannessen

State Director

Concerned Women for America of Florida

Tanya Ditty

State Director

Concerned Women for America of Georgia

Barbara Ferraro

State Director

Concerned Women for America of Hawaii

Deborah Leininger

State Director

Concerned Women for America of Illinois

Barbara Saldivar

State Director

Concerned Women for America of Kansas

Penny Morrell

State Director

Concerned Women for America of Maine

Bev Ehlen

State Director

Concerned Women for America of Missouri

Haven Howard

Area Director

Concerned Women for America of Missouri

Jill Siceloff Coward

State Director

Concerned Women for America of North Carolina

Mary Francis Forrester

Associate Director

Concerned Women for America of North Carolina

Linda Thorson

State Director

Concerned Women for America of North Dakota

Dilonna Coran

State Director

Concerned Women for America of Pennsylvania

Linda Schauer

State Director

Concerned Women for America of South Dakota

Ann Hettinger

State Director

Concerned Women for America of Texas

Kori Peterson

Area Director

Concerned Women for America of Texas

Beverly Roberts

Area Director

Concerned Women for America of Texas

Toni DeLancey

State Director

Concerned Women for America of Virginia

Janet Robey

Associate State Director

Concerned Women for America of Virginia

Maureen Richardson

State Director

Concerned Women for America of Washington

Democrat Bill Would End Flexible Work, Force Every American Into The Same Old 9-5

Carrie L. Lukas — Wed, 5 Feb 2020 12:02:00 CST

[email protected]?subject=My%20story%20%7C%20AB5">

Republicans are often caricatured as grumpy codgers longing for the good old days, when the world made sense and everyone behaved. They aren’t comfortable with all this newfangled diversity and individualism, goes the stereotype. Yet it’s Democrats who act this way about work employment: They want workers forced back into a mold of union-driven employment.

All workers are supposed to accept the same compensation packages—negotiated by union bosses who get a cut from all workers’ pay, naturally—and comply with a traditional work schedule, showing up to the factory or office to work a nine-to-five or equivalent schedule.

That’s what they are trying to do with legislation dubbed Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act (HR 2474). Proponents of the PRO Act lament that a shrinking share of workers are unionized. To try to rectify this, the bill would tilt the rules in the favor of unionization, eliminating all state right-to-work laws, requiring all workers (even those who don’t want to) to pay union dues, and forcing employers to turn over employees’ private contact information, opening them up to the potential for harassment.

Yet there is a reason fewer workers feel the need to belong to a union: For starters, workers don’t need unions to negotiate wages and get benefits like health insurance and time off. Government has increasingly taken this role over. And in today’s good economy, in which there are millions of jobs in search of workers, wages are rising and companies are offering better benefit packages to try to attract and retain valued employees.

But this bill isn’t just trying to unionize more workers. This bill would also do on the federal level what the infamous AB5 law has done in California, by restricting the use of contract workers. Proponents of AB5 sell these restrictions as necessary to ensure that workers receive all the protections of full-time employers, but they overlooked that many, even most, of those who engage in contract work want the ability to decide when and how much to work.

This is particularly true for women. A generation ago, when a woman had a baby, she typically had to make a black and white choice of whether to go back to traditionally formatted work or to quit working for pay to stay full-time with her family. Today, a growing number of women and men are rejecting both of these options and creating their own shades of grey, through the use of independent contracting arrangements, as direct sellers and entrepreneurs, and telecommuters.

That innovation and flexibility would end with the PRO Act. Here are just a few real examples of independent contractors who are seeing their earnings and opportunities slashed because of California’s restrictions on employing them, which the PRO Act would take nationwide.

“I have been an independent contractor optometrist for 18 years. I currently work part-time so that I can raise my two boys. Being an IC optometrist has given me the flexibility and the income to have the best of both worlds, a fulfilling career and be present for my children. The AB5 bill has cut my income by 30 percent overnight! I will have to work more to stay afloat. This is detrimental to my family,” says Nancy Park, an optometrist in California.

“I am disabled and unhirable for a regular job. Yet as an independent contractor specializing in unique things I have been able to work and survive in LA since 1983. #AB5 has me very, very worried. I literally have no clue how much longer I can survive,” says Eddie from California.

“I worked years to gain my skill as an American Sign Language Interpreter. It was my goal since I was 9 years old. After #AB5 I lost all 3 of my agencies. The dream I worked for is lost, I can’t provide for my family & thousands of CA Deaf won’t be serviced,” writes Jodie, an American Sign Language interpreter in California.

“This bill destroyed my income. At the New Year, I had two major out-of-state clients. I was writing anywhere from 4-8 articles a day between them (fully remote). I lost my first client on January 8 and the second one yesterday [January 29],” says freelance writer Sarah Wolstoncroft. “Both clients expressed how much they regretted having to suspend my contracts because they highly valued my work. One said they will be actively trying to find a solution. However, this leaves me with only one client left. My third client is one I’ve had for almost three years. Out of loyalty, they are keeping me on but had to cut me down to three articles a month instead of three a week to comply with the 35 pieces of content rule. That currently makes my monthly income $150, while I desperately try to figure this out.”

American Action Forum estimates that the PRO Act would cost employers more than $47 billion each year. But the biggest costs of this bill won’t be borne by employers and businesses. It will be the workers who have less freedom and flexibility to decide how they want to earn a living.

Today is a very different era than when Dolly Parton’s hit “9 to 5” described life as a drudge worker with no ability to control her schedule. America’s workforce of 160 million people have very different preferences for employment, and thankfully, they have a growing number of working paradigms that allow them to find the arrangement that makes sense for them.

We should celebrate this diversity of work life, not roll the clock back to an era of greater standardization.

Two Truths and A Lie: Public Opinion on Paid Leave

Carrie L. Lukas — Tue, 4 Feb 2020 12:02:00 CST

In the last few years, there has been much public discussion on how Americans want the government to do more to help workers who lack sufficient paid time off from work. But how much do you know about people’s real preferences about the government taking action to increase access to paid time off?

Let’s play “Two Truths and a Lie” and find out! Can you identify which of the following statements is not true?

A. Most Americans, including both Republicans and Democrats, want workers to be able to take time off from work when they need it, such as when welcoming a new baby to the family.

B. Americans prefer paid-leave solutions that are voluntary, require tradeoffs, and are fair to all taxpayers and workers, rather than a federal entitlement program that would require a new payroll tax on everyone.

C. Survey respondents’ views of the various approaches to paid leave differed greatly by party.

Let’s take these one at a time.

First, A: TRUE! A recent McLaughlin survey of 1000 Americans asked, “do you think we need a plan that makes it affordable for all working parents to take time off after the birth or adoption of a baby?” Eighty-one percent of Democrats answered yes; so did 72 percent of Republicans.

B is also TRUE. The same McLaughlin survey described three different approaches to expanding access to paid parental leave. The first was to create a traditional new entitlement program, funded with a payroll tax that would provide replacement to pay workers taking time off to welcome a child.

McLaughlin also asked about two budget neutral, voluntary proposals: Giving workers the option to receive an advance on their own future child tax credits at the time of a birth or adoption. That advance would effectively be paid back by a reduction in future tax credits. And, finally, the approach first introduced by Independent Women’s Forum, known as Earned Leave, which would give workers the option to access a share of their Social Security benefits following a birth or adoption, in return for a small delay in eligibility for Social Security’s retirement benefits.

When asked about each plan individually, support for each approach was similar -- around half of respondents were likely to support the approach, while a third were unlikely to support it. But when asked about which of the three approaches they support most, Americans’ preference was clear: Just 16 percent supported the traditional government entitlement approach, while the two budget neutral approaches each received twice as much support--the Social Security Earned Leave approach was supported by 32 percent, and the tax credit approach received 30 percent. Together, those budget neutral, voluntary approaches received a decisive majority.

Finally, C is FALSE. Republican and Democratic responses were nearly identical in the McLaughlin survey: 18 percent of both Republicans and Democrats preferred the government entitlement, 29 percent the tax credit, and 33 percent of Republicans and 31 percent of Democrats preferred the Social Security Earned Leave approach. Interestingly, Independents differed in one important way: They were far less likely to support the government entitlement, with just nine percent responding positively to that approach.

Thanks for playing IWF’s two truths and a lie! For more about paid leave, visit our information center here.

The Left’s War on Women That Will Jeopardize Women’s Progress

Carrie L. Lukas — Mon, 27 Jan 2020 08:01:00 CST

As the 2020 campaign goes into full swing, expect Democrats to reboot the same “Republican War on Women” trope they’ve been peddling for more than a decade. Anyone objecting to the progressive, trillion-dollar government reordering of the economy will be tarred as acting out of malice, particularly toward women.

Republicans have an opportunity to counter this narrative, by exposing the actual war on women being waged by the Left. Consider, for example, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which was just approved in Virginia, even though the deadline for ratification passed decades ago. Although even ERA supporter and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledges that the ratification process needs to start over before the proposal can become law of the land, proponents are hard at work trying to convince Americans that those who oppose adding the Amendment to the Constitution regard women as second-class citizens.

The ERA is more than symbolic and threatens to do real harm to the women and girls of America. Women already have every right that men have. ERA proponents claim it will help close the so-called wage gap, but wage discrimination has been illegal in the U.S. for decades.The ERA wouldn’t change that and won’t alter any of the policies that deter or punish workplace discrimination.

Instead, the ERA, will throw into legal question any law or program that fails to treat men and women the same.

That’s an important shift. Men and women are already equal under the law, but are not always considered exactly the same or interchangeable. The law is still allowed to recognize that in certain limited circumstances, respecting the very real biological differences between men and women can be important, or even life-saving. But the ERA would erase any policies that treat men and women as distinct biological groups for programs and facilities including public restrooms, domestic violence shelters, prisons, athletic teams, and initiatives to encourage participation in science, technology, engineering, and math fields.

These female-only programs exist explicitly to help women. That’s something that’s often lost because of the growing public discomfort with acknowledging differences between men and women. Pretending that women are just as physically strong as men may make feminists feel good, but it leaves actual women vulnerable to violence and physical injury, as well as sidelined in athletic competitions. Mothers who want their girls to compete and succeed on athletic fields, as well as to have privacy and safety in locker rooms or in other public facilities ought to ask how their daughters’ interests are advanced by women being erased as a physically distinct category?

Women should consider how other progressive plans might also jeopardize their progress. Since 2016, the number of women owned businesses grew by nearly one third and female unemployment hit historic lows. In 2018, the increase in earnings caused the poverty rate for single mothers to fall 1.7 percent—the lowest rate on record. Working mothers once faced all-or-nothing choices about whether to work or stay at home, but millions now work on their own terms as independent contractors or direct sellers.

Progressive plans to dramatically limit flexible work arrangements and push people back toward a full-time, nine-to-five work model threaten this progress. With the passage of AB5 in California, dozens of employers have already announced that they will no longer use independent contractors in that state, destroying flexible work opportunities vital to working parents, students and low-wage workers trying to supplement their income.

Women should ask themselves if we really want a return to the one-size-fits-all work relationship and the end of any programs that account for women’s unique needs and vulnerabilities. When they carefully consider some of the proposals being advanced in their name, they may decide that the real war on women is being waged by those in pink hats who are marching under the banner of feminism.

Do You Want New And Better Working Paradigms?

Carrie L. Lukas — Mon, 20 Jan 2020 19:01:00 CST

The media focuses on the personalities and horserace politics, but voters know that elections are more than popularity contests. They determine what policies will be put in place, which profoundly impact all of us.

Since 2017, the rolling back of government regulation and reduced tax burden has helped improve employment prospects for millions of Americans. Wages are rising, entrepreneurship is up, unemployment is dropping, and millions of jobs wait for people with the skills to fill them. Women have particularly benefited from these trends: the number of women-owned businesses have soared, women’s unemployment is at historic lows, and women now account for a majority of the nation’s workers.

Yet more can and should be done to continue these positive trends and make it easier for women to find work situations that fit their particular circumstances. That’s particularly important: Women, particularly mothers, don’t want to be forced back into an era when they confronted a black-or-white choice of whether to work or stay home. A growing number of women want to create their own unique shade of grey by blending work and family life together on their own terms. We should embrace policies that help them to do so.

To start, policymakers should take a fresh look at the Fair Labor Standards Act, a Depression-era law that is simply out of date. Policymakers should make it easier for workers to customize their work schedules, and give them the option (like public sector, government workers already have) to receive paid time off in return for overtime work, rather than extra take-home pay.

Americans should reject attempts to curtail independent contractors, freelancers, or gig workers. California’s recently passed AB5, a law limiting who can be considered an independent contractor, is an attempt to force businesses to return to using solely traditional full-time employees. Yet this backfires on everyone who prefers flexibility over a traditional job. An ophthalmologist in California described the impact that AB5 is having on her and her family:

I have been an independent contractor optometrist for 18 years. I currently work part-time so that I can raise my two boys. Being an IC optometrist has given me the flexibility and the income to have the best of both worlds, a fulfilling career and be present for my children. The AB5 bill has cut my income by 30 percent overnight! I will have to work more to stay afloat. This is detrimental to my family.

She’s not alone. Dozens of employers have announced that they will be limiting their use of California’s independent contractors because of these new rules. Americans should be warned that other states are seeking to follow California’s model and Democrats have introduced legislation that would impose restrictions similar to AB5 on a federal level. This would be a tremendous step backward in terms of workplace flexibility, particularly harming working parents, working students, and everyone who depends on side hustles to make ends meet or to get ahead.

Rather than trying to force workers back into the mold of 9 to 5 work shifts, with a government prescribed set of benefits and limitations, policymakers should look for ways to give workers more options and opportunities to help themselves. They can help people who currently lack sufficient paid leave benefits by giving them the option to take a small share of the benefits they’ve accrued from Social Security when they need to take time off from work, in exchange for a small delay in eligibility for retirement benefits. Expanding options for workers to put money away tax-free for critical needs, like paid time off, would also increase financial security and preserve worker flexibility. That’s a far better approach than creating another one-size-fits-all government entitlement program, which would mean people have less money in every paycheck, jeopardize existing employer-provided benefits, and discourage employers from customizing benefits to employees’ needs.

These are just a few of the more than twenty policy proposals outlined in Independent Women’s Forum’s newly released Working for Women’s Agenda, all of which seek to give people more and better options by returning resources and decision-making power from government to the people themselves.

WORKING FOR WOMEN: A MODERN AGENDA FOR IMPROVING WOMEN'S LIVES [SECOND EDITION]

Women are advancing in terms of economic progress, not just in terms of climbing the corporate ladder and earning more, but in their ability to pursue their own visions of happiness. But this progress shouldn’t be taken for granted.

Will our economy continue to offer people new employment paradigms? That’s a question that will be answered in part by upcoming policy battles and political debates. It won’t get the same media attention as the latest trading of political insults and innuendos, but it will matter profoundly in determining what options we have—and don’t have—for work in the coming years.

Women's March 2020: Are Black Women Still A Part Of The Conversation?

Carrie L. Lukas — Sat, 18 Jan 2020 15:01:00 CST

Hundreds of thousands of women gathered in solidarity in January 2017 to advocate for women’s rights and protest against President Donald Trump and the offensive comments he made about women at the first annual Women’s March, which took place the day after his inauguration. Four years later, after facing controversies surrounding its’ leadership and criticism over the focus of the march, the expected number of attendees for the fourth annual Women’s March, which will take place on Saturday morning, has lessened. But, does the Women’s March still matter to Black women?

According to the Independent Women’s Forum, the focuses of this year’s march are reproductive rights, climate change and immigration. And while these concerns are important, they don’t particularly tap into the issues troubling Black women.

IWF said that two major concerns for Black women are safety and income. “Criminal justice and policing reform and affordable healthcare top their issues of concern at 48 percent and 47 percent, respectively. Equal rights and equal pay come in a strong third place (42 percent) tied with hate crimes. Affordable housing and college costs round out the top five,” according to IWF.

The forum added that the Women’s March should shift its’ focus to entrepreneurship, which “ranks high among black women.”

Despite the notion that the march doesn’t necessarily appeal to Black women, 28-year-old Icy Coomber, who attended a poster-making session in preparation for the Women’s March to be held in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, feels that not attending the march is counterproductive, according to NPR.

“When we’re talking about women’s rights, I feel like black women or women of color are usually left out of that conversation,” Coomber said. “But I think not going, not representing people like me, doesn’t help anything. I’m trying to have a change of heart.”

Jocelyn Harmon, co-founder of BlackHer – a media platform that champions Black women, their voices and educates them on political and economic change, spoke to NewsOne about why the Women’s March is still prevalent to Black women. “My gut says yes – I think the march absolutely matters because I think there’s absolutely power in numbers. And I think that women – Black women, and white women, and native women, and folks who identify as women – I think we absolutely have things in common. I think there’s absolutely a place, whether it’s the women’s march or other coalition building activities where we absolutely should come together and need to come together around shared interests,” she explained.

Harmon, whose organization is a partner of the 2020 Women’s March, noted that the interests of Black and white women diverge due to racism.

The BlackHer co-founder also spoke to the importance of intersectionality, which is affected by the aforementioned divergence of women. “How do we learn to understand our commonalities, but also how do we not just erase our differences?” she said. “Part of what BlackHer is trying to say is, yes there’s a time and a place for us to come together under this header of women and celebrate together and challenge structures together. At the same time, it’s really important to have a space where we’re just centering Black women.”

Harmon added, “It really matters who’s in the center of your story. If you tell a story about women, your narrative or your arc is going to go one way, but if you tell a story about Black women it’s going to go a different way – and that’s because of racism in our country.”

Last year, The Washington Post reported that the march parted ways with three of its’ founding members – Tamika Mallory, Bob Bland, and Linda Sarsour. Reports alleged that the women stepped down due to anti-Semitism accusations. It was also said that the women were replaced due to the election of three new members as the board of directors. However, that information was proven to be incorrect.

By-laws for the Women’s March indicate that the three women were serving two-year terms as directors and their terms expired, which meant new directors had to be elected. One of the directors, however, had to be a co-chair of the 2017 Women’s March on Washington. Thus, Carmen Perez – the founding member, maintained her position as she was one of the co-chairs of the 2017 march.

Perez spoke to The Atlantic and expressed that the march is inclusive. “I believe that the Women’s March is a space for all women. When women feel a desire to participate in the Women’s March, they may not agree with every piece of the ideology, they may not agree with the whole feminist platform, but I’m sure there’s something that they do agree with. I believe that the Women’s March is for you. The Women’s March is a place for people who identify as women, whether you’re trans or you’re a person who has always been a woman. The unity principles were an entry point for people to get involved,” she said.

Why Mothers' Choices About Work and Family Often Feel Like No Choice at All

Carrie L. Lukas — Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:01:00 CST

If liberals and conservatives can agree on anything about family policies, it’s this: Parents should have choices.

Senator Elizabeth Warren said her plan for universal child care would give parents “the freedom to choose the best work and child care situation for themselves.”

Ivanka Trump, at a White House summit about family policies, said, “Our vision is to give each parent the resources and support they need to make the best choice for their children.”

Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican from Louisiana, and Senator Kyrsten Sinema, Democrat from Arizona, said of their parental leave bill: “This straightforward, bipartisan path forward provides parents with real choices.”

“Choice” has become the favorite term in family policy. Yet many parents — particularly women — feel their decisions about work and family are made within such constraints that they have little choice at all.

The United States government offers no paid family leave — in contrast with all other advanced nations — or public preschool. Child care is often unaffordable, inadequate or unavailable. Many Americans face work hours that are long and unpredictable, as well as rising health and housing costs. Women’s earnings stall after having children, and mothers spend significantly more time taking care of children than fathers do.

“The language of choice is used to suggest that these women have choices, while the language that should be there is they have no choice but to,” said Shani Orgad, a professor at the London School of Economics and author of “Heading Home: Motherhood, Work and the Failed Promise of Equality.”

Credit...Daniel Acker for The New York Times

Framing how to balance work and family as personal choices, researchers say, distracts from the bigger structural issues that force these choices. Individuals are left to figure out how to make it work — and feel guilty when it doesn’t.

“It’s extremely difficult to have a structural conversation about it,” said Kirsten Swinth, author of “Feminism’s Forgotten Fight: The Unfinished Struggle for Work and Family” and a history professor at Fordham. “People say, ‘I just need to organize my life like this and make the right choices.’ Nobody’s saying, ‘I’m making choices in an impoverished world.’”

For everyone, life consists of making choices within constraints, and women’s choices have long been particularly limited (as “Little Women” is currently reminding moviegoers). But the word has become politicized in the United States. Choice — which appeals to core American values of freedom, independence and individualism — is also used to talk about many other topics in American politics, including health care, schools and housing.

Research has found that when Americans in particular are asked to think about daily actions as choices, it decreases their support for policies that support the public good and their empathy for people with fewer advantages.

Credit...Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

In family and gender policy, “choice” can mean various things politically. It can speak to women having autonomy over their lives (as it does in another context: reproductive rights), or to limiting government overreach into people’s lives.

Today’s use of the word in the context of family policy dates to the 1980s, when women had started entering the labor force in large numbers. Two distinct ideas arose, Ms. Swinth has written. One was that the public and private sectors would help both men and women accomplish paid and unpaid labor, with policies like flexible hours, subsidized child care and paid leave. The other was that individuals were responsible for making decisions about work and care, without direct aid from government or business.

The latter idea prevailed. Under President Ronald Reagan, there was a new political alliance — between free-market conservatives (who believed in small government) and social conservatives (who championed traditional family structures). They agreed that it was the responsibility of parents, not public policy, to invest in children, as the sociologist Melinda Cooper has written.

In 1981, the economist Gary Becker argued that free-market principles applied in the home as well. The family functioned like a small factory, with each person making rational choices to maximize value, he wrote in “A Treatise on the Family” (part of the body of work for which he would later win the Nobel Prize.)

“It’s neoliberalism as an economic system — the deregulation and the disinvestment in support and care,” Ms. Orgad said. “But it’s also neoliberalism as a rationality — how we as individuals internalize this idea that we are responsible for our lives and it’s our fault if we fail, because we make choices.”

By the mid-1980s, the idea had solidified as “A Mother’s Choice,” as a 1986 Newsweek headline put it. The choice was presented as either/or — work or stay home — or to explain why women “choose” lower-paying jobs.

“What’s implicit in the conservative logic is that good mothers make the right choice, and the right choice is to prioritize your family,” Ms. Swinth said — though she said this logic applied primarily to married, middle-class, white women.

Feminists pushed back, arguing that the choice they had been fighting for was never between working or staying home. They always wanted changes in workplace culture, public policy and men’s involvement at home, along with career opportunities.

In the mid-1980s, in a landmark employment discrimination case against Sears, Roebuck and Co., the company argued that women were not promoted because they did not choose high-paying or stressful jobs. Sears won, but in testimony, Alice Kessler-Harris, a labor historian, offered an alternate lens: “Choice can be understood only within the framework of available opportunity.”

In a 1991 paper, “Gender Wars: Selfless Women in the Republic of Choice,” Joan C. Williams, a work-life law scholar, wrote: “This insistent focus on the ‘choices’ of individual actors deflects attention from the truly stunning consistency with which it ‘happens’ to be wives who ‘choose’ careers that ‘accommodate their children’s needs,’ while husbands continue (as they always have) to perform as ideal workers.”

Today, the divide is less stark: Three-quarters of mothers are employed. But many feel forced to make painful decisions, like leaving their child in inadequate care, or working in scaled-back jobs they say they wouldn’t have chosen under different circumstances.

It’s still framed as a woman’s own decision — lean in or opt out — and the language of choice continues to shape policy debates.

Democrats have proposed new federal programs, financed by taxpayers, that would provide things like paid family leave and public preschool — which they say would free parents from the limits on their choices today.

Republican proposals focus on individual solutions — like letting new parents draw down their Social Security or tax credits early, and providing funding to increase the number of home-based family child care providers. They say these would give parents more choice without the government swaying them in any direction, and ensure that “the people making different choices than you aren’t paying for your choices,” said Carrie Lukas, president of the Independent Women’s Forum, a conservative policy group.

“It’s not just society forcing women to work less,” she said. “Or maybe it is partially society forcing them to, but at some point I think we’ve just got to accept the idea of women wanting to do this. I want them to have the best options possible and the most say to decide what their own personal preferences are.”

Preferences are shaped by policy, culture, the workplace and the realities of daily life. The question is how women’s choices might change if their options were different.

AGAR: Politicians' 'help' attacks the gig-economy

Carrie L. Lukas — Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:01:00 CST

Do you lead a free and independent work life? If so, the political class is coming for you.

Exhibit A is an anti-Uber law in California that has the perhaps unintended consequence of attacking workers in a number of gig-economy jobs.

Canada is infested with the same types of politicians who crafted California’s law, so it is worth exploring.

The new law – AB5 – limits whether companies can classify their workers as independent contractors. A report from the Independent Women’s Forum reads, “Supporters of the bill promised that ridesharing drivers would get more pay and benefits because companies would have to abide by state laws and mandates including minimum wages, overtime, workers’ compensation, and paid time off.”

In December, anticipating the law, Vox Media laid off 200 freelance journalists and writers. Perhaps politicians will telephone each of them to explain how much better off they are now. They are replaced by 20 full-time workers.

Vox offered writers the chance to write up to 35 articles a year if they worked for free. That’s a real financial benefit, isn’t it?

Business Insider estimated 7,200 media workers lost jobs by October 2019 while Forbes says, “at least one million workers will be impacted” in California.

The Sacramento Bee said the law is, “a prime example of lawmaking by people who make big salaries and never bother finding out what life is like for the everyday workers who make a living in the gig economy. It offered blanket exemptions to groups with strong lobbying capabilities – doctors, lawyers, real estate agents and the like – and left most of the rest gasping for air, including nurses, musicians, stand-up comedians and interpreters.”

Once again uninformed politicians who claim to be for the little guy – but in reality are often doing the bidding of deep-pocket unions and big taxi companies – screw the little guy.

California is so serious about clamping down on freedom of choice for workers that they have budgeted $20 million to enforce the bill.

Wonolo offers an on-demand marketplace for blue-collar workers. Using an app, they facilitate connections to temporary jobs such as warehouse packers, janitors, delivery drivers, forklift operators, line cooks and event staffers.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports, “Wonolo has primarily hired its workers as independent contractors. AB5 has prompted it to drastically shrink its California operations, essentially ending gig jobs here after the first quarter.”

Who works in the gig economy? Business Insider writes, “Of the 57 million gig workers in 2019, 46% said they chose to freelance because they were “unable to work for a traditional employer due to personal circumstances,” according to an annual study from the gig-work marketplace Upwork. Alisha Grauso, a co-leader of California Freelance Writers United, said freelancers were more likely to be disabled or older.”

That is who the Democrats in California decided to attack under the guise of liberal, condescending, “help.”

In Canada the Canadian Union of Postal Workers went to court trying to enforce their view that Foodora’s couriers are employees, not independent contractors.

Under the previous Liberal government in Ontario a report recommended that classification of employees and contractors become a “priority enforcement issue.”

As freelance writer Karen Klein observed in the Sacramento Bee, “Note to the Legislature: Destroying the livelihoods of contractors is not the same as protecting them.”

We Need Fair Benefit Policies That Create Flexibility, Not New Burdens

Carrie L. Lukas — Mon, 16 Dec 2019 18:12:00 CST

It surprises many people to learn that federal workers don’t already have guaranteed paid family leave benefits. That’s something that President Donald Trump and Congress may soon change, and seems a natural next step for an Administration that has focused on encouraging a debate about how to best make sure that workers, particularly working women, have the time off they need, especially following the birth of a child.

However, when it comes to the federal workforce, paid leave policies should be considered in the context of their entire compensation package. After all, the costs of these new benefits will have to be paid by taxpayers, most of whom have far less generous compensation packages than do federal workers.

Certainly, the federal government has been behind the times in not providing employees with paid leave specifically for family reasons, like the birth of a new baby or the illness of a child. However, federal workers have long considerable paid leave benefits, with more than two weeks of paid vacation, two weeks of paid sick leave per year, and 10 paid holidays. Vacation and sick leave can typically be repurposed for paid family leave. AEI’s Andrew Biggs has compared the compensation of federal and private-sector workers and found that federal workers with similar qualifications receive about 14 percent higher compensation than their private sector counterparts.

In addition to the paid leave benefits described above, federal workers also have access to retirement packages, including subsidized 401k style savings, the potential for a defined federal retirement benefit and even paid health care benefits during retirement, that far outstrip that of comparable private sector workers.

This doesn’t mean that it’s a mistake to augment paid leave for federal workers, but it ought to be done in the context of a rethinking of the way federal workers are compensated more broadly, to make sure that their compensation is in line with those who of the taxpayers who have to foot that bill.

To make progress specifically on the paid leave front, there are several other measures that the Administration and Congress ought to be able to agree upon. Policymakers should expand health savings accounts (HSAs), both to allow workers increase their contributions to HSAs so that they can accrue more assets in those accounts and to give them the option to use HSA funds to replace income lost during unpaid leave from work. This idea was proposed by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) in the Freedom for Families Act.

Policymakers should also update the outdated Fair Labor Standards Act to give private sector workers an option that government workers already enjoy: The chance to be compensated for overtime with time-and-a-half of paid leave instead of extra pay. This would particularly benefit working parents, those caring for elderly parents and those with personal illnesses. Those who anticipate an absence from work and lack sufficient paid leave benefits would then have the ability to seek overtime opportunities so that they can accrue paid leave benefits for future use. This reform would also be particularly important for lower-income workers, who are more likely to be subject to the overtime regulations and are less likely to have access to employer-offered paid leave benefits.

These are important ways to help workers help themselves. The Administration should also work to advance other proposals to expand access to paid leave, such as legislation to create Earned Leave. This budget-neutral approach would allow workers to opt to receive a small share of the retirement benefits they have earned through Social Security when welcoming a new child. Those who exercise this option would have a small delay in their eligibility for retirement benefits to pay back those costs. A bipartisan bill introduced by Senators Bill Cassidy and Kyrsten Sinema similarly would allow workers to front-load their child tax credits to compensate for income lost while taking leave, in exchange for reduced tax credits in future years. These measures have the virtue of not further burdening taxpayers; they simply give workers more options for how to use benefits that they have already earned.

It’s nice for federal workers to get a big benefit increase, but we need to do more to help all workers who need time off from work without chipping away at their paychecks.

On the Fourth Day of Christmas: Mom’s Cinnamon Bread

Carrie L. Lukas — Mon, 16 Dec 2019 10:12:00 CST

Christmas morning breakfast always included slices of cinnamon bread, homemade by my Mom. Once I was older, she taught me to make it alongside her.

I’m not someone who usually gets much pleasure of cooking or baking. But there is something about the process of making homemade bread: the messiness of it, the feel the dough changing from stickiness to a shiny solid form, the wait for the dough to rise, and the creative that comes with making each final loaf your own.

The recipe below is for the classic cinnamon bread, but now my children—who look forward to this ritual each year—as often use the dough for far more decadent cinnamon sugar rolls, kneading in extra scoops of brown sugar, along with the cinnamon, and rolling little balls it in butter before we place them in muffin tins and bake them in the oven.

I hope you enjoy this recipe and a very Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukah to all.

Mom's Cinnamon Bread

Ingredients:

2 packages of Dry Yeast in 1.5 cups warm water
2/3 cup Sugar
1.5 Teaspoon Salt
2/3 Cup of Butter
2 Eggs
1 Cup of Mashed Potatoes (made with boiled, skinned potatoes, butter, and a little milk)
7 or 8 cups of Bread Flour
Cinnamon mix: 6 Tables Sugar, 2 teaspoons cinnamon

Directions:

Dissolve yeast in warm water. Combine sugar, salt, butter, eggs and potatoes and mix with blender. Alternate adding yeast water and a cup of flour and mix. After about 4 cups of flour, you will not be able to use the blender anymore. Pour on clean, floured counter and knead in remaining flour until dough is firm. Put in a greased bowl and let it rise in the refrigerator overnight

Divide dough into three parts to make 3 loaves. Further divide each part in 3 and form long strips. Roll each strip in the cinnamon mix and braid strips. Place in greased loaf pan. Sprinkle remaining (or additional!) sugar and cinnamon on the top. Cover and let rise 1 to 1.5 hours. Bake in preheated 375 degree Fahrenheit oven for 30 minutes.

Coalition Letter: Unique Patient Identifier (UPI)

Carrie L. Lukas — Fri, 13 Dec 2019 14:12:00 CST

Dear Chairman Shelby:

On behalf of the undersigned individuals and organizations representing American citizens nationwide, we are writing to you to express our strong opposition to the Unique Patient Identifier language that the U.S. House adopted in their HHS appropriations bill this past summer, and which may be under discussion in the U.S. Senate.

On June 12, 2019, the House added an amendment that strikes the longstanding prohibition on the use of federal funds to create a Unique Patient Identifier (UPI), also known as a National Patient ID. The amendment to strike Section 510 of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill to permit federal funding for the development of a Unique Patient Identifier was offered by Rep. Bill Foster (D-Illinois) and approved 246-178 by the U.S. House of Representatives.

In response to the House's attempt to remove the ban on federal funding for a UPI, on September 24, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced S. 2538 to repeal the UPI from federal law. In a press release, Senator Paul stated:

As a physician, I know firsthand how the doctor-patient relationship relies on trust and privacy, which will be thrown into jeopardy by a National Patient ID. Considering how unfortunately familiar our world has become with devastating security breaches and the dangers of the growing surveillance state, it is simply unacceptable for government to centralize some of Americans' most personal information.

We agree that a National Patient ID undermines the doctor-patient relationship and that a new government number to link a patient's medical records from womb to tomb would centralize patient data into a national medical-records system. We greatly appreciate Senator Paul's strong stance against implementing this national health surveillance system.

Likewise, we are grateful to the Senate Labor HHS Education Appropriations Subcommittee for continuing the prohibition on federal funding and development of a UPI in its FY2020 Labor, HHS, & Education Appropriations bill released on September 18.

A national patient ID would become a government-issued tracking number, identification number, and access-to-care number (i.e. “no card, no care"). First proposed in the 1993 Clinton Health Security Plan, President Clinton called it a “Health Security Card.”

Although the Clinton legislation did not become law, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) mandated the creation of a UPI for all Americans and authorized broad sharing of patient information without patient consent. In 1998, Congressman Ron Paul stopped the development of the UPI by placing the following prohibition in the 1999 Appropriations bill:

None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to promulgate or adopt any final standard under section 1173(6) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d=2(b)) providing for, or providing for the assignment of, a unique health identifier for an individual (except in an individual's capacity as an employer or a health care provider), until legislation is enacted specifically approving the standard.

This prohibition was added annually to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. However, once Congressman Paul left office in 2013, proponents began to push Congress to allow the UPI to be developed. For example, in 2017, although the prohibition remained, the Appropriations Act of 2017 bill authorized HHS to examine the issues around patient matching” and encouraged the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and CMS “to provide technical assistance to private-sector led initiatives to develop a coordinated national strategy that will promote patient safety by accurately identifying patients to their health information."

The advocates of a government-issued National Patient ID cheered.

The U.S. House of Representatives has now voted to end the funding prohibition and advance a government number to identify and track every patient through the health care system. To reiterate, this unconstitutional federal number would be used not only to track patients, but to create a lifelong, fully linked, cradle-to-grave medical record, conduct research using patient data without consent (as permitted by the permissive HIPAA data-sharing rule, exemplified by the troubling Google-Ascension data-sharing agreements now making national headlines), and become the only way to access medical care in America. It would also mean the end of unbiased second opinions for patients.

It would also create a rich target for hackers and others, including foreign governments, wishing to steal the identity and private medical and financial details of Americans in and outside of government. In short, it will make Americans more vulnerable and threaten our national security.

National systems beget national systems: a national patient ID will create a national data system, facilitating the transition to a national health care system, such as the system President Clinton envisioned when the UPI was part of his Health Security Act.

The UPI will also facilitate the creation of complete dossiers on Americans, particularly as the collection of financial, social, and lifestyle “Social Determinants of Health” (SDOH) data advances. And last, but not least, it will facilitate coercion, control, and interference in private medical decisions through profiling of patients, profiling of physicians, and the advance of value-based payments, with "value" defined by third parties far from the exam room.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we are asking you to use your considerable power to stop the National Patient ID

Specific Request: For the sake of all Americans, and for the cause of patient freedom, we respectfully request that you retain Section 510 in the appropriations bill, maintaining the prohibition on funding the development of a Unique Patient Identifier.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your attention to this important matter.

If you or anyone on your committee should have questions, please do not hesitate to contact Twila Brase, president of Citizens' Council for Health Freedom: 651-646-8935.

Sincerely,

Twila Brase, RN, PHN

President and Co-founder

Citizens' Council for Health Freedom

Jake A. Duesenberg

President

Action 4 Liberty

Linda Gorman

Director, Health Care Policy Center

Independence Institute, Denver Colorado

David Barnes

Policy Manager

Americans for Prosperity

Carrie L. Lukas

President

Independent Women's Forum

Kris Held, MD

President

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)

Merrill Matthews, Ph.D.

Resident Scholar

Institute for Policy Innovation

Jordan Roberts

Health Policy Analyst

John Locke Foundation

Board of Directors:

Kimberly Legg Corba, DO

Lee Gross, MD

Katarina Lindley, DO

Chad Savage, MD

Josh Umbehr, MD

DPC Action

Ed Martin

President

Phyllis Schlafly Eagles

Eunie Smith

President

Eagle Forum

CL Gray, MD

President

Physicians for Reform

Lawrence W. Reed

President Emeritus

Foundation for Economic Freedom

Westby Fisher, MD

Judith Thompson, MD

Niran Al-Agba, MD

Brian Jamal Dixon, MD

Craig Wax, DO

Marion Mass, MD

Practicing Physicians of America

Adam Brandon

President

Freedom Works

Naomi Lopez

Director of Healthcare Policy

Goldwater Institute

Norm Singleton

President

Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty

Mario H. Lopez

President

Hispanic Leadership Fund

Jenny Beth Martin

Honorary Chairman

Tea Party Patriots Action

Beverly Gossage

President

HSA Benefits Consulting

David Balat

Director, Right on Healthcare

Texas Public Policy Foundation

Dan Perrin

Founder

HSA Coalition

Eric Novack, MD

Chairman

US Health Freedom Coalition

One in Four Women Don’t Go to Work Two Weeks After Giving Birth

Carrie L. Lukas — Fri, 13 Dec 2019 11:12:00 CST

One in four women return to work within two weeks of giving birth: That’s a statistic that one hears in discussions about the need for government action to increase workers access to paid leave.

People are horrified at the thought that new moms have to leave behind newborns barely young enough to focus their eyes, and drag themselves back to work when they are not even close to physically recovered from pregnancy and labor. But like so many eye-popping statistics, this one doesn’t seem to be an accurate picture of reality.

This one-in-four statistic appears to comes from a 2012 Department of Labor study of 2,852 employees who had taken family or medical leave in the last year, and a follow up analysis of the data done by Abt Associates. They report that there were 93 women among those employees who had taken time off from work to care for a new baby, and 12 percent of those interviewed (or about 11 women) said they took less than one week off and another 11 percent (or 10 women) took between one and two weeks. Rounding up, that became a short hand of 25 percent or one-and-four.

First, it’s important to note that the one-in-four finding for this study wasn’t for all women, but employed women. According to Pew Research, about two-thirds of women worked during pregnancy in 2015—another third were not employed. Similarly, the Census Bureau published a report that found that 56 percent of first time mothers were working full-time during their pregnancies and nearly 10 percent were working part time between 2006-2008. So if the one-in-four finding applies to working women, then it is really about one-in-seven of all women.

In addition to small sample size of just 93 women, the Department of Labor report describes the reason for this leave as women who have taken time off to care for and bond with a new baby, adopted or fostered child, or for a maternity related disability or illness. We don’t know how many of the 21 women who reported taking off less than two weeks were post-birth, versus caring for their own health problem during pregnancy or welcoming an older foster or adopted child. Even if it’s just a couple who took leave for reasons other than childbirth, that changes the percentage dramatically because it’s such a small sample.

Other studies also suggest that a smaller share of women return to work so soon after giving birth. For example, Pew found that 17 percent (or about one in six) of women who worked during pregnancy went back to work in less than six weeks (though that too had a very small sample size). The Census report doesn’t include the share of working women who took less than a month of leave on its table, but a graph suggests that about 10 percent of working first time moms had returned to work after one month of leave. Table 8 of the Census report shows that 58 percent were back at work after three months, 73 percent by six months, and 79 at the end of one year (and about twenty percent reported quitting their jobs entirely).

None of this data contradicts the central point of those who make the statement that one in four women go to work within two weeks of giving birth: Even if the real number is more likely one in twelve, or even one in fifteen, that still means there are a lot of moms out there who need help and support so that they can take care of themselves physically after giving birth and bond with and care for their newborns.

However, making the problem so widespread encourages people to race to support sweeping policy changes and not consider how those changes will impact people generally. If such a huge share of American women really were dragging themselves to work days after giving birth, then many people would support proposals for government to take dramatic action and impose a new payroll tax on all workers to fund partial pay replacement to help these women. They would worry less about how such a plan would impact everyone else. They wouldn’t consider how such a policy might make other workers—even a majority of workers—worse off, how it would mean that everyone, including those struggling to get by today, must pay a new tax and have less in each and every paycheck. They wouldn’t worry about how, once the government starts collecting taxes for and paying a government paid leave entitlement, many if not most employers will drop benefits that they are already offering–which means that workers who today receive fully paid leave benefits will instead have only partial wage replacement during leave, which means that some—and particularly those with lower incomes may no longer be able to afford to take that leave.

But we should consider all of these facts, and then focus on finding a solution to help the one in twelve new moms who really need it, but one that also doesn’t needless jeopardize or complicate the situation of the eleven-in-twelve new moms who are doing ok.

It’s understandable to want to dramatize a problem when you are urging action, but this lack of accuracy and the false narrative it creates can lead to poor policy decisions and create lasting harm for those that we all want to help.

New PragerU Video: “How Big Government Hurts Women”

Carrie L. Lukas — Wed, 4 Dec 2019 10:12:00 CST

IWF and PragerU just joined forces (again) to release our new video, "How Big Government Hurts Women."

Women so often hear that bigger government is going to solve all their problems. From Elizabeth Warren to Bernie Sanders touting government-paid-for child care and paid leave, and new regulations in the name of equality, the Left is constantly selling their agenda as necessary for women to thrive.

Our video proves that this is simply wrong.

The reality is: These big-government mandates don’t help women thrive. They backfire, leading to less opportunity, choice, flexibility, and freedom.

This video is just one of the many ways IWF is pushing back against the women-as-victims narrative and correcting the record about how policies actually work in practice and principle.

We are making the case for more freedoms, expanded opportunities, and limited government every day in the media, online, and through our educational, enlightening, and engaging materials. And we invite you to take a look at all we’re working on, starting with this thought-provoking video.

Watch our new video, and see for yourself how big government hurts women.>>>