Pregnancy and Childbirth

Latest story

125 Shares149 Views

China Offers Women Perks for Having Babies, if They’re Married

by

Beijing is giving incentives to stem a demographic crisis, but its control over childbirth and its suppression of women’s rights are making it difficult for some aspiring parents to start a family.When Chan Zhang heard about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, she was baffled that Americans were still arguing over abortion rights.“Here, overall, the society does not encourage abortion,” said Ms. Zhang, a 37-year-old junior faculty member at a prestigious university on China’s east coast, “but I feel like women have the right in terms of whether they want to get an abortion.”Abortion, like almost all reproductive issues in China, is heavily centered on Chinese Communist Party authority. The party for decades forced abortions and sterilizations on women as part of its one-child policy. Now, faced with a demographic crisis, it wants women to have more than one baby — and preferably three.But Beijing is still dictating who can have babies, discriminating against single women like Ms. Zhang and minorities through draconian family planning policies. The question now, many women say, is why they would choose to have any babies at all.With China’s birthrate at a historical low, officials have been doling out tax and housing credits, educational benefits and even cash incentives to encourage women to have more children. Yet the perks are available only to married couples, a prerequisite that is increasingly unappealing to independent women who, in some cases, would prefer to parent alone.Babies born to single parents in China have long struggled to receive social benefits like medical insurance and education. Women who are single and pregnant are regularly denied access to public health care and insurance that covers maternity leave. They are not legally protected if employers fire them for being pregnant.The sweeteners offered to new mothers by the government are not doing much to reverse the demographic crisis, especially in the face of China’s steadily declining marriage rate.Gilles Sabrié for The New York TimesSome single women, including Ms. Zhang, are simply choosing not to have a child, quietly pushing back against Beijing’s control over women’s bodies. Those who find ways to get around the rules often face consequences from the state.“Many people think that being a single mom is a process of confrontation with public opinion, but it’s not,” said Sarah Gao, 46, a single parent who lives in Beijing and is outspoken about reproductive rights. “It’s actually this system.”Chinese law requires a pregnant woman and her husband to register their marriage to get prenatal care at a public hospital. When Ms. Gao found out that she was pregnant, she had to tell doctors at one hospital that her husband was overseas to be admitted.Her daughter was born in November 2016. Eight months later, Ms. Gao was fired from her job, prompting her to file a lawsuit accusing the company of workplace discrimination. The company won because Ms. Gao does not qualify for legal benefits and protections as an unmarried mother.The court said her unmarried birth “did not conform to China’s national policy.” She is appealing for a third time.China’s national family planning policy does not explicitly state that an unmarried woman cannot have children, but it defines a mother as a married woman and favors married mothers. Villages offer cash bonuses to families with new babies. Dozens of cities have expanded maternity leave and added an extra month for second- and third-time married mothers. One province in northwestern China is even considering a full year of leave. Some have created “parenting breaks” for married couples with young children.China’s national family planning policy is meant to favor married mothers. Some single women are choosing to remain childless, quietly pushing back against Beijing’s control over reproductive rights.Gilles Sabrié for The New York TimesBut the sweeteners are not doing much to reverse the demographic crisis, especially in the face of China’s steadily declining marriage rate, which reached a 36-year low last year. Women who came of age during the greatest period of economic growth in China’s modern history increasingly worry that their hard-earned independence will be taken away if they settle down.A politician at China’s most recent annual meeting of its rubber-stamp legislature suggested that the party be more tolerant toward single women who wanted children, giving them the same rights as married couples. Yet even as a shrinking population threatens Beijing’s long-term economic ambitions, the Chinese authorities have often failed to introduce lasting policy changes.The authorities moved last year to scrap the use of “social support” fees — a sort of penalty — that single mothers pay to get benefits for their children. But some areas have been slow to adopt the new rules, and the regulations can vary because enforcement is left to the discretion of local governments. Recent changes to Chinese law make it illegal to discriminate against the children of single parents, but some women still have to navigate an unsympathetic bureaucracy.Last year, landlocked Hunan Province said it would consider providing fertility services for single women, but it has not made much progress. When Shanghai decided to drop its policy of giving maternity benefits only to married women, it reversed the decision just a few weeks later, underlining just how hard it is for the authorities to loosen their grip on family planning.Chinese law requires a pregnant woman and her husband to register their marriage to get prenatal care at a public hospital. To be admitted at a hospital, one single mother had to tell doctors that her husband was overseas.Gilles Sabrié for The New York Times“At the societal level, it is a threat to the legally recognized marriage institution and social stability,” said Zheng Mu, an assistant professor of sociology at the National University of Singapore who studies fertility in China.Ten years ago, Kelly Xie, 36, got married because she wanted to have a child. “I had got to that age at the time, then I was picking and choosing and it seemed that he was the most suitable one,” she said. Four years later, she gave birth to a daughter, but she was unhappy in her marriage.The Latest on China: Key Things to KnowCard 1 of 6Pressure on Taiwan. More

More stories

  • 138 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    When Where You Work Determines if You Can Get an Abortion

    by

    After the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, many women are discovering that their employer can shape major decisions in their lives even more than it did a week ago.When Breanna Dietrich was 18 and working at a restaurant in West Virginia, she got pregnant. The father was a man she knew she wouldn’t marry. She considered getting an abortion. But the nearest clinic was four hours away and she couldn’t afford to take off work — so she had the baby girl.That girl is now 17 and working at a restaurant chain that has not told its employees whether it will cover abortion-related travel expenses, though abortion is now prohibited in West Virginia. This past week, Ms. Dietrich urged her daughter to find an employer that would cover the expense.“It would be awesome for her to move to a state that offers it, or at least work for a company that says, ‘Hey, we’ll foot the bill,’” Ms. Dietrich said, recalling her own struggle years ago to consider the logistics of an abortion. “How was I, at 18, going to be able to drive four hours away, pay for it, take off work? There would’ve been no way.”In the week since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, ending nearly 50 years of federal abortion rights, dozens of large U.S. companies have said they will cover expenses for employees who need to travel out of state for abortions. Some companies even said they would relocate employees from states where abortion is banned.Some business leaders now talk about access to reproductive health care as a benefit, akin to dental or egg-freezing coverage. Many of the companies quickest to come forward are those known generally for generous policies on paid leave, health care and other perks that proliferate in competitive industries. Abortion-related benefits are more divisive, of course, given that 37 percent of Americans say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.As the post-Dobbs v. Jackson landscape comes into focus, many women are discovering that, even more so than a week ago, where they happen to work can determine the shape of their lives outside work, too. Their job could be the difference between being able to get an abortion or not.Employers have long held sway over workers’ reproductive health care — whether they can take paid leave to have a baby, afford child care or get access to birth control. About half of Americans have health care tied to their employers. But the involvement corporations now have in abortion access illuminates a stark divide.For high-income women, an employer’s offer to cover abortion-related travel might be viewed partly as a signal of psychological support or a political stance. For women in low-income jobs, a company’s policy will determine whether or not they can afford to cross state lines for an abortion.About 40 percent of American women cite financial reasons as a factor in their decision to get an abortion, yet many of the companies that employ the country’s low-wage workers have not announced that they will cover out-of-state abortion expenses. Some of the largest companies in retail and hospitality, industries whose work force is predominantly female, haven’t made a statement on the question.Walmart, the nation’s largest private employer, has not said if it will cover travel for out-of-state abortions.Shutterstock“In low-wage sectors, this is going to become one of those issues where people are leaving low-paying jobs for slightly better-paying jobs,” said Bianca Agustin, director of corporate accountability for United for Respect, a nonprofit labor advocacy group. “Given the spread of companies that have public commitments, I imagine there will be some movement on this.”Walmart, Darden Restaurants, McDonald’s, Home Depot, Hilton, Dollar General and FedEx, which together employ millions of people across the country, have not said whether they will cover travel for out-of-state abortions. A spokeswoman for Walmart, which has 1.7 million U.S. workers, said the company regularly reviews its benefits based on demand from employees, and the company is now “looking at the evolving federal and state landscape” as it considers its offerings. The rest of the companies listed did not respond to multiple requests for comment.“We are working thoughtfully and diligently to figure out the best path forward, guided by our desire to support our associates, all of our associates,” wrote Doug McMillon, Walmart’s chief executive, in a memo to staff on Friday.Amazon, the country’s second-largest private employer after Walmart, said it would cover out-of-state abortion travel for its employees, most of whom are hourly workers. But that benefit applies to employees on its health care plan, not the contractors who make up a substantial portion of its work force, such as its vast network of delivery drivers.As the list of companies covering abortion-related travel grows longer, some workers wonder why their employers won’t do the same. Isabela Burrows, 19, who works at a PetSmart in Howell, Mich., learned that Roe v. Wade had been overturned from a customer last week and grew frustrated that her company hadn’t said anything. Michigan has an abortion ban that has been blocked in court and that Democratic leaders have said they will not enforce.“I wish they would do something,” Ms. Burrows said of her employer. She said her greatest source of relief has come from reading about the companies that have announced new reproductive health care benefits. “They cared enough that they would send you to go get the help and care you need.”PetSmart has not announced plans to cover abortion-related travel for its employees, and the company did not respond to a request for comment on whether it plans to do so.A company’s policies on reproductive health care access could affect how desirable it is to job candidates in what remains a tight labor market. A survey of college-educated workers, commissioned by the Tara Health Foundation, found that 70 percent said companies should address abortion access as part of their gender equity efforts. A survey from Morning Consult, also commissioned by the Tara Health Foundation, found that 71 percent of adults said people should consider a state’s social policies when deciding whether to move there.Vanessa Burbano, a management professor at Columbia Business School, said that for workers who live in states where abortion is no longer legal, the policies their employers set do more than just signal a company’s politics.“There’s a tangible, real world implication for your own personal health care,” she said, adding that employers are striking a delicate balance. “They’re trying to walk the very fine line of not making these big, broad, public blanket statements about the issue while simultaneously trying to address concerns of their employees.”Gina Lindsey, 48, a public-school teacher, recalled that when she sent her daughter off to college four years ago, she advised her to make pay, benefits and sense of purpose priorities when looking for a job. Now Ms. Lindsey urges her daughter to take into consideration the employer’s approach toward out-of-state abortion coverage.“That’s going to become part of the calculus,” said Ms. Lindsey, who lives in Ohio, where abortion is now banned after six weeks of pregnancy.She worries, though, about the many people her daughter’s age whose employers will not cover their abortion-related travel expenses. “How many people are able to get a job at Google?” she asked. “How many people are able to get a job at Disney? How many people truly have that opportunity, especially in states where the bans are in place?”Most people don’t plan to need abortion-related travel benefits: “Very rarely do people think that they themselves are going to need an abortion,” said Diana Greene Foster, a demographer at the University of California, San Francisco, and the principal investigator of the Turnaway Study, which looked at the economic consequences of having or being denied an abortion. “I doubt they would switch jobs because they think they themselves will be affected.”And if they do want to switch, finding a job with expanded reproductive health benefits can be difficult. Rhonda Sharpe, an economist and the president of the Women’s Institute for Science, Equity and Race, said the women in low-wage jobs most likely to need these benefits are least able to conduct a job search — and cover the expenses in child care and time off work that can come with it.Relying on employers to bridge the gap between workers and reproductive health services will become more difficult, legal experts warn, as anti-abortion groups say they will try to ban out-of-state abortions and penalize the companies that fund them. While employers determine how to actually roll out their new travel policies, weighing issues related to privacy and taxes, they’re also facing the prospect of legal challenges.“The employers we’ve been counseling are looking at it all different ways and trying to minimize the risk to everyone,” said Amy Gordon, an employee benefits partner at the law firm Winston & Strawn.Ms. Dietrich, in West Virginia, had to quit her food service job last year because of health issues related to another pregnancy. Her employer at the time didn’t offer maternity leave. She wants to help her daughter find a workplace that’s more caring — and they’re starting by looking at those that will cover abortion-related travel.“It shows they’re listening to workers,” she said. “They’re saying, ‘Hey, look, I will help you to get where you need. You’re not trying to figure it out yourself.’” More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Biden's Paid Leave Plan at Risk as Lawmakers Seek Cuts

    by

    An initial proposal to offer workers 12 weeks of paid leave could be whittled down as Democrats try to trim their $3.5 trillion social policy bill.WASHINGTON — Christina Hayes, 34, stopped going to the doctor for treatment of her lupus when she was pregnant and working at a cable company in Michigan in 2013. She had used up her vacation days, and without paid sick leave, she worried about paying her rent and electricity bill if she took more time off.But after her blood pressure spiked, her doctors induced labor two months early, fearing that she might have a seizure. She and her baby ended up being fine, but Ms. Hayes, now an airline gate agent in Inkster, Mich., said that having paid leave would have allowed her to prioritize her health over her paycheck.“I would have been able to schedule doctor’s appointments better,” she said. “I might not have gone into premature labor.”Paid leave, a cornerstone of President Biden’s economic agenda, is one of the many proposals at risk of being scaled back or left out of an expansive social safety net bill that Democrats are trying to push through Congress. Mr. Biden’s initial $3.5 trillion plan called for providing up to 12 weeks of paid leave for new parents, caretakers for seriously ill family members and people suffering from a serious medical condition. Democrats proposed compensating workers for at least two-thirds of their earnings and funding the program with higher taxes on wealthy people and corporations.But as Democrats try to shave hundreds of billions off the overall policy package to appease moderate holdouts, paid leave could wind up shrinking to just a few weeks. That is alarming supporters of paid leave, who view this as the best chance to secure a crucial safety net for workers, particularly women.Researchers and economists say a federal paid leave program could provide a jolt to the labor market, lifting women’s participation in the labor force and increasing the likelihood that mothers return to work after having children. Research also has shown that paid leave policies would be particularly beneficial for people of color and low-wage workers, who are among those least likely to get such a benefit from their jobs.Only 23 percent of private-sector workers have paid family leave through their employers, and 42 percent have access to personal medical leave through an employer-provided short-term disability insurance policy, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.Under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, workers at companies with at least 50 employees can take 12 weeks of unpaid leave. The United States is the only rich country without a federal paid leave mandate for new parents or for medical emergencies.Paid leave advocates say they have received assurances from the White House and congressional leadership that Democrats are continuing to push for the proposed program.“We’re a critical voting bloc,” said Molly Day, the executive director of Paid Leave for the United States. “Women are not going to forget the decisions that were made now when we go to the ballot box.”Negotiators have discussed ways to bring down the cost of the program, such as reducing the number of weeks offered or the maximum benefit an individual could receive each month, according to people familiar with the talks. Lawmakers have also discussed trimming the number of weeks initially offered, then phasing in a 12-week benefit over a decade.Many top Democrats say they remain committed to the original paid leave plan and have urged their colleagues in Congress and the Biden administration to keep the program intact.Representative Rosa DeLauro, a Democrat of Connecticut, said she was worried about how the program might be pared back, particularly if the benefit is phased in.“I am concerned at how long it will take us to get to that 12 weeks,” Ms. DeLauro said. “It shouldn’t take 10 years to do that.”Some Democrats say passing a federal paid leave program has become more crucial amid a global pandemic that has exposed the need for workers to have access to medical and sick leave without worrying about how they will pay their bills. The social policy legislation is being fast-tracked through the Senate using a process known as reconciliation.“If we really want to achieve paid leave in the next decade, now is the only moment, through reconciliation,” Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York said. “If you want to get everyone working who wants to be working, paid leave has to be part of the strategy.”Research on California, the first state to offer paid family leave, has mostly shown that paid leave has a positive effect on women’s wages and participation in the labor force. Nine states and the District of Columbia have passed paid leave programs.Christopher J. Ruhm, a professor of public policy and economics at the University of Virginia, found that under California’s paid leave law, new mothers who had worked during their pregnancy were estimated to be 17 percent more likely to have returned to work within a year of their child’s birth. During the second year of their child’s life, mothers’ time spent at work increased.“The evidence is pretty strong that we’d see favorable effects,” Mr. Ruhm said. “It’s not going to lead to a huge increase in employment or labor force participation of women, but it would be a modest one.”Maya Rossin-Slater, an associate professor of health policy at Stanford University, said research found that policies offering up to one year of paid leave can increase labor participation among women after childbirth. Under California’s program, the biggest gain in leave-taking is seen for Black mothers, who became more likely to take maternity leave, according to Ms. Rossin-Slater’s research.“Implementation of paid family leave can reduce inequities,” Ms. Rossin-Slater said.Pepper Nappo, 33, a mother in Derry, N.H., said she was left alone to take care of her newborn son the day she was discharged from the hospital in 2016. She had required stitches after childbirth.As a barber, she did not have paid parental leave, and her husband could not afford to take more than a week off from his job at a landscaping company. The family downgraded their car and limited what they bought at the grocery store but still struggled to keep up with the bills.“If I had paid leave, we wouldn’t have been behind,” Ms. Nappo said.Public support for paid family and medical leave is strong, but Americans tend to differ over specific policies. A recent CBS News/YouGov poll found that 73 percent of U.S. adults surveyed supported federal funding for paid family and medical leave.Conservatives have signaled an openness to paid leave in recent years, although they have been more vocal about supporting leave for parents than for other types of caregivers or those suffering from illness. Many have also expressed concerns for small businesses. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Senator Mitt Romney of Utah reintroduced a proposal last month that would allow new parents to use a portion of their Social Security to fund their own leave after the birth or adoption of a child.While larger businesses have grown open to a paid leave program, some small business groups have pushed back against a federal mandate.Holly S. Wade, the executive director of the research center at the National Federation of Independent Business, said the group was concerned that a paid leave program would burden small employers since it would require more administrative reporting.“While covering the cost of some of these mandates could potentially be helpful, in the way that an owner sees it, it just comes with a lot of paperwork, a lot of confusion and a lot of challenges,” Ms. Wade said.Supporters of paid leave say they are still pushing for 12 weeks to be available immediately, but have conceded that they would accept a permanent program that would phase in the full amount over time. Dawn Huckelbridge, director of Paid Leave for All, spoke at a rally in Washington, D.C., where she urged lawmakers to keep paid leave in the bill.Valerie Plesch for The New York Times“We are very cleareyed that there are going to be cuts,” said Dawn Huckelbridge, the director of Paid Leave for All. “We think there can be a meaningful program accomplished at less than 12.”Ms. Huckelbridge and other paid leave supporters rallied near the White House last week, urging lawmakers and the Biden administration to keep the benefit in the bill.“There have been troubling signs,” Ms. Huckelbridge said, referring to reports about demands by Senator Joe Manchin III, a West Virginia Democrat, to reduce the bill’s size and scope. More