Republicans have been warming to the idea of paid parental leave. What once was another expansion of the federal welfare state is now a popular form of pro-family legislation (and pro-natalism in a country with a declining birth rate).
In 2019, Sens. Joni Ernst and Mike Lee introduced a budget-neutral parental leave plan that would allow new parents to take up to three months of paid leave through Social Security. In essence, parents could take a few months off now in exchange for working a few months extra before retiring.
Before that, Sen. Marco Rubio introduced a similar bill. Even former President Donald Trump, spurred on by Ivanka, signaled his support for paid family leave. That this idea enjoys such bipartisan support but has not been passed into law says a lot about the partisan gridlock in Washington, or perhaps a lack of creativity on the part of lawmakers.
These plans have faced mixed reactions from conservatives, with some in support and others arguing they’re just entitlement expansions. Despite the increased interest in this subject, whether or not conservatives should support any federal paid family leave plan is still up for debate. This week, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial excoriating Democrats’ paid leave plan working its way through Congress.
Republicans rightly opposed President Joe Biden’s $225 billion American Families Plan, which included a provision for paid leave, arguing that it would contribute to the ballooning national debt. While about 80% of people support access to paid parental leave, less than half think the government should pay for it.
Despite the studies revealing that paid family leave has positive effects on the emotional and financial well-being of families, the United States is the only industrialized nation without paid family leave.
You’d think frustrated Republicans would be looking for another solution. And that solution should come, as we often like to argue, from the private sector.
If you want to make the case that “Parental Leave Is None of the Government’s Business,” as many conservatives and libertarians do, it follows that the allegedly pro-family party should encourage the private sector to step up and offer more benefits to its employees without government interference.
So if the government isn’t interested in shelling out taxpayer dollars for paid family leave, is the private sector stepping up to the plate? Not really. Just 14% of non-government workers had access to paid family leave through their employers as of 2016. (Many private and public sector workers have access to 12 weeks of unpaid leave through the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, and federal employees can now enjoy up to 12 weeks of paid leave.) Many private sector employees have to eke out time off through sick leave and vacation days.
So what about conservative organizations, the ones most concerned about not wasting taxpayer funds on paid leave and the ones most concerned about promoting a pro-family, pro-life culture? They should be offering the best paid leave benefits, right? Not necessarily.
Conservative websites, which are happy to publish opinions arguing that the government can’t afford paid parental leave and that private companies should step up to the plate, don’t seem quite so consistent when it comes to their own policies.
The Daily Wire, the Ben Shapiro-founded news website, doesn’t appear to offer any paid family leave. According to an email obtained by the Washington Examiner, the Daily Wire offers FMLA-eligible employees 12 weeks of unpaid maternity or paternity leave. Women can file for short-term disability, receiving 80% of their income “while out for giving birth.” Employees may also use paid time off and sick leave.
The American Enterprise Institute allows mothers and fathers to take 16 weeks of leave “using annual leave and sick leave,” and its handbook notes under paternity leave, “if necessary, leave without pay.”
Representatives from Fox News, the Daily Caller, the Federalist, National Review, the Blaze, the Washington Times, and Townhall did not respond to requests for comment. Representatives from the Heritage Foundation and the Washington Free Beacon declined to reveal their policies. The Washington Examiner offers unpaid leave up to 12 weeks but also allows employees to use accrued personal days and vacation time.
By contrast, according to a 2019 report from Nieman Lab, the Washington Post offers 20 weeks of paid leave, the New York Times offers 10 to 18 weeks, the Atlantic offers 12 weeks, and Gannett offers six.
To be fair, these publications may be more deep-pocketed than certain conservative organizations, but the simple fact is that when they publish op-eds about the importance of supporting families and women in the workforce, they’re being consistent, at least on this one level. Note also that because these companies are proud of their paid leave policies, they broadcast them.
Some conservatives justify their disinterest toward paid maternity leave by arguing, in essence, that mothers shouldn’t be in the workforce anyway. That’s not financially feasible for many people. Not to mention the cases of single mothers and adoptive parents.
Another conservative argument against paid maternity leave is that it will encourage employers to discriminate against women, hiring men instead. Actually, this is just an argument for paid paternity leave. Shouldn’t we want all caregivers spending more time with their children? We know that fathers make a huge difference in children’s lives. “A number of studies suggest that fathers who are involved, nurturing, and playful with their infants have children with higher IQs, as well as better linguistic and cognitive capacities,” according to a Department of Health and Human Services report.
Paid maternity leave is popular, and it’s also important. According to Brookings, researchers found that Norway’s paid maternity leave “reduced the probability of obesity among mothers by 39 percentage points, and improved mental health and general health. In the long term, the policy seems to have promoted healthier habits, too, including less daily smoking and more exercise. The findings were largely driven by strong effects for low-income mothers, first-time mothers, and mothers who experienced complications at delivery.”
The center-right American Action Forum found that paid family leave policies don’t just help mothers and parents. They help children, too: “Besides the economic benefits for parents, there are myriad health benefits for children whose parents receive [paid family leave], primarily stemming from the increased regularity of well-baby check-ups, greater rates of immunization, increased likelihood and duration of breastfeeding, and increased parental care and engagement,” the AAF reports. On top of that, the “effects of early childcare and parental interaction can last long into adulthood and into many aspects of adult well-being and social and economic productivity.”
For conservative organizations, especially ones that pride themselves on their pro-family and pro-life beliefs, policies should help women give birth and tend to their children, not punish them for creating life.
If conservative organizations lobbied against federal paid leave while offering generous benefits themselves, you could argue that their consistency reveals a care for working mothers — more government entitlements will also come out of their pockets, after all.
But when conservatives argue that paid family leave is best left to the private sector, then refuse to offer it to their own employees, well, what they mean is that the most important thing is not pro-life values or supporting families. It has always been just about the money.
