Jane Fonda leads new star-studded fight against Amazon

A group of Hollywood actors is calling on Amazon to respond to allegations from pregnant workers that the company is failing to offer them accommodations in their warehouses, leading to severe health complications and even miscarriages.

Jane Fonda, Rosario Dawson, Cynthia Nixon, Sally Field, Lily Tomlin, Chelsea Handler and Pamela Adlon signed onto the letter, which was sent Friday to Edith Cooper, the chair of Amazon’s Leadership Development and Compensation Committee. The actors signed onto the letter after labor rights leader Erica Smiley won an award in June from the Women’s Media Center, which is co-founded by Fonda, and used the platform to speak about the issues facing pregnant Amazon workers.

In the letter, the actors reference the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which went into effect in the summer of 2023. It requires employers to work in good faith to accommodate pregnancy-related needs, including time off for doctor’s appointments or workplace accommodations like a stool to sit on or more frequent breaks. But pregnant workers in Amazon’s warehouses have alleged that Amazon refused to accommodate them when they asked for lighter duty. They say the company refused to hear their concerns, forcing them to quit or firing them.

“These are not isolated incidents,” the letter said. “Instead, they are part of a pattern of Amazon workers being seriously injured, and then being treated as disposable — pushed into medical debt and poverty because Amazon refuses to take responsibility and, in many cases, simply fires them, leaving them without income or an ability to secure new work as they struggle to heal from their Amazon-induced disabilities.”

Amazon told The 19th in a statement that the safety of its workers is extremely important.

“We have comprehensive policies and programs for employees who may need accommodations or restricted work. We're committed to ensuring that they have the assistance they need to perform their jobs through our robust accommodation process,” Amazon said. “If an employee believes that these policies have been violated, they should report it immediately.”

According to the letter, workers have been requesting a meeting with Cooper, the company’s board of directors and Sarah Rhoads, the vice president of safety, since July 2024. Amazon has not responded, according to the Expose Amazon campaign, an effort that has been spotlighting stories of workers injured on the job, including one worker who died, for several years.

Last year, Amazon shareholders requested that the board commission an audit of working conditions inside company warehouses. But the proposal was rejected in May. In its response, Amazon said the proposal relied on “false, misinformed and misleading claims about our injury rates made by outside groups with ulterior motives,” and added that the company has improved its incident rates — a measure of how often injuries occur at work — by 34 percent from 2019 to 2024. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos set a goal of reducing incident rates 50 percent by this year.

Amazon added that the Leadership Development and Compensation Committee, which Cooper leads, has direct oversight of workplace safety issues and “regularly reviews these matters.”

It’s not the first time Amazon’s alleged treatment of pregnant workers has drawn attention. In 2021, a group of six senators also sent a letter to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), calling for a federal probe into Amazon’s treatment of pregnant workers in its warehouses. That investigation appears to be ongoing, according to an attorney representing a pregnant Amazon worker in a recent lawsuit.

That was before the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act went into effect, however. Now, the EEOC, which is charged with enforcing the act, would also be tasked with investigations that fall under the new law. But after President Donald Trump fired two members of the agency earlier this year, the EEOC lacks a quorum to enact any policy directives, and its acting chair, Andrea Lucas, is opposed to some of the protections established in the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act that would allow workers to take time off to seek an abortion. That means it’s unclear how much enforcement the agency is currently taking on on behalf of pregnant workers.

For the past several years, the Expose Amazon campaign has also been highlighting stories of incidents inside Amazon’s warehouses, painting a picture of strenuous working conditions where worker needs are rarely met. More recently, the group has been collecting dozens of stories from pregnant workers who say they have been denied reasonable accommodations at work. Some of those charges have been filed with the EEOC.

The letter came ahead of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’ lavish Venice wedding to Lauren Sanchez Bezos, which was met with protests and demonstrations from hundreds who called it an exploitation of the city.

Smiley, the executive director of Jobs with Justice, a labor rights organization, said they’ve seen a pattern of reports among Amazon workers who say they are being asked to climb tall ladders with their baby bumps, speed across the shop floor, and often work with few or no bathroom breaks — even with the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act now in effect nationwide.

The new law was designed to help workers in these exact kinds of jobs, but, Smiley said, “no matter how good the law is, if the companies are not going to enforce it … it’s just words.”

It’s Equal Pay Day — and even the White House has a gender pay gap

Originally published by The 19th. Subscribe to The 19th's daily newsletter.

The disparity in Biden’s White House is slightly smaller than it was in Trump’s, but women still earn less. The biggest difference, though, is in their policies.

Though pay equity has been a policy focus for President Joe Biden, he still hasn’t delivered on parity within his own White House. Women working in the White House were earning 80 cents for every $1 men earned in 2023, a gap wider than the national average, according to an analysis of the most recent data by The 19th.

Tuesday marks Equal Pay Day, when the country recognizes the size of the pay gap between men and women and the work needed to close it. In 2024, women working full-time earn 84 cents for every $1 White men earn. If part-time workers are included, the gap widens further, with women earning 78 cents on the man’s $1 because they are the ones more likely to be working low-paid, part-time jobs.

Equal pay will almost certainly be an issue Biden campaigns on this election year, drawing a contrast with former President Donald Trump. The pay gap among White House employees in Trump’s administration in 2020 was even wider. Women were earning 76 cents for every $1 men earned, The 19th found. The median wage for women working in the Trump White House was $72,700; for men it was $95,350. In Biden’s White House, women’s median wage was $84,000, while men’s was $105,000.

Trump has previously said he promotes women if they’re the best for the job, but actively worked to curtail national pay equity policies. Biden, who has spoken widely about pay equity and tried to push for it through legislation, has still fallen short of passing it.

The pay gaps in the presidents’ White Houses help illuminate just how difficult it is to address an issue like pay equity without targeted legislation, even when a president prioritizes it.

The 19th analyzed the public salary data of both White Houses, which is released every July, and used available records and social media profiles to ascertain gender for nearly 1,000 staffers across both administrations. Because the data is self reported, the White House could not confirm if any staffers were nonbinary. The Trump administration didn’t appear to have any staffers who identified as nonbinary, the National Center for Transgender Equality told The 19th in 2020. There were not sufficient available records to analyze race, and so the White House pay gap is a comparison of the median wage for all women and all men. The 19th’s analysis focuses on only staff hired directly by each administration.

Nationally, the way the pay gap is calculated is by analyzing all the jobs men and women have and comparing the median wages for each group. The figure for women is typically compared with that for White men because they are the highest-paid group that is also a significant portion of the labor force. Asian men earn slightly more but are about 3 percent of the workforce, whereas White men are about a third of it. The pay gap is also a “raw” figure, which means it’s not controlling for other factors such as education or experience. But that doesn’t mean the calculation is not valuable. The gender pay gap is really a reflection of job distribution: Do women and men have the same access to the same types of jobs, particularly higher-paid jobs? The answer, both in the White House and in America, is no.

A consistent concentration of women in the lowest-paid jobs contributed to the wage gap in both administrations. In the Biden White House, the lowest-paid workers were earning under $55,000; 43 women were in that group, compared with 24 men. In the Trump White House, 49 women and 30 men were earning less than $55,000.

That issue is reflected in the broader labor force, too, and is one of the key reasons the U.S. pay gap has remained stubbornly wide, said Jocelyn Frye, the president of the National Partnership for Women & Families, a national nonpartisan organization that advocates for family policy.

“There is no panacea. Assuming everybody is operating in good faith and nobody is intentionally trying to underpay people, the reality of how our economy and workplaces are built is that women are often in the jobs that pay less, they’re segregated into those jobs and it’s harder for them to get into the jobs people might view as nontraditional or the leadership positions,” Frye said. “This is a workforce-wide phenomenon.”

During his term, Biden has been a vocal supporter of equal pay, pushing for improved wages for care workers, increasing the minimum wage, enacting a federal paid leave policy and advocating for the passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would close loopholes in pay discrimination laws. None of the legislation that would advance those initiatives at a national level has passed, however, including the Paycheck Fairness Act, which has been consistently reintroduced in Congress since 1997.

Biden has, however, been more successful in improving equity in the federal workforce by raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour in 2022 for 370,000 federal employees and contractors. He also issued a new rule this year that bars more than 80 federal agencies from considering workers’ current or past pay in setting their salaries, a practice that has suppressed wages for women by carrying inequities from one job to the next.

The White House, in response to questions about the pay gap, touted Biden’s work on these fronts.

“The President’s leadership will help deliver fair compensation based on skills, experience, and expertise and adopt commonsense policies that will help pay millions of workers fairly, close gender and racial wage gaps, and yield tangible benefits for the federal government and federal contractors,” a White House spokesperson said in a statement. The administration did not answer broader questions about what it is doing to improve pay parity for its White House staff.

“The Biden administration has really shown its commitment to making the federal government a model employer, and sometimes those changes take time to catch up with the numbers,” said Noreen Farrell, director of Equal Rights Advocates, the organization that leads the Equal Pay Day campaign.

Some of the gap in the Biden White House could be because there is a lot of turnover, particularly in lower-paid positions women are more likely to hold. Likewise, in Trump’s White House, some of the gap can be explained by a dearth of Republican women working in politics. But neither of those things fully explains the gap.

The Biden administration, the first to have a woman vice president, has focused on representation. How many women are in the room? How many are in Congress? But “it is not a one-for-one for power,” said Kelly Dittmar, director of research at the Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) at Rutgers University.

The Biden administration has “made progress on representation, and that alone is important,” Dittmar said. “But if your goal is you want women to have an equal amount of power and influence in your administration, this to me is an indicator that we may well not be at that point.”

For Trump, the pay gap was never a top issue. In 2017, the former president rolled back several Obama-era pay equity policies. He directed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to stop collecting pay data on race and gender from large companies. He also rolled back the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces executive order, which required federal contractors to comply with 14 labor and civil rights laws, including a paycheck transparency rule.

“There was open hostility to the notion that women and men continue to be paid unequally” in the Trump administration, Farrell said.

The 2024 Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment from The 19th. In 2020, then-press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told The 19th that “President Trump has taken unprecedented action to support women and girls.”

The majority of staffers in Trump’s 2020 White House, about 52 percent, were also men. When considering detailees, longtime staffers from other agencies assigned to the White House to provide expertise, the gap in Trump’s White House widened further, with women earning 69 cents for every $1 earned by men.

In Biden’s White House, the gap narrows when detailees are counted, with women earning 93 cents on the man’s $1. About 60 percent of Biden’s White House is made up of women.

“It is a positive thing that when you add in the detailees that number goes up [for Biden] because it tells me something about senior women who are brought over into the White House,” Frye said.

Republicans are more likely to say that women’s choices about family and work are the major reason the pay gap exists. Only 18 percent of Republican men believe the pay gap is a result of employers treating women differently, compared with 43 percent of Republican women, 59 percent of Democratic men and 76 percent of Democratic women, according to a 2022 poll by the Pew Research Center.

Biden is also much more likely to discuss the pay gap than Trump is. While Biden did not address it directly in last week’s State of the Union address, he did talk about the importance of child care and paid leave as economic issues, both factors that influence the gap.

Another study by Pew last year found that the pay gap starts to widen for women when they have children. The more likely a woman is to have a child under 18 at home, the wider the gap becomes, Pew found.

But Biden’s efforts to pass a massive national child care expansion and federal paid leave policy have failed. Ahead of the election, he’ll have to convince voters who prioritize these issues, particularly women, that he can get the job done.

The White House pay gap figures could give voters “a space and a reminder to ask the question of not only what policies is the administration putting forth for the country, but how are they addressing this type of inequity and gap in their own ranks. It’s important that they have an answer for that,” Dittmar said. “Good leaders should be aware of where their institutions are falling short.”

Merdie Nzanga, a 19th editorial fellow, contributed to this report.

Her son died in day care. Ten years later, the system that could've saved him is failing

Originally published by The 19th. Subscribe to The 19th's daily newsletter.

In 2014, states were required to begin reporting how many children die, are injured or abused in child care. Some still aren’t. For parents who have lost children, it’s proof that the system isn’t working.

Doubts swirled from the start.

After Cynthia King’s baby Wiley Muir died suddenly at a home-based day care in Honolulu, she fixated on the things that seemed off. The medical examiner said he died of pneumonia, but Wiley hadn’t been sick that morning. King wondered how sickness could take him so suddenly — how they could have missed that.

But most of all, there was the notebook, which King began keeping just four days earlier, when Wiley started at the day care. On the morning of February 6, 2014, King had jotted down what time her 4-month-old had woken up and what he’d eaten. That notebook had gone with Wiley to day care that morning and was returned to King at the police department days after his death.

The page she’d started the day he died was gone, ripped out. Instead, there was a new page rewritten in the day care owner’s handwriting.

“That freaked me out. Why on Earth, on the day he died, would the day care provider rip out the page and rewrite what I had already started writing?” King said.

A year and a half later, on what would have been Wiley’s second birthday, King and her husband ran into Therese Manu-Lee, the provider caring for Wiley when he died. She was wearing scrubs and appeared to be working with an elderly person. King wondered what happened to the day care.

Later, King looked her up online. The day care had been shut down by the state.

Right away, King called the Department of Human Services, which oversees the state’s child care office. Manu-Lee’s license was suspended while police investigated Wiley’s case but reinstated when the case was closed. It was shut down again a year later in 2015 when a surprise inspection of Manu-Lee’s home found her with 14 children in her care, eight of them infants — four times the legal number of infants for a home-based provider.

The doubts rushed back.

“That sort of overwhelming feeling of, ‘Oh my God, I knew she was lying to us about something, but I didn’t know what’” took over, King said.

That revelation set in motion years of battles: first with the police department to reopen Wiley’s case, and then with the state’s child care agency and the Hawaii legislature to push for new legislation that could make child care safer.

Beginning in 2016, King, an entomologist, sat on a Hawaii child care working group in the legislature and advocated for about a dozen regulation bills. But she could get only one new law through — an update requiring day cares to take on liability insurance. The Wiley Kaikou Muir Act passed in 2017.

Cynthia King reads to her son Dexter Muir at their home.Cynthia King reads to her son Dexter Muir at their home in Honolulu, Hawaii, in 2016. (CORY LUM/CIVIL BEAT)

Among King’s larger priorities was passing a law requiring Hawaii to post child care inspection violations online and track serious incidents, creating a window into the state’s child care safety efforts. But King was told at the time by state officials that Hawaii didn’t need that law — a child care safety movement at the federal level was about to do just that.

In 2014, the same year Wiley died, the country’s central funding mechanism for child care, the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), was reauthorized by Congress with new requirements. CCDBG sends money to states to subsidize care for low-income children, and because every state takes CCDBG money, they all have to comply with its rules.

Until 2014, the block grant had paltry health and safety requirements. States didn’t have to run background checks on child care providers or collect data on deaths or serious incidents.

So no one knew, really, how many kids were getting hurt at child care across the country — how many were dying.

Although child care was and still is very safe, cases of children dying in day cares from preventable causes started to gain national attention in the early 2000s. That helped advocates launch what would become a nearly decade-long campaign in Congress to weave better health and safety guidelines into CCDBG.

New requirements passed into law with broad bipartisan support in 2014. Among them: For the first time, states would be required to start collecting and posting data around the numbers of deaths, serious injuries and substantiated abuse cases at day cares. Databases also needed to go online, allowing parents to search providers and see inspection reports and violations in their state. A series of federal, state and interstate background checks were also made mandatory. States had until October 2018 to come into compliance.

Ten years after those rules around health and safety were put in place, over a dozen states are failing to fulfill all the reporting requirements, an in-depth analysis from The 19th found.

After an inquiry from The 19th, the Office of Child Care, the federal regulatory agency that oversees states’ child care systems, confirmed that eight states are out of compliance. The 19th found an additional eight states that are missing data or have outdated information online. Six states updated their reports when The 19th pointed out errors or missing data.

In the process of reporting this story, The 19th reached out to more than 40 advocates, experts and organizations in the child care and child welfare space. Few knew anything about where the states stood on the reporting requirements in CCDBG. Some didn’t know about the requirements at all.

Linda Smith, a child care expert who was instrumental in getting the regulations passed, said states have been given too much latitude to comply. Neither the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services nor the Government Accountability Office have audited the states to ensure they were following the reporting provisions, both offices confirmed.

“For the most part, they are sort of operating outside of the traditional system and accountability,” said Smith, now the director of the early childhood development initiative at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank.

Systems like background checks and data tracking are key safety mechanisms in any industry. Food service inspection violations are posted online and in restaurants. Accidents with airlines are also posted online, even though, like in child care, they are also fairly rare.

Overall, the number of deaths at day cares is very low, often in the single digits annually in each state, and some states haven’t had any at all for the past several years. Among the 30 states and Washington, D.C., that published 2023 data, California had the highest number of deaths last year: 10; one child died at a child care center and nine died at in-home day cares. The two states with the next highest numbers last year were Texas at six deaths and Montana with five.

Data on injuries and abuse is murkier. States can decide how they define these cases — some count any instance that requires medical attention, others count only injuries that cause permanent damage — leading to widely different numbers. Georgia, for example, had zero serious injuries in 2022; Ohio, which also counts serious “incidents,” had nearly 19,000.

There is also no federal reporting requirement, meaning the data lives at the state level, in reports that are difficult to find and, in some cases, difficult to understand.

Celia Sims, a former senior staffer for Sen. Richard Burr, the North Carolina Republican who spearheaded the changes to CCDBG, said they took on the issue more than 10 years ago because tallying cases is one of the only ways to ensure safety for really young kids.

“You can’t count on your 6-month-old to tell you that something is wrong when you pick them up in the evening,” Sims said. “That’s why it’s even more important that things, when they are substantiated, get reported.”

The intent behind the requirements was also to create transparency for parents. But Sims said she’s been surprised to discover just how hard it is to even find the information. Most reports are buried in state websites, under titles like “aggregate report” or “federal reporting,” and hyperlinked in the middle of a paragraph. It’s not the easily accessible, plain language vision that was laid out in CCDBG.

“I was a little taken aback,” said Sims, who went on to found The Abecedarian Group, a child care and education consulting agency. “Wow, I couldn’t find any of them.”

The reporting requirements aren’t the only issue. More than half of states are also out of compliance with the law’s new background check requirements, which called for five checks and three interstate checks that have to be completed within 45 days for all child care staff. For home-based day cares, that also includes adults living in the house who may come in contact with children. According to a 2022 report to Congress from an interagency task force convened to study the issue, 11 states are not conducting any interstate checks and 19 states are allowing child care staff to be hired before background checks were completed. Those numbers remain current, the Office of Child Care confirmed.

The 19th also analyzed if states had fulfilled a third requirement of creating online databases of all the state’s child care providers with inspection and violation data.

Only one state was out of compliance on all three categories: Hawaii.

Hawaii hasn’t posted any data at all from the past seven years on serious injuries and abuse at day cares. The last year it reported was 2016, making it the only state with a reporting gap that wide. The online database of violations King advocated for a decade ago — the one she was told was coming soon in 2016 — is still not up. Hawaii is also one of the states not running interstate background checks on child care providers.

The reasons why are various, but underpinning Hawaii and the other states’ compliance issues is a difficult reality. The child care system in the United States has been described by the Treasury Department as a “textbook example of a broken market.” It is losing day cares to financial constraints and a lack of federal investment. To ensure safety, day cares have to stick to strict ratios of children to teachers. That means staffing costs make up a huge portion of the budget, but that also means the staff is paid close to minimum wage, leading to high turnover. Raising wages would mean raising fees for parents, many of whom are paying more than their rent or mortgage on child care.

But when CCDBG was reauthorized, Congress did not substantially increase the program’s budget to help states implement the new safety requirements. Some of what ultimately happened was that states didn’t make safety improvements right away, Smith said. And now a decade later, some still haven’t.

None of the states have been penalized for it, the federal Office of Child Care confirmed. In Hawaii, where an extraordinarily high cost of living meets an extraordinarily low child care supply, parents don’t always report all the red flags they see at a center for fear it’ll close down and they’ll have nowhere to take their kids, King said.

That is a challenge that needs a solution, but it shouldn’t mean accountability is lost, King said. And it shouldn’t now be up to the parents whose children have already been lost to push for a better system.

“It’s so inappropriate that the onus is on the families of victims, when this should be coming from the state or federal level,” King said. “There’s something that’s really very difficult about being a group of people where everybody is not whole. That’s why nothing is happening. Because everyone is hurting tremendously.”

Until the early 2000s, very little was known at a national level about incidents at child care centers. A 2005 report by researchers at the City University of New York Graduate Center put together the first — and so far only — comprehensive national study of deaths in child care, cobbling together reports published in media outlets, legal cases and some state records.

They found 1,362 fatalities in child care from 1985 through 2003, 75 percent of them in home-based care, both licensed and unlicensed.

“Key to any effort aimed at reducing risks is gathering consistent, reliable data on fatalities, serious injuries, and near misses in child care,” they wrote.

Child Care Aware, a national child care advocacy group, then took the issue on, releasing an analysis of state rules and regulations around safety every year from 2007 to 2013. Their work paved the way for Congress to act in the 2014 reauthorization — the new rules all came from the organization’s recommendations.

Smith was the executive director of Child Care Aware at the time, and she and Grace Reef, the chief of public policy, led that effort.

“You think that licensing means something, but what we were exposing at the time was: not really,” Reef said. “There were states that did an inspection once every 10 years — are you kidding me?”

The CCDBG requirement ultimately shaped up like this: States must produce data every year on the number of deaths, serious injuries and cases of substantiated abuse at child care. The numbers for death and serious injury were to be broken down by the type of program incidents took place in — center-based or home-based, for example— and the data had to be published online and easily accessible.

Here’s where we stand, 10 years later.

As of 2024, California is the only state that still doesn’t post serious injury or abuse data online at all.

Alaska and Wisconsin don’t provide breakdowns by the type of child care facility serious injuries took place in. Vermont didn’t either for serious injuries and deaths until The 19th asked about it and, realizing an error that occurred with a change of staff, the state updated its website the next day.

Wisconsin, which failed to include data on four deaths in its 2021 report, updated it after The 19th’s questions. Wyoming, which wasn’t posting data on substantiated abuse cases, added the figures when The 19th inquired. Alaska provided additional data to The 19th via email, though it hasn’t yet made it public.

The 19th also found one state with outdated statistics: South Dakota’s most recent data is from 2021. New Hampshire hadn’t published data since 2020, but after The 19th inquired, the state posted 2023 data in January.

Delaware, Kansas and New Jersey have all been flagged by the Office of Child Care for not posting complete data on license-exempt providers. The 19th’s own analysis found that Arkansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma are not reporting data on those providers. Delaware, Kansas, Missouri and Oregon have also failed to include totals for the number of kids in child care, another required part of the regulation. Illinois was also missing that data but added it after The 19th asked.

The federal office marked Mississippi and New York as out of compliance as of the end of 2023, but both states updated most of their data online, though Mississippi still appears to be missing annual data. The federal office also flagged West Virginia for posting incomplete data on in-home providers, but the state said it hadn’t received such a notice and that it would be updating its data this month.

Even in states that are reporting data, some of it is confusing and contradictory. In Nevada, the child care division is in the process of changing departments, and that has led to two different reports online: In one published by the welfare division, the abuse cases in 2020 numbered above 3,000. In the 2020 report from the licensing department, the number of abuse case referrals is 48.

When The 19th asked about the discrepancy in Nevada’s data, Karissa Loper Machado, the state’s agency manager for child care, said she wasn’t sure how the first report was calculated. After the state looked into it, it said the data it had been publishing as its child care numbers also included cases in private homes and foster care, leading to the higher figures. The state expects to have its data updated in the next six months to a year.

Nevada also doesn’t report how many of its abuse cases turn out to be substantiated. The licensing department doesn’t keep track of it, so the state doesn’t report it.

“We are working to come into compliance,” Loper Machado said.

In the 10 years since the CCDBG reporting requirements were created, states have been given a lot of autonomy in deciding what gets counted as serious injury and abuse and what doesn’t. In 2018, the Office of Child Care told state child care agencies to consider changing their definitions so that only programs with the most egregious cases were penalized. Some states changed their definitions, and others did not.

In Georgia, cases are put on a scale — low, medium, high or extreme harm or risk — and only extreme cases now get reported, said April Rogers, the child care services director of policy and enforcement at the Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning.

Georgia lists two serious injuries in 2023, and both of those programs lost CCDBG and state funding as a result of that determination, said Ira Sudman, the department’s general counsel, and programs with “high”-level injuries can still potentially incur penalties.

By contrast, in Ohio, the state counts all serious injuries and incidents, covering everything from deaths (which get double counted) to COVID-19 cases. There were 18,788 serious injuries or incidents in Ohio in 2022, the most recent year for which there is data. Even without including COVID cases, the number is still 4,762 — at least 10 times what many other states are reporting. In early 2017, the state put in an automated reporting system that allowed day care owners to report serious incidents quickly online.

Reef said that over the years, state legislatures have battled over what they should count in the numbers. But for the data to be tracked well, there need to be requirements of day care owners, too, state child care agencies said.

All of the data on deaths, serious injuries and abuse is self-reported by the day care providers themselves typically through forms they submit to the states. The states do inspections of the providers to make sure they are following safety requirements, but several states, including Georgia and Missouri, told The 19th they don’t know how accurate those reports are because they’re relying on the day cares to submit them.

What’s missing is “political will around forcing private business to give us data they clearly do not want to give us,” said Pam Stevens, Georgia’s deputy commissioner for child care. “We would love to know everything because it would help everybody.”

In Missouri, Nancy Scherer, the administrator of the state’s Office of Childhood, said getting day cares to report is the highest hurdle they face.

“I think they’re afraid: ‘If I report that, I’m going to have a violation, they’re going to shut me down,’” Scherer said.

And those are the providers the state knows about.

In 2021, eight children died in Missouri day cares. Seven of those deaths took place in unlicensed child care, which the office isn’t tracking because it doesn’t license them. Deaths are tallied instead through tips that come in.

“We don’t know about it, until we know about it,” Scherer said.

After King learned that her son’s provider had been shut down by the state of Hawaii, she asked to see his full police case file. For the first time, she also brought herself to read his autopsy in its entirety.

Those files contained numerous inconsistencies — vindication that King had been right to have her doubts.

Manu-Lee told police Wiley was in her arms when he died, but she told the ambulance crew that she’d put him down for a nap and later found him unresponsive. And in the autopsy, Wiley’s cause of death was not pneumonia, but bronchiolitis, which affects a different part of the lungs than pneumonia.

The autopsy findings helped King push the police to reopen the case, but ultimately prosecutors told her there wasn’t really an avenue to pursue. Detectives didn’t have any evidence of abuse or trauma.

The 19th reached out to Manu-Lee via phone and email, but she did not respond to requests for comment. In 2016, she told Civil Beat that, “the child was ill. It was not my fault.”

King was, however, able to have other pediatric forensic pathologists examine Wiley’s autopsy, who determined he could not have died from bronchiolitis or pneumonia. In Honolulu, the medical examiner admitted to King, she said, that he’d put that cause of death to give her a sense of closure.

The cause of death was ultimately changed to “undetermined.”

“It was hard emotionally to have to justify to people again and again why having an incorrect cause of death provided to us was so damaging and counterproductive toward finding out what really happened,” King said. “When the cause of death was changed, in some ways it was sort of a relief.”

Wiley Muir's father holds his baby on an airplane.

After her son’s untimely death, King focused on legislation. (COURTESY OF CYNTHIA KING)

King refocused on legislation, but while she waited for Hawaii to implement the requirements of the federal law, she became disheartened. By 2017, the new requirements were still not in place, and King, still pushing for new laws, pleaded with the state.

“I am asking you to change this shockingly broken system and instill real accountability,” she testified at a hearing for what would go on to be another failed child care accountability bill.

In 2019, past the deadline for states to come into compliance with federal regulations, Hawaii still hadn’t implemented the changes. King still hadn’t had more luck with legislation. And she was pregnant. By the time COVID-19 shut the world down, King realized there was no hope in pushing for changes in an industry that was being decimated by the pandemic. Nothing would pass. So she moved on.

She hadn’t looked back into whether the state had kept its promise of publishing data and creating its day care database until The 19th called her near the end of 2023.

Hawaii is now the state most behind in implementing the federal child care safety requirements.

The state told The 19th it is struggling to do so with a child care regulation department made up of only three people. The entire Human Services Department has a vacancy rate of about 25 percent.

Dayna Luka, the child care regulation program administrator in the Hawaii Department of Human Services, told The 19th that the state isn’t posting recent data because it has not finalized its definitions of serious injury and abuse. Without a definition, Hawaii can’t track the data, and it’s not posting it online. It’s the only state that doesn’t have its definitions finalized, The 19th’s analysis of the states’ child care plans found.

The process of creating definitions is long and requires public hearings and comments. The last time Hawaii had a public hearing for child care regulations was in 2021, Luka said.

“We may not be reporting that data because we don’t have the definition, but we are definitely investigating any kind of allegation of injury, any kind of violation of our licensing rules,” Luka said.

The state said it is asking the federal office for technical assistance to begin reporting serious injuries and abuse, but it didn’t provide a timeline for when it will begin doing so. It hopes to have its day care provider dashboard, as well as inspection reports, online by the summer. For now, it contracts with the state’s child care resource and referral agency for its child care provider database, but that dashboard doesn’t include inspection reports.

On a national level, it is impossible to know how many cases are not getting reported or investigated in child care because there is so much that falls into a gray area, said Christopher Greeley, a professor of pediatrics at the Baylor College of Medicine who has spent more than two decades studying pediatric abuse and neglect. And those investigations are further complicated because of their charged, emotional nature, leading to inaccurate recollections, as well as witnesses who may not be verbal.

“The narrower question of, ‘Is this injury abuse versus not?’ becomes quite fraught with difficulty because we all may agree the child has a broken bone, but now I’m adding a value judgment of whether that was done intentionally or not and some of that information may not be available,” Greeley said. That’s in part because some states don’t even have the capacity to thoroughly investigate those cases.

Advocates have been calling for more funding for the child care system, which could help states finally meet all of the safety requirements in CCDBG. A national effort to inject $400 billion over 10 years into child care failed in 2022, and other proposals haven’t found traction. It’s a hard truth in child care: A system that has been under-resourced for its entire existence can’t solve the big problems if it’s fighting to exist in the first place.

“One of the reasons that we talk about the need for a comprehensive system is that we understand then that the data would also be easier to track,” said Nina Perez, the early childhood national campaign director at MomsRising, a national network of moms pushing for child care and other family policies. “Any parent would tell you that they absolutely want reporting and transparency, particularly in instances of neglect and harm. This is a situation where the government needs to step up and resource that, including state governments.”

Anne Hedgepeth, the current chief of policy and advocacy at Child Care Aware, said states and child care providers “understand the seriousness or importance of the work they’re doing.” But “ultimately, licensing is complex and not every state system is sufficiently funded to do this work. Until we fix that problem, reporting won’t be as robust or transparent as it needs to be.”

When the country considers what another reauthorization of CCDBG might look like in the coming years, more support for compliance on health and safety could be areas marked for improvement, said Smith, who crafted the 2014 reauthorization. She wants to see the Government Accountability Office audit the states. And it could be a time to revisit whether the data needs to be reported at the federal level.

Through her own work, King understands the complexities of data collection. She worked at a state agency and knows what it means to be under-resourced, for things to take time. But she also carries the burden of being a parent who has lived through the death of a child that happened — at least in part, she feels — because the accountability wasn’t there.

Cynthia King, her two children and her husband pose and smile while hiking in Hawaii.A recent photo of Cynthia King and her family in Hawaii. (COURTESY OF CYNTHIA KING)

A decade after her son’s death, she is still often struck by how many of the systems that are in place for other industries aren’t yet standard in child care. King, who this week marked the 10-year anniversary of her son’s death, said she was shocked to learn Hawaii was still so behind.

“I have been chronically disappointed in the level of response,” King said. “I understand that everybody is overtasked and under-resourced but I do think it’s such an important issue. It’s been devastating to not see progress made.”

Since Wiley died, King has had two more children, a boy and a girl — children she’s had to leave at the door of a provider after her trust was shattered.

“My husband and I are both lucky that we came out on the other side of Wiley’s passing away,” King said, but when it came time to decide where to put their children, they put their trust somewhere else.

They found a day care provider who they felt was taking all the safety precautions necessary, who was keeping the number of children they cared for low and who let the families into their space. A person who did everything possible to ensure they weren’t reported.

Ultimately, King turned away from the system that was built to ensure safety. The system that failed her.

Instead, she put her children in unlicensed care.

We asked every member of Congress about child care policy. Only 5 Republicans answered.

This article was originally published by The 19th. Sign up for The 19th's daily newsletter.

In September, when billions of dollars in child care funding were about to expire, a Senate subcommittee convened to discuss solutions. It was there that Sen. John Kennedy laid out the partisan tension at the heart of what’s billed as a bipartisan issue.

He agreed that child care was an investment in the current and future workforce. Being opposed to affordable child care, the Louisiana Republican said, “is like being opposed to golden retrievers — no fair-minded person can be opposed to it.”

What he wanted to know was how the United States would pay for it.

“Nobody around here ever stands up and says, ‘I've got a lousy idea and I need money for it.’ It's always couched as an investment,” Kennedy said. “You go to the bank and you want to borrow, say, $1 million, you can’t tell the banker: ‘You owe me this money. It's an investment.’ The banker is going to want to know, ‘How are you gonna pay me back?’”

Republicans and Democrats are deeply divided on how to approach the issue. Just 10 days after that subcommittee hearing, which was called to weigh additional child care funding options, the $24 billion that had been approved for the industry through the pandemic expired. No bill was passed to fill that funding gap, putting thousands of child care centers at risk of reducing their operations or closing their doors entirely.

Kennedy did not respond to multiple requests by email and phone from The 19th to lay out his proposal for funding child care. In fact, The 19th posed similar questions to every member of Congress: What is your stance on federal child care policy? What kind of child care policy would you support?

ALSO READ: Revealed: Bomb-loving neo-Nazi is now menacing children

Over nearly four months, The 19th contacted and repeatedly followed up with every single congressional office. Only 142 of 535 members, a little over a quarter, answered: 135 Democrats, five Republicans and two independents.

Going into the 2024 election, child care is on the minds of parents, particularly mothers. In a national poll this summer, 74 percent of voters said they wanted to see increased federal funding for child care, including 61 percent of Republicans, 74 percent of independents and 86 percent of Democrats.

But public opinion, which has resoundingly been in favor of more child care funding, has not been enough to motivate Republicans, in particular, to take a stronger stance on the issue. Barely 2 percent of Republicans in Congress responded to the 19th’s questions, compared with more than half of Democrats overall and nearly all Democrats in the Senate.

The answers The 19th received show just how far Congress is from solving an issue that has only become more in need of a policy response since the pandemic exposed deep fissures in the child care system. With an election ahead, the question now is whether Republicans can afford to remain silent on child care, or whether a bipartisan path forward exists.

An illustration of seemingly "lazy" lawmakers sit atop government funds.(Chanelle Nibbelink)

Most Democrats who responded to The 19th’s questions said they wanted to see a full overhaul of the child care system, throwing their support behind the Child Care for Working Families Act, which caps costs at 7 percent of family income, or the Child Care for Every Community Act, which would set up a system of federally supported, locally administered child care options where half of parents would pay no more than $10 a day. The first was the model for Biden’s child care proposal in his Build Back Better package, expected to cost the federal government about $400 billion, and the second about $700 billion, both over a 10-year-period. Iterations of both bills have been reintroduced for several years, always with only Democrats and independent Sens. Bernie Sanders and Angus King signing on in support.

Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a leader on child care policy, said major investments are needed “to build a permanent child care infrastructure that respects and values women in the workforce,” but the nation faces a “political problem” with child care.

“We know that there are those in Washington who are willing to spend trillions on a tax bill rigged for massive corporations and billionaires but are suddenly [budget conscious] when it comes to investing in children,” she said in a statement. “It is shameful and unacceptable.”

Democrats also proposed permanently implementing an expansion of the child tax credit approved during the pandemic, and, to a lesser degree, funneling funds to programs that offer after-hours care and creating grants to fund the development of early childhood apprenticeship programs to help bolster the workforce.

ALSO READ: Texas congressman's ex-staffer paid back nearly $40K in ‘unauthorized charges'

Rep. Susie Lee of Nevada, the Democratic vice chair of the Problem Solvers Caucus, told The 19th that she’s focused on policies that can pass into law “because we cannot afford to keep kicking the issue down the road.” For child care, that’s legislation like the Small Business Child Care Investment Act, which is cosponsored by Republican Sens. Joni Ernst and Marco Rubio, that would help nonprofit providers get better access to government loans to help them expand their businesses (Ernst and Rubio did not respond to The 19th’s questions). Similarly, Rep. Jonathan Jackson, an Illinois Democrat, said he supports legislation that would direct the Department of Agriculture to prioritize the use of rural development funds to improve child care access in rural America. That measure is expected to be folded into this year’s farm bill.

“As much as we should continue to fight for big, transformational legislation, we must be honest about the realities of a divided government,” Jackson told The 19th.

The Republicans who responded to The 19th’s questions — Reps. Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Nancy Mace, Marc Molinaro and Adrian Smith and Sen. Rick Scott — offered solutions that were focused on easing specific challenges in the industry, such as lifting regulations to increase the supply of child care options, lowering costs through tax credits and improving child care funding in rural parts of the country.

Chavez-DeRemer, from Oregon, supports a bill that would expand a tax credit for employers who offer child care. New York’s Molinaro wants to see more money for the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG), the federal funding source that subsidizes child care for low-income families and one of the few policies with proven bipartisan support. The block grant got a 30 percent bump in funding last year with both Democrats and Republicans in support.

Scott, the senator from Florida, said he’d support legislation like the kind he’s voted for in the military child care system, including a pilot program analyzing the effectiveness of increasing pay for employees at those child care centers. The senator did not respond to questions about the kind of child care legislation he’d support outside of the Department of Defense, arguably already one of the best child care programs in the country.

Mace and Smith said lifting regulatory barriers to open more child care options, particularly for in-home providers, was an important solution. Mace specifically discussed changing zoning laws and lowering requirements that all teachers have at least an associates degree in early education.

The congresswoman from South Carolina told Politico in July that the Republican party can “come across like a-holes sometimes on women’s issues,” and would need to talk about child care, maternal care, prenatal care and abortion going into the election.

So far, at least, it’s clear Republicans have not felt that pressure. And in this political climate, some instead feel pressure to not speak out on child care at all.

ALSO READ: A neuroscientist explains how — and why — to get inside your political enemies’ minds

A belief that child care devalues stay-at-home parents has endured among conservatives, said Abby McCloskey, a conservative political consultant and writer who served as domestic policy director on former Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s 2016 presidential campaign. That view has shaped criticism of a universal child care plan for decades; in 1971, President Richard Nixon’s vetoed a plan to create federally funded public child care centers, arguing it had “family weakening implications.”

That idea is still keeping many politicians out of the conversation, McCloskey said. Today, those beliefs are also getting “entangled with the distrust that grew in public school education during the pandemic” and the growing movement for parent choice in all aspects of children’s lives, from day care to school.

“There is some mud in those waters, which is also making it more difficult to fund a particular kind of care outside the home,” she said.

Patrick T. Brown, a fellow at the conservative think tank the Ethics and Public Policy Center, said that the fiscal concerns have long been a challenge for Republicans and that, to an extent, Democrats are right when they argue that if child care was a true priority across the aisle, the issue would get funding.

But the reality is much more complicated and layered when there are multiple other priorities vying for that funding even in the same space, like the child tax credit and paid parental leave.

“You can’t just say ‘We have to spend the money here,’” Brown said. “Whatever fiscal policy we're advancing, that's foreclosing other doors.”

The result is that there hasn’t been much incentive for Republicans to come out in support of child care proposals. The issue came up briefly in the Republican primary debate in September, when South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott was asked about the child care bill he cosponsored in 2022, which would have increased family eligibility for CCDBG funding and capped family copays at 7 percent of their income. The bill stalled in Congress and was not reintroduced this year.

Scott was asked how he would get a child care package passed as president if his bill couldn’t pass Congress. Instead of answering, Scott pivoted to talking about how the solution was to “actually cut taxes and give more Americans their money back.”

This is an illlustration of the nation's Capitol with a baby bottle, stacking rings alongside a stack of government funds with a neglectful lawmaker.(Chanelle Nibbelink)

Brown said Scott should have had a good response — he was the only candidate who had worked on child care legislation — but his answer indicated he didn’t feel confident in addressing the issue. And there’s not a lot of political incentive for Scott to do so: Brown said he doesn’t believe child care alone is enough to mobilize GOP voters.

“Even the best child care proposal is moving voters on the margin,” Brown said. “For Republicans, there is not a lot of juice to be gained in really diving into child care in the way they have some success on the education question.”

Advocates see that as a missed opportunity: Data is clear that the investment in child care would support both the current and future workforce. It’s an economic issue.

“How child care helps the economy does not take much to understand,” said Kathryn Edwards, a labor economist who testified at the September child care subcommittee hearing. In the short term, it allows parents who want to go to work to do so. Funding child care would allow those parents to spend less on care, which in many states costs more than college tuition, and instead spend that money on other family needs. In the long-term, data shows children who have access to high-quality child care have better educational and employment outcomes later in life. The high cost of child care is often the most cited reason why parents don’t have more children, and so funding the system could be one way to combat declining fertility rates, Edwards said.

At the subcommittee hearing, she was the only one who had a specific response to Kennedy’s question about funding. Raise taxes if you must, she told him, but she argued Republicans could find the money to fund child care if they were also able to find the money to pass two tax cuts in 2001 and 2017, together totaling nearly $3 trillion over a 20-year period.

“I would love for you to give child care 20 years, I would love for you to say, ‘Let's take two decades of runway, invest in young children and see what kind of return that I could get,’” Edwards said.

She later told The 19th that child care is “the smartest investment we don’t make.”

The 2017 tax cut alone cost twice as much as the child care legislation proposed but later scrapped from Build Back Better — $450 billion for child care and universal pre-Kindergarten over 10 years. The money is there, Edwards argues, and it would cost less than 1 percent of federal spending. Increasing funding, even to a smaller degree, results in a larger economy — an outcome that “almost any competing cause” can’t achieve.

“Child care is a winning investment — you will 100 percent get a return on this investment,” she said.

ALSO READ: Selling hate, vulgarity and violence: How Trump and MAGA overran a quaint Midwest festival

Members of Congress who have worked across the aisle to come up with solutions in the child care space are often struck by the dissonance between members’ stated support for child care in private conversations and their unwillingness to publicly speak up on the issue.

Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, worked with Republican Reps. Stephanie Bice, Julia Letlow and Mariannette Miller-Meeks as members of the Bipartisan Working Group on Paid Family Leave. Based on those conversations, she feels there is a pathway to getting bipartisan support on child care and other family policies like paid leave and the child tax credit. (Bice, Letlow and Miller-Meeks did not respond to The 19th’s questions regarding their stance on child care.)

“Here’s where I’m struck: Every person that you talk to — and this is the same with family or medical leave — individual people that you talk to know that we need to do something in this space, know it’s hugely popular with people and something that needs to be done,” Houlahan said. “But when you get into politics and you get into [how to fund it] that’s where we all get stuck.”

Experts say the key could be starting with more incremental policy that is inclusive of other kinds of care.

Brown said Democrats have made moving forward on child care more difficult by focusing on universal child care and center-based care when many Republicans in Congress would like to see proposals that look at faith-based care, at-home care and support for stay-at-home parents. Rep. Smith, for example, told The 19th he’d like to see legislation that provides more technical assistance for in-home care providers. According to a 2020 poll by the Bipartisan Policy Center, most parents overall said their ideal child care situation would be to care for their children themselves, followed by using faith-based care, center-based and family child care homes, in that order.

“Anytime you're saying, ‘We are going to do a universal approach that’s going to be the same for everybody — affordable, high-quality child care for every child,’ what that comes across as saying is, ‘We are extending public school down to lower and lower ages,’ and a lot of people react strongly against that,” Brown said.

McCloskey said policies that fully fund existing programs, like CCDBG, would be a good place to start, but instead Democrats have been more focused on the larger legislation they’ve been promoting.

“As someone who comes out of a lifetime of more conservative politics, it’s easy to rag on the GOP for not taking this on. But at the same time I think the problem, up to this point, has been on both sides,” McCloskey said. “I would have an easier time critiquing the Republican position if the Biden administration came out with an incremental plan to give more funding for parents to make care decisions they want — then it would be up to the GOP to respond.”

In some ways, the magnitude of the Democrats’ proposals have made it easier for Republicans to stay out of the debate, said child care expert Elliot Haspel. But that shouldn’t be a license to throw your hands up, either.

“Having access to the child care that you want and need is core to family self-determination. It’s part of freedom: being able to live where you want to live, being able to start a business if you want to start business, being able to attend the faith community you want to attend, being able to have the number of kids you want to have. Particularly on the right, that case has not been fully fleshed out,” said Haspel, the director of climate and young children at the think tank Capita and author of “Crawling Behind: America’s Childcare Crisis and How to Fix It.”

A worried mother holding a sleeping baby near a stroller.(Chanelle Nibbelink)

Brown said Republicans need to realize that “the idea that there’s this secret, silent majority of moms who really just want to stay home and don’t want to be working is clearly not true.” Women aged 25 to 54 have a labor force participation rate that is now at an all-time high above 77 percent, and most with young children say they want flexible work hours or part-time work.

But members have to understand working parents’ realities to make those connections, and that’s harder with a Congress made up of mostly older White men. Rep. Katie Porter, the California Democrat who is one of the few moms of school-aged kids in Congress, said she’s prioritized the issue in part because she understands it personally.

“My hope is that we elect more moms and parents of young kids to Congress, who understand the real struggles Americans face in raising their families and participating in the workforce,” said Porter, who is running to succeed Dianne Feinstein in the Senate.

That could help solve a problem at the heart of child care’s political challenges: lobbying.

“There is no AARP for parents, there is no union for parents,” Haspel said, citing Dana Suskind’s book “Parent Nation.” “I think elected officials don't feel a lot of electoral consequences for not doing anything about child care.”

That level of organizing, that voting bloc, does not exist at a national level for parents, many of whom are exhausted by the sheer magnitude of work involved in raising a young child. By the time that work reduces, the child is out of child care and onto public school, which shifts parents’ focus.

“The group of people that could be mobilized … it’s not a permanent part of the economy that can advocate for itself because people are always graduating out of it,” Edwards said. “People who haven't paid for child care don’t really appreciate how hard it is and then people who have paid for child care, they get through it and they’re past it. It’s gone for them.”

As the parties remain at a standstill, it’s parents who have to navigate a system that, in some ways, makes their lives harder. In Florida, Carrie Anne Templeton, a Republican mother of two who is pregnant with her third child, said she doesn’t quite feel at home with either party because they either won’t address parents’ child care needs or their solutions aren’t what she wants to see.

Templeton said an expansion of the child tax credit seems like a common sense solution to her. She’s hoping to run for state legislature next year to help pass legislation that addresses real challenges families like hers are facing.

From politicians so far, it’s been a lot of empty promises, Templeton said, even as more of them have started speaking up about their desire to support families after the reversal of Roe vs. Wade. Somehow, that conversation keeps leaving child care out.

“It is mind boggling to me because I'm just like, well, if you care so much about Florida families, then why are we all still struggling and we don't have the child tax credit or affordable child care?” Templeton said. “That’s why I gotta run. And I’m a member of their party so I’m hoping they’ll listen to me when I run, because I’m a mom and a woman first — and then a Republican.”

Mariel Padilla, Candice Norwood, Sara Luterman and Jessica Kutz contributed to this report.

The 19th is an independent, nonprofit newsroom reporting on gender, politics and policy.

Domestic violence survivors are supposed to be protected at work. So why aren’t employers complying?

This story was originally published by The 19th. Sign up for The 19th's daily newsletter.

The violence had escalated for years before one day in October 2020, when Virginia’s husband threatened her life in front of her two children. She fled. The three of them hid in a domestic violence shelter in New York City as a global pandemic raged.

Virginia, whose full name is being withheld to protect her safety, wondered how she would care for her children. She was their sole caregiver, and most child care options had shuttered in the pandemic. Her shift at work as an ultrasound tech ran until 10 p.m. every weeknight, an hour past the shelter’s curfew.

The only thing that made sense was asking for an earlier shift. The day after fleeing her husband, Virginia arrived to work at St. Barnabas Hospital in the Bronx, where she’d been a tech for more than six years, with her 4- and 5-year-old and a letter from the shelter explaining to the head of the radiology department that she’d need a new schedule. Under New York City law, employers are required to accommodate workplace requests from domestic violence survivors unless it would create an “undue hardship” for the business. They’re also required to engage in a discussion with the worker to try to accommodate their needs.

Instead, Virginia said she was told to take time off to handle her situation. When she returned a week later, she was told that no one in the ultrasound department had been consulted about her request, and she was asked to take two more weeks of leave because the department remained “concerned for her well-being.” They would have to be unpaid weeks, however, because she’d used all her paid time off.

“That’s when I start realizing they are not doing anything,” Virginia told The 19th.

Woman sitting before looming shadowForty-one percent of all women and a quarter of men experience sexual or physical violence or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime, according to 2022 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (Getty Images)

By the end of October, she was told the department could not accommodate her shift change or her extended leave — the one she said she’d been told to go on. And after she didn’t show up to work on her original return date because she fell ill with COVID-19, she got an email from the HR department: She had been fired for what they claimed was “job abandonment.” The termination letter made no mention of her request for accommodations three weeks earlier, or the fact that she’d communicated that she had COVID and couldn’t return per the hospital’s own guidelines.

“I went to the head of the department, spoke to him. I spoke to the supervisor. I spoke to everyone. And now they’re all denying me and they’re firing me and saying job abandonment?” Virginia remembered. “I was devastated.”

St. Barnabas Hospital declined to comment for this story.

Virginia’s case is now in the hands of the New York City Commission on Human Rights, where it has been since she filed a complaint nearly a year and a half ago. It represents the many ways that domestic violence survivors are struggling to get workplace accommodations more than two decades since laws designed to protect survivors at work started to go into effect. Even in the places with the strongest protections — New York City’s law is considered model legislation — enforcement is difficult because domestic violence survivor employment laws don’t come with additional funding for enforcement agencies. Often, they are stacked on top of other civil rights cases at agencies that were already struggling to keep up with their caseload.

And in the workplace, employers are still largely uninformed about their legal responsibilities to domestic violence survivors — a population that has limited resources and time to pursue a case if their employer does not comply with state laws. At the federal level, there is no legislation that addresses workplace accommodations for domestic violence survivors.

Forty-one percent of all women and a quarter of men experience sexual or physical violence or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime, according to 2022 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which does not collect data on nonbinary people.

But data on domestic violence survivors and the workplace is extremely limited, making it difficult to drum up support for legislation, advocates said. One national study in 2005 found that 64 percent of domestic violence victims said their ability to work was impacted by the violence. About a fifth of the U.S. workforce identified as survivors in 2005, according to a nationally representative survey conducted at the time by the Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence, a now-shuttered nonprofit that worked with businesses on the impacts of domestic violence in workplaces. About 20 percent of employers were offering training on domestic violence by 2013, according to a study by the national HR association, the Society for Human Resource Management.

Only nine states and Washington, D.C., require workplace accommodations for survivors, according to Legal Momentum, a nonprofit legal advocacy organization for women that is representing Virginia pro bono. Some 13 states and D.C. prohibit firing someone based on their status as a survivor, and 37 states and D.C. have amended their unemployment insurance provisions to cover survivors. Currently, 15 states and D.C., as well as a number of cities and counties, have paid sick time laws that specifically include time off for domestic violence survivors to take time to get a restraining order or to relocate for safety.

But just because those protections are there doesn’t mean they are being utilized.

“The problems we're dealing with right now are employers are woefully unaware of existing legal requirements, and even those who are aware don't necessarily take them that seriously, because I don't think they are seeing that type of enforcement,” said Seher Khawaja, Virginia’s attorney at Legal Momentum. “It's very difficult for survivors to find legal representation in these contexts. There are not many attorneys who are as well-versed in these cases.”

The longer the enforcement takes, the “harder it is for survivors to get back on their feet,” Khawaja said. Since Virginia put in her complaint, the agency has interviewed her twice. She hasn’t heard anything since the last interview in March.

The commission declined the 19th’s request for comment on the case “to preserve the integrity of our investigations,” but it did add that it has resolved 38 cases regarding domestic violence workplace discrimination since 2016, when New York City first launched a task force on domestic violence. The department received 110 inquiries in that time, though not all of them ended up becoming cases.

That represents a sliver of the roughly 10,500 other inquiries the commission receives each year. In its 2024 fiscal year funding, it was given funding to hire 17 more attorneys and support staff. It also invests in training and online resources to inform people about their rights as survivors, the commission said in a statement.

Still, for survivors like Virginia, the wait is a barrier to her reaching the economic autonomy that would help move her and her children forward.

“I don’t think we think nearly enough about how profound the impact of domestic violence is on workplace sustainability for a survivor,” Khawaja said. “It comes into play when a survivor needs that financial independence most in their lives.”

Virginia was in the domestic violence shelter for 10 months trying to find other jobs with no luck. Her employer wouldn’t provide a recommendation letter, she said, and the termination made it hard for other employers to consider her application. A serious car accident in May 2021 was followed by a lengthy recovery that has made it even more difficult to find work. She’s since moved away from New York City.

“When I think back about it, they took away my passion — I loved being an ultrasound tech and I loved my job. I just wish they could have just worked with me at the time, but I can't go back,” she said.

Protections for domestic violence survivors at work have come in waves since the mid-1990s, when the first laws were passed to give survivors access to unemployment insurance.

Robin Runge, the attorney who has worked on most domestic violence workplace protection bills at the state and federal level from the start, said she came into the work because women were being left behind by the legal system.

“I became aware of the epidemic nature of domestic violence and the struggles survivors face, and when I mean the struggles, I mean the abject racism, classism, sexism,” Runge said. “Most of my clients were Black and almost all of the judges were White men. The justice system was failing these people miserably, and it was a real wake-up call.”

Workers constantly had questions about how they could support themselves and keep their jobs if they had to constantly go to court to get protection orders or for other legal needs to ensure their safety.

The first couple pieces of state-level legislation Runge helped write allowed domestic violence survivors to still qualify for unemployment insurance if they lost a job for a reason relating to that abuse. Generally, people who leave jobs are not entitled to those benefits, but for domestic violence survivors, the reasons for leaving a job may be more complicated — they are often doing it to ensure their own safety or that of their coworkers.

The next wave of bills focused on securing unpaid leave for victims who needed time off but did not qualify for it. The federal Family and Medical Leave Act only offers workers unpaid time off if they’ve been at a job for at least a year.

Wendy Pollack, the founder and director of the Women’s Law and Policy Initiative at the Shriver Center on Poverty Law, worked on a lot of those early cases around leave. As a family law attorney, she remembers frequently hearing: “If I have to go to court one more time, I’m going to lose my job.”

Pollack worked to draft a bill in Illinois called the Victims' Economic Security and Safety Act that passed in 2004, which granted up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to victims of domestic violence to access anything from medical help to legal assistance. Barack Obama, a state senator at the time, was the sponsor of that legislation.

In the 20 years since, Pollack, Runge and others have worked to improve on the foundations those laws set, including making the leave paid instead of unpaid. Most recently, Minnesota passed paid sick leave that includes “safe time” for domestic violence survivors, which survivors can use to find safe housing, get a protection order or go to court, for example. They accrue time throughout the year with access to up to 48 hours of safe time available a year (up to six days if a worker follows an eight-hour work day). It will go into effect in 2024.

Including safe time in the state laws has been standard since those laws started to pass in 2008 with D.C. — and earlier in San Francisco in 2006 — said Molly Weston Williamson, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank. All include full-time workers and at least some part-time workers, depending on whether the law includes a minimum hours worked per week requirement in order to qualify. Most do not.

“As things were newer, there was more discussion and it required more work. I think we’ve hit a point in time in which it’s become more standard and more universal,” Weston Williamson said.

The next step for advocates now is getting protections for domestic violence survivors included in paid family and medical leave laws, which are separate from sick time and typically give workers up to 12 weeks of time off, time they could use to relocate, for example, or find child care for their kids if they’re in a shelter, like in Virginia’s case. Currently only six of the 13 states and D.C. that have paid family and medical leave laws include provisions for domestic violence survivors.

But despite how widespread it is becoming, many survivors still don’t know they have access to these protections. Advocacy groups are working to get more broad awareness on what’s in paid leave policies by working with shelters and other direct-service agencies to ensure they are informing survivors on their rights and by leading workplace trainings with employers.

Illustration of the shadow of an angry man gesticulating at woman in apartment windowCurrently only six of the 13 states and D.C. that have paid family and medical leave laws include provisions for domestic violence survivors. (Getty Images)

“What we have seen over and over again across the board is when you pass a law that gives people important new protections, the value of that law is really only in if people know about them and can use them,” Weston Williamson said.

Raising awareness has also been a challenge with the most recent wave of domestic violence survivor protections regarding workplace accommodations. The majority of states that have enacted workplace accommodation statutes have tied them to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Workers would have to prove they have a disability brought on by their status as a domestic violence survivor, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, in order to get an accommodation. In New York City, they simply need to be a survivor to ask for an accommodation, which could range from a new shift, to not working at a front desk or getting a lock on their door. The law in New York is rare and has only been in effect since 2019.

At the federal level, there’s been no success: Laws have been introduced to help domestic violence survivors since as early as 1996, and they’ve all stalled. It’s not dissimilar from the challenges with passing paid family and medical leave — all of those bills have passed at the state level but “we don’t have a prayer of doing it at a federal level,” said Sherry Leiwant, the co-founder and co-president of A Better Balance, a national nonprofit legal advocacy organization for women in the workplace.

“With respect to employment rights it’s particularly hard because so many of our representatives, particularly at the federal level, are influenced by business interests. They just don't want to interfere with business,” Leiwant said. “I think that's one of the reasons we’ve been so successful at the state and local level. The balance is a little different.”

Even in the states, though, education for employees on their rights and training for employers on their responsibilities has fallen behind, quelling the impact of those laws that have passed.

“As someone who worked on all of these things, what makes me sad is that very few people know these laws exist, including survivors. Very few people who work with survivors know these laws exist,” Runge said. “We are in an education breakdown.”

A couple years ago, she worked on a project talking to state enforcement agencies in five states. Most knew very little about the laws and had nothing on their websites with information for survivors, Runge said.

The other reason survivors are struggling to get restitution is that additional funding for the resources needed to ensure that training and education is not there. The laws that relate to domestic violence survivors don’t include any additional funding other than what is already budgeted for enforcement agencies.

“When we tried to get this legislation passed, we gave up on anything that would create a fiscal note, to be honest,” Runge said. “Maybe we should have said then we’re not going to pass it. What we ended up with is an unfunded mandate, and this is a recipe for disaster.”

One thing that could make a big difference is ensuring survivors know their rights, avoiding the legal challenges Virginia is currently facing.

“Callers will call us and we’ll say this law protects you and, more often than not, armed with that going to an employer — and [the] employer will not know about it either — the employer will say, ‘Oh I didn’t realize that,” Leiwant said.

Khawaja and the team at Legal Momentum are currently working with the state of New York to strengthen its laws to require employer training on domestic violence survivors laws, a lesson taken from the success of sexual harassment training in the wake of the #MeToo movement.

That’s the path forward, advocates said. So much attention has been paid to sexual harassment at work, when it’s not dissimilar from harassment that happens outside the workplace. Connecting those dots could be the key to unlocking more protections for survivors, Runge said.

“This is happening everywhere, and this demarcation of it happens at home — you get these; and at work — you get these,” doesn’t make sense anymore, Runge said. “We as women experience this everywhere.”

The 19th is an independent, nonprofit newsroom reporting on gender, politics and policy.

1 in 4 parents report being fired for work interruptions due to child care breakdowns

This article was originally published by The 19th.

Nearly one in 4 parents reported last year being fired from their jobs due to the continuing breakdown of child care for their kids, according to a new study published Thursday. It’s just the latest statistic in a crisis that is exacting a costly toll not only on families, but also on the economy: The report puts the price tag for the lack of access to affordable child care at $122 billion in 2022 due to lost wages, productivity and tax revenue.

That figure is more than twice what it was in 2018, when ReadyNation ran a similar study surveying about 800 parents of kids under the age of 3. The study merges the survey responses with labor market data from the Bureau of Labor statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau to model the impact that the inaccessibility to child care has on the broader economy. The report was done by ReadyNation, a coalition of business leaders, and Council for a Strong America, which advocates for child care policy.

Last year’s $122 billion figure breaks down like this: $78 billion in lost earnings and job search expenses for families; $23 billion lost by employers due to productivity challenges; and $21 billion in lower federal, state and local tax revenue brought on by parents having less discretionary income to spend back into the economy.

At the core of the problem is a child care system broken at every level. And since the pandemic, it has faced some of the strongest headwinds of any industry.

More than half of Americans live in a child care desert, where there are three or more children under 5 for every child care spot available. In 34 states and Washington, D.C., the average cost of child care at a daycare center is more than in-state public college tuition. Turnover rates for child care teachers are as high as 40 percent in some states, and a staffing shortage exacerbated by the pandemic continues nearly three years later. Child care jobs are still not back to pre-pandemic levels — a gap of about 50,000 positions nationwide still lingering even as most other sectors have rebounded.

“This is not just that parents are telling us they can't go to work. We're hearing businesses talking about how they have workers who couldn't return or they aren't able to hire because they can't find child care in their community,” said Anne Hedgepeth, chief of policy and advocacy at Child Care Aware, a leading child care advocacy organization. “These are people who want to be in the labor force, who in many cases have a job, and they are then in some way disconnected from that job and not going because of their child care responsibilities.”

One of the key issues continues to be supply, Hedgepeth said: There are simply not enough daycare spots for children who need it, and there are not enough staff in place when breakdowns happen, such as a teacher becoming sick, leading parents to have to fill in the gap.

Child Care Aware’s most recent report on the state of the industry in 2021 found that there were 12.3 million children who needed child care spots in 2021 but only 8.7 million slots in licensed child care centers — a gap of 3.6 million.

Day-to-day, those breakdowns in care mean that parents are often reporting late to work, leaving early or missing work because child care is unreliable. As many as 44 percent reported reducing their work hours, according to the ReadyNation study. About 1 in 3 parents had their pay or hours reduced as a result or switched from full-time to part-time employment.

Of the parents surveyed, 26 percent quit their jobs because of child care problems and 23 percent were fired. The number of parents who were fired or had their pay reduced is three times as high as it was just four years ago. The rate of parents quitting has doubled since 2018.

Moms were more likely to quit or be reprimanded by their supervisor for missing work due to child care issues, the study found, while dads were more likely to be fired or demoted. The study did not collect data from nonbinary parents.

“We are saying we are not going to build the child care system and we are going to make it as hard as possible for moms who are then going to leave and we are going to punish dads who want to play a role,” said Julie Kashen, a senior fellow and director for women’s economic justice at the Century Foundation. “It feels like this is all part of this vicious cycle of structural racism and sexism.”

Coffee spilling on laptop keyboard.(Hermann Mueller/Getty Images)

ReadyNation’s study did collect data on parents’ race, but the sample sizes were not large enough to conclude how parents of different racial backgrounds were affected by the child care crisis last year. Overall, the inability to secure stable child care affected parents’ long-term job prospects. One-third reported they had to turn down job offers or further education and training. A quarter said they turned down a promotion because the child care available to them was insufficient.

For mothers, in particular, the loss of child care after centers closed at the start of the pandemic helped set off the first women’s recession. At the onset of the pandemic, 3.5 million working mothers left their jobs, and, even as jobs returned, mothers continued to stay out of work in higher numbers specifically because the child care sector had not bounced back. Black women and Latinas, who are also most likely to work in jobs with less flexibility, quit their jobs because of child care disruptions at higher rates than White women.

It was that crisis that ushered in renewed attempts at investmenting in child care. In 2021, a coronavirus relief package included $39 billion in additional child care funding for states — more money than what had been spent on the industry the prior five years combined. But hopes of a larger child care package died in 2022 when a $400 billion infusion into the child care and pre-kindergarten system was ultimately nixed from another spending package.

More recently, Congress allocated an additional $1.8 billion to the Child Care and Development Block Grant, the core federal child care assistance program, for the 2023 fiscal year. And states will have until the end of September to spend all the dollars they received from the coronavirus relief package, money that in some cases has helped expand eligibility guidelines so more low-income children can access care, while also helping fund retention and hiring bonuses for teachers.

Some of that may turn into permanent changes, Hedgepeth said.

New Mexico recently passed a constitutional amendment that will direct increased funding to its early childhood education system. Washington, D.C., has set up a Pay Equity Fund for early childhood educators with grants of up to $14,000 for teachers. Virginia is piloting a new program that would change the way providers are reimbursed for child care — instead of paying based on rates set by the market, they would be paid for the true cost of the care. It’s a model that could profoundly change the industry by ensuring teachers and child care centers are paid appropriately.

But to make it affordable for families, it needs sustained subsidies. Virginia will be using the COVID funds earmarked for child care to test this new approach, but long-term, more money from the federal level would help make its program — and other programs states are testing — sustainable.

The issue this year is that it’s not likely Congress will take up another major federal child care package, even if the topic is one with significant bipartisan support, advocates said.

“Everything we are hearing is that Republicans are going to be leading efforts to cut back on spending, not put up more spending,” Kashen said. “That's where it comes to a head: If you're not going to put the money in, then you can't make policy changes that are needed.”

Corporate America has little, if anything, to say about abortion

Originally published by The 19th

In the days since a Supreme Court draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade leaked, corporate America has offered a familiar response: silence.

It mirrors the days following Texas’ implementation of its six-week abortion ban last September — silence from the many companies in the state. But in the weeks after Texas’ ban went into effect, some companies started to speak publicly and implement policies to assist employees who wanted to get an abortion out of state. That response to the Texas law, then the most restrictive abortion ban in the country, created a precedent that corporations could draw on now that it seems imminent that Roe will be overturned. So far, they have not.

The draft opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito and confirmed to be authentic, is not yet finalized, but it does make it clear it is very likely the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade this summer when it issues its final ruling on a Mississippi case before the court, leaving the decision on abortion up to individual states. About half of states will likely enact some form of abortion restriction as a result.

That makes the issue unavoidable for large companies.

Some have practical considerations to account for: Unlike with the Texas ban, the loss of Roe will mean corporations that provide health coverage and other benefits across state lines will have to weigh how to logistically do that when it comes to abortion.

But more broadly, since the rise of the #MeToo movement and the pandemic that decimated many jobs held by women, many corporations have spoken out about their commitments to inclusion for women, who up until 2020 made up more than half of the American workforce. One in four will have an abortion before the age of 45, a number that doesn’t include transgender and nonbinary people impacted, who major companies have also increasingly expressed a desire to support.

    And yet only a handful of companies have publicly addressed the seemingly imminent fall of Roe. The 19th reached out to 30 of the largest employers in the country, including some of the Fortune 500 companies led by women — this year at a historic high — including CVS, Walgreens and General Motors, and companies that are major contributors to anti-abortion political action committees, such as Walmart, Coca-Cola and Google.

    Only two in that group — Amazon and Citigroup — have said they will cover costs for employees who live in a state banning abortion to get the procedure in another state, though Amazon’s announcement, which came just hours before the draft ruling was leaked, is limited to employees on employer-sponsored health insurance and excludes many of the lowest paid employees, such as drivers.

    T-Mobile, which has donated more than $340,000 since 2016 to groups heavily involved in electing anti-abortion senators, state legislators and govenors, said in a statement Friday that its “political donations have always been bipartisan and solely focused on supporting issues and topics relevant to our business and industry.”

    The rest of the companies declined to comment or did not respond at all.

    “Corporations have to choose a side of history right now — the longer they are silent, the weaker their claim is that they really care about women in the workplace,” said Noreen Farrell, a civil rights attorney and the executive director of Equal Rights Advocates, a nonprofit gender advocacy organization. “This may not be the intention of silence, but this is the message.”

    The decisions companies do make have power, and they can be particularly meaningful in a post-Roe world where corporations can influence state politics on abortion if they wish to. In 2016, when North Carolina passed a bill to bar transgender people from using bathrooms that match their gender identity, PayPal and Deutsche Bank rolled back plans to expand in the state, helping to incite a repeal of the law in 2017.

    The news on abortion also wasn’t necessarily unexpected. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case that could potentially overturn Roe in December, and a decision was expected in June or July, with many expecting the court’s conservative majority would side with overturning Roe. Still, companies seem to have been caught flat-footed.

    On Friday, Popular Information, a newsletter that covers corporate political donations, reported that a large public relations firm, Zeno, representing clients that include Coca-Cola, Netflix, Starbucks and Hershey’s, is circulating a template email advising clients to stay quiet on the measure.

    “Do not take a stance you cannot reverse, especially when the decision is not final,” it reads, adding that the topic can be a “no-win” situation for companies because it could alienate some customers and stakeholders. Companies should steer clear of talking to or even pitching breaking news outlets at all, Zeno advises, to avoid being asked about a stance on the draft opinion.

    Some of the reluctance seems to be unique to abortion, one of the most politically charged issues of our time partially because it’s so complex — polling shows that Americans have complicated, nuanced positions on abortion that go beyond a simple binary. Companies fear of alienating consumers or mistepping. But in the past two years, corporations have been quick to speak out on other charged topics, including threats to voting access, LGBTQ+ rights and racial justice.

    The landscape in terms of worker power and corporate expectations has also shifted in the past several years and certainly the past few months. Emboldened by a job market that has given them more options, workers are demanding companies show up meaningfully in pay, benefits and forms of corporate giving that mirror their values, particularly on issues related to gender and racial equity. It’s too soon to see how or if that will play out with abortion, Stark said, because workers may be reluctant to share on an issue that for many is highly sensitive.

    Just over half of voters want companies to speak out on abortion access, according to a Morning Consult/Politico poll released Wednesday. Most want to see companies provide resources to help employees and customers affected by a potential ruling overturning Roe, and 45 percent want to see companies put out a statement in support of it.

    But experts said companies may also be treading carefully given recent blowback, most notably that faced by the Walt Disney Company. A significant political donor to the Florida politicians who helped pass the “Don’t Say Gay” ban, Disney faced furious backlash from the public and employees who went on strike earlier this year when the company said the best way it could support them was through the content it created. It backpedaled too late, pulling political donations in the state and leading the Florida legislature to pass a bill to dissolve Disney’s special taxing district in retaliation. And in Washington, Sen. Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican, introduced a bill this week that would block companies from getting tax breaks if they help their employees get out-of-state abortions.

    Ensuring they don’t have a similar misstep is paramount in this moment, said Jen Stark, who has led the “Don’t Ban Equality” campaign since 2019 encouraging business leaders denounce abortion bans.

    “They know it’s beyond the performative now,” said Stark, who is also a senior director for corporate strategy at the Tara Health Foundation. “They need to say: ‘What are they doing to mitigate the harm to their workforce? How do they acknowledge the role, particularly for those engaged in political giving, that has supported extremist policy? And how do they help carve away the structural problems that got us here?”

    But does that preclude them from saying anything at all in this moment?

    “There are ways to find common language that still makes clear what you mean and what you value, so radio silence because the use of a particular word will blow up in their face — I think that’s either a cop out or a convenient excuse,” Farrell said.

    Among the few companies that have spoken out this week was Levi Strauss & Co., which put out a statement less than 24 hours after the draft opinion leaked calling protecting reproductive health care, including abortion, “a critical business issue” that could undo some of the workplace gains women have made since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. It also committed to covering all medical and travel expenses for employees seeking abortions in neighboring states. On Friday, Tesla also announced plans to cover costs for workers seeking abortions out-of-state.

    It’s still possible more such responses are coming, Stark said.

    Behind the scenes, Stark said, companies are working with human resources and benefits managers to adjust their internal workforce practices, which in some cases go beyond covering abortion-related expenses, but also enhance paid sick leave policies and look at company subsidized child care support.

    “We’re really trying to work with companies to think through not hiding additional increased benefits that they might be offering and addressing the needs of workers holistically,” Stark said. “It’s all about the internal communication at this moment. And so I do think companies are being mindful as they come out with these sort of enhancements in their benefits and talking about what they’re doing.”

    In the weeks after Texas’ ban on abortion after six weeks gestation went into effect in September, support from companies started to trickle in. Dating app Bumble created a relief fund to support people seeking abortions outside Texas and software company Salesforce offered to help its employees relocate out of Texas if they were impacted by the new law.

    Experts are also eyeing how the federal government could work with corporations to encourage abortion-related protections. The White House did not respond to a request for comment on whether it’s considering any incentives for businesses that provide benefits for employees seeking an abortion or any other such incentives.

    “When government can’t or won’t act,” Stark said, “we look to businesses again and again and this is one of those moments.”

    Alito got something very, very wrong in his leaked draft opinion

    Originally published by The 19th

    In a leaked draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito argued that pregnant people don’t actually need access to abortion to ensure economic mobility — they already have it.

    According to the opinion, which was published by Politico Monday night, “unmarried pregnant women” — Alito does not include all pregnant people in his opinion — now have access to pregnancy discrimination protections, “guaranteed” medical leave “in many cases,” and medical costs that are “covered by insurance or government assistance.”

    Those “modern developments” contradict the position held by many economists and abortion rights advocates for decades, Alito wrote. In his opinion — which Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed was a genuine draft, but said was not the official decision of the court — Alito concludes that it’s not up to the Supreme Court to assess “the effect of the abortion right on society and in particular on the lives of women.”

    But his argument doesn’t account for the significant limitations of the protections he lists and the persisting truth that the United States holds some of the worst records in the world in terms of pregnancy and birth-related workplace benefits, experts say. Some of the elements Alito describes in the opinion are still a work in progress. In other cases, they are leaving out some of the most vulnerable Americans.

    The overarching argument Alito appears to be making is that the country has made strides since 1973, when Roe v. Wade went into effect, guaranteeing abortion rights up until fetal viability. Alito suggests that progress nullifies the connection between abortion access and economic justice. But experts on child care, paid leave and economics said his argument fails to capture how the protections codified into law in the past five decades are still not sufficient. The reasoning is also at odds with another stance held by some self-described anti-abortion feminists, who feel that access to abortion has stymied the development of robust policies to support pregnant people and families.

    In terms of pregnancy discrimination, a bill with bipartisan support recently passed the U.S. House and is now being considered by the Senate to fortify workplace protections for pregnant people. But that bill was introduced precisely because significant loopholes still exist, even though Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in 1978.

      On what Alito characterizes as “guaranteed” family leave, the only workers who have anything close to guaranteed leave are the top 10 percent of earners in the country, 95 percent of whom have access to family leave that is unpaid, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Only 36 percent of those highest earners also have paid family leave, and those numbers drop dramatically for the lowest paid workers, most of them women of color: 79 percent got unpaid family leave and only 5 percent had paid family leave in 2020.

      Medical costs for birth are also still high, even with insurance coverage: about $4,300 on average for vaginal deliveries in 2015 and $5,200 for cesarean births, according to a wide-ranging study of more than 600,000 women in the United States between 2008 and 2015 who had health care insurance through their employer.

      “The premise is false,” said Julie Kashen, a senior fellow and director for women’s economic justice at the Century Foundation, a progressive think tank. “Even if we had access to paid family leave and child care and insurance coverage for pregnancy and childbirth — even if we had all those things in place, which we do not, the need to have the right to abortion continues to exist.”

      The United States ranks near the bottom of the list among advanced countries on how much it invests in child care, and it is one of only seven nations that has no national paid leave policy. Health care costs are so high in the United States, including for childbirth and pregnancy, that more than a third of American women reported skipping needed medical care, the highest rate among eleven high-income countries, according to a study by the Commonwealth Fund, a foundation providing health care research on vulnerable communities. (The study did not look at trans or nonbinary people.)

      Abortion access and economic security have long been proven to have deep connections. A landmark study that followed two groups of women over 10 years — one group that wanted an abortion and got one and one that wanted one but did not get the procedure — found that those who were denied an abortion by a clinic because they were too late in their pregnancies sank deeper into poverty as a result.

      The study, which did not look at outcomes for trans or gender diverse people, pinpointed the lack of abortion access as the turning point in the women’s economic trajectories, in part because there was little policy support federally and in their workplaces to help them raise their children without facing financial hardship.

      The past two pandemic years have crystallized how little support there is for pregnant people and parents — so little, in fact, that women left the labor force in unprecedented numbers at the start of the COVID-19 crisis because of lack of access to paid leave and child care. In the wake of that exodus, policies to pass federal paid leave and free pre-Kindergarten got as close to becoming a political reality as they ever have in this country.

      And yet, they have not passed.

      Those who are most affected by the absence of those protections are the same group that will be affected by the lack of access to abortion: women and people of color.

      “One of the things we have to remember is this narrative about abortion and who has access to abortion — we cannot forget that this is a race and class issue,” said Leng Leng Chancey, the executive director of 9to5, a national organization advocating for economic security for women of color.

      If Roe is ultimately overturned, as the draft opinion suggests it will be, the decision on how to restrict abortion will be left up to states. Most of the states that have already passed abortion restrictions are in the South and Midwest, the same places that have higher concentrations of low-wage workers. It is those workers, the majority of them women of color, who will face the most significant barriers to abortion, who may not be able to travel to other states to undergo the procedure and who may not even have the time off from work or financial wiggle room to consider that option.

      Chancey said that when she was pregnant with her first child, she earned $7.25 an hour working at a university and was spending $150 a week on child care. They had a cesarean birth and were back at work less than 8 weeks after the surgery.

      “I was afraid to lose my job — who can access [unpaid family leave]? Nobody that’s working a minimum wage job, because you have to put food on the table,” they said.

      Low-income people of color often can’t afford to be out of work without pay for extended periods of time, but they are also more likely to be single parents and caregivers.

      “We live in a nation that penalizes caregivers and caregiving responsibilities,” said Josephine Kalipeni, the executive director of Family Values @ Work, a national network of state and local coalitions working to pass workplace policies including paid family leave. When she had an abortion while in college, part of the decision was driven by the fact that she was the eldest of six children, expected to be a caregiver for her parents and while completing her education.

      Kalipeni said she was working three jobs at the time, struggling to pay off her tuition at the end of each semester.

      “I had to think and really weigh the cost knowing that my parents would not have an inheritance to pass down to me in the future, that my financial wellness was as connected to theirs as their own independent finances were, and now to think about disrupting my education, incurring the costs of having a child and having a child in the United States? There was absolutely no way I could financially or emotionally have a child,” Kalipeni said.

      If Roe is overturned, groups like hers will only be emboldened to fight more for the policies Alito suggests are already in the books, she said.

      “It ramps up our work in its definitive terms, but I also think it ramps up our responsibility to talk about reimagining a democracy and an economy that works for all of us,” she said. “It becomes a uniting moment.”

      Did the pandemic change dads forever?

      Originally published by The 19th

      Steve Ammidown and his wife had spent months juggling the relentless demands of child care and working from home during the pandemic. They took turns caring for their daughter and squeezing in a few hours of work before crashing into bed at night, drained and discouraged.

      In the fall of 2020, Ammidown’s boss started to call with more frequency.

      When, exactly, will you be back in the office full time?

      The chair of the department is asking about you.

      Things were nowhere near back to normal, but there was an unspoken expectation that he should figure it out anyway. Kids shouldn’t interrupt Zooms. Parents should start to return to the office.

      Just a few years prior, Ammidown and his family had moved to Ohio for his dream job as an archivist at Bowling Green State University. But something had flipped for Ammidown in the months since the pandemic started. This time he had spent with his then-5-year-old daughter while his wife also worked remotely had profoundly realigned his priorities. He was not ready to give up time with her, and, besides, he still didn’t have any care options.

      Facing intense pressure to return in person in December of last year, Ammidown realized his job was requiring something of him that he was no longer willing to compromise on: his health and his time with his family.

      So he quit.

      Steve Ammidown poses for a portrait at his home in Bowling Green, Ohio. (Maddie McGarvey for The 19th)

      “I loved the work that I was doing, but the job wasn’t that important in the end,” said Ammidown, 47. “Over the last year, there’s been a lot of mental shifts of, ‘Maybe I’d be OK if I took a part-time job somewhere because that would let me do more of this care work.’ I’ve started to change the way I’m thinking about careers and jobs.”

      That shift has happened in many American families, in some cases tearing down and rebuilding the constructs by which we decide who does what.

      In most households where child care fell apart, it was mothers who were making the choice to quit work to care for children. The disintegration of care has pushed enough women out of work in the past two years to trigger a recession. What happened to moms was stark: Millions left the workforce, then hundreds of thousands more dropped out as the 2020 and 2021 school years began.

      But what was happening to dads was less clear and, in some ways, more complicated.

      As of October, about a million fewer fathers of school-age children were actively working in the labor force than pre-pandemic, compared with 1.4 million fewer moms of kids under the age of 18. In October, about half a million dads between the ages of 25 and 54 were on leave from work and another half a million were unemployed, according to data provided to The 19th by Misty Heggeness, a principal economist and senior adviser at the U.S. Census Bureau who has been closely tracking outcomes for mothers and fathers during the pandemic. (The available data does not reflect nonbinary people, but includes some LGBTQ+ parents.)

      Those figures are all higher than pre-pandemic levels, but still largely trending downward month-to-month since early 2020.

      What the data doesn’t reflect are all the decisions taking place individually, between partners and between colleagues — the places where gender norms that were once strictly followed, consciously or not, are becoming more fluid.

      Ammidown’s model of a father, his own, worked the same job for about 40 years, always leaving at the same time in the morning and returning at the same time at night. In the year since he quit his job, Ammidown struggled with the expectation that he, too, should be employed.

      Though he started to apply to jobs more seriously this fall, nothing has come together just yet. His daughter returned to school in-person in March.

      “My kid is in school from 9 to 3 and I’ve had no problem filling the hours in between with cleaning and doing stuff around the house and projects. At the same time there is not the plethora of after-school care options that there were in the before times,” he said. “What would that look like if I went back to work?”

      Steve Ammidown and his wife, Michelle Chronister, hold their daughter. (Maddie McGarvey for The 19th)

      For decades in the United States, workers have had to adjust to the demands of their work, but what happens when work starts to come second for dads, the group of people who have been most expected to put it first?

      Dominic Apugliese, a systems engineer on Florida’s Space Coast, is considering leaving his job and looking for another if his current employer forces him to return to work in person. Apugliese became a father during the pandemic — his daughter was born in February 2020 — and he’s only known a time when he’s been able to be home with her.

      It’s helped him see, from the earliest days of his daughter’s life, the amount of work that has gone into her care between him and his wife. Studies have found that dads who take leave when their children are born are more likely to stay involved in their care long-term.

      For Apugliese, it wasn’t leave, it was the pandemic.

      “There might be a whole generation of dads that truly appreciate all those stay-at-home moms,” said Apugliese, 27.

      For John Kuehl, that fuller appreciation, the kind that can only come from experiencing something yourself, has come later in life. In the past two years, roles have completely switched in his home.

      Kuehl works for a food delivery tech company in Madison, Wisconsin, a job that had him in the office every weekday before the pandemic. His wife was a stay-at-home mom for many years, but recently, she became a special education case manager at a local high school. Now she’s out of the house most days, and he’s working remotely and caring for their 15-year-old and 13-year-old.

      In 2020, Kuehl started taking on all the household work, the little things like remembering to put softener salt in the water softener, or cooking dinner, picking up the kids and walking the dog — even when he turned his ankle playing basketball.

      Many of those were things, Kuehl felt, that everyone else barely even acknowledged.

      This created some tension in the house, but Kuehl, 42, has started to wonder how much of it was self-created “for expecting some level of gratitude that it may not be fair to expect.” After all, he and his wife had been intentional about how they were going to make it work.

      Should he “expect someone to thank me for doing something they don’t care about being done?” Kuehl said.

      The pandemic, in a way, has made it harder to think like that.

      “When everyone is fighting new personal battles that are different and probably more intense than normal, it seems like we all have less capacity than ever for seeing the struggle that others are going through,” Kuehl said. “When we yearn to be seen for what we are doing right now — by our employers, by our partners, even by our own kids — and would benefit maybe the most from it, we’re probably less likely than ever to have that need fulfilled.”

      Dads don’t often take on that invisible labor — it’s work that is historically gendered — but mothers can recognize it even before you start to list examples. They know what it’s like to get no thanks for the cleaning and the laundry and scheduling the doctor’s appointments and remembering when they are out of cereal or when they need to buy a birthday gift. Some dads like Kuehl are experiencing that stress for the first time, and with it the complicated web of self-questioning about how much they should expect from their partners and how much they take on because they feel it’s work that needs to get done.

      John Kuehl and his kids in Madison, Wisconsin (Courtesy of John Kuehl)

      “I have to realize I’m doing that for me, and that is a healthier mindset for me than, ‘Oh my God, look at me slaving, how can no one acknowledge [it]’” he said.

      Still, while dads have taken on more labor at home, a body of research indicates there are many ways the pandemic has pushed some families toward more traditional roles instead. William Scarborough, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of North Texas who has studied gender norms during the pandemic, said overall, it appears the pandemic could result in women taking on more work at home and with kids.

      Early in the pandemic, studies found that mothers were reducing their work hours four to five times more than fathers in heterosexual couples where both parents were working. Another study of census data found that early on, both parents were experiencing similar work-related stress but that as time went on, fathers remained employed while moms have become more likely to reduce their hours, take leave or exit the labor force.

      Intense expectations around worker productivity — the concept of the “ideal worker” who is fully committed to the job with no child care responsibilities — have pulled more people, and men in particular, back into the labor force as businesses have resumed work in person, Scarborough said. Layered on top is the idea that many households still “endorse a belief of gender essentialism,” he said, the belief that men and women have inherently different skill sets, with women being better equipped to handle care.

      “It creates this feedback loop where mom is spending more time with the kids, so, practice makes perfect, she becomes even better at it. Dad, who’s now spending less time with the kids, has this learned helplessness,” Scarborough said. “Even if couples don’t endorse traditional norms, even if they are egalitarian, there are structures that force them to fill out their lives in a very traditional way.”

      But that could be changing: For the first time, a proposal to infuse billions of dollars into child care, universal pre-K and paid leave could pass Congress, a reflection, Scarborough said, of a nation whose values might be changing. And when The 19th put out a call-out to dads for this story, the messages flooded in the first day. And the second. And the third. Dads, it seemed, were eager to talk about how the pandemic changed how they looked at parenting.

      For Max Weisman, a communications professional in Philadelphia, it dredged up a deeper conversation about why we treat mothers and fathers differently.

      Weisman has been working from home during the pandemic while his wife, a nurse, works out of the house three days a week. When he’s seen walking his toddler daughter in their neighborhood, he might have “10 people compliment how I’m our next savior, where my wife is never treated that way.”

      In their neighborhood, he is known as “Sadye’s father.”

      “It makes me sound like that superhero parent. But I do it three days a week and my wife does it three days a week, but she is not ‘Sadye’s mother,’” said Weisman, 30. “We put dads on this pedestal when we do half the work that moms do.”

      Even still, the pandemic has created an opening for more understanding. Each parent understands the other’s job better now after being home together most days for the better part of two years.

      “The appreciation for each other’s work gave us more empathy and giving each other time off and more willingness to take on those household tasks,” Weisman said.

      It’s the power of visibility, said Jeremy Smith, the co-founder of the Mindful Return Working Dad Course, an employer-sponsored four-week online class that helps fathers adjust to their roles as working parents. The discussions dads have been having in the course this year are vastly different, he said.

      “Historically, the role of dads has been quite different from what it is now, even though the realities have changed, I don’t know that the [national] discussion had changed on pace with it,” Smith said. “Just normalizing the fact that you’re allowed to have these opinions and to feel this way and that you’re not isolated or alone in that is sort of helping to bubble up change.”

      Smith has seen how long it’s taken for those ideas to take hold. When he was working for a large finance company in 2014, he took parental leave for the birth of his first child. He said to his knowledge, he was the first person in his region to do that. The pushback wasn’t explicit, but it was there.

      “It was more the undertone: ‘Well, what’s going to happen when you come back? Will it affect your bonus?” he said. It did affect his bonus: At the end of the year, his bosses said they found it was hard to make the case that he was an “exceeding performer” if he had been out for a third of the year.

      So much of the focus is on productivity, he said — how can we squeeze the most out of everything? But Smith argues that things like parental leave should be included in conversations around how the benefits workers are given contribute to their “total return.” How does something like paid leave allow workers to lead fuller lives, which then makes them happier, more productive and less burned out?

      “We don’t think about the long-term repercussions, we don’t price that in. No one values that in a dollar sense and adds it to a spreadsheet,” Smith said. “It’s only seen as a negative not a positive and, candidly, I doubt it’ll ever really change until we start to do that.”

      There is still a long way to go. And things like parental leave are the first step in a change that happens not just in individual households, but systemically. If employers are not on board, if there is no mechanism to support people in their decisions, norms will stay where they are.

      It’s only in the past several years as men have become more vocal about the need for paternity leave that the issue has risen in prominence. A decade ago, only 1 in 20 fathers surveyed by the Boston College Center for Work and Family were taking more than two weeks off for the birth of their child. When the study, which surveyed fathers in four Fortune 500 companies, was repeated last year, about 62 percent said they were taking the full leave available to them — six to 16 weeks.

      But even large companies have rules about how and when parents can access leave. And sometimes, a parent’s intention is not enough.

      Steve Ammidown and June hug before making dinner.

      Rob Hinton, who works for a large payment processing company out of Nebraska, was three weeks short of his one-year anniversary with the company when his child was born in November. Because of those three weeks, he did not qualify for the three months of fully paid leave his job offers to employees after one year. Instead he gets nothing.

      Hinton, 36, has been trying to ask his company to give him the leave anyway, but there is no appeal process.

      “I’ve had multiple HR people say like, ‘Well she had the kid right? It’s not an adoption or anything? If you had the kid you’d be able to, but it’s her medical condition,’” Hinton said. “It’s shocking, I didn’t realize how bad it was for dads until I became a dad.”

      It feels almost like the cards are stacked against him, even when he wants to try. Hinton did not have a close relationship with his father, and promised himself he’d do it differently if he had children.

      Being home throughout the pandemic while his wife was pregnant only reinforced that for him.

      “I’m doing literally everything I can think of — I want to be as involved as possible,” he said. “It’s all shared, but it needs to be, at minimum, equal.”

      Women in Donald Trump’s White House earn 69 cents for every $1 paid to male staffers

      During the Republican National Convention, the high-ranking women in Donald Trump’s White House tried to make the case for the president’s commitment to gender equality.

      Keep reading...Show less

      Ivanka Trump pitched a rosy second term -- and glossed over the reality for working women

      Introducing her father on the final night of the Republican National Convention, Ivanka Trump presented Americans with a picture of a grandfather, a defender of working people and of women — an unconventional “people’s” president.

      Keep reading...Show less