Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), whose second child is due in April, will be the first sitting senator to give birth while in office. (Photo: AFGE/Flickr/cc)
Feb 14, 2018
Now that Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) is set to become the first U.S. senator to give birth while in office, she is calling attention to the lack of support that exists for parents on Capitol Hill--mirrored by the absence of paid family leave laws for working Americans.
"I can't technically take maternity leave," Duckworth told Politico's "Women Rule" podcast. "Because if I take maternity leave, then I won't be allowed to sponsor legislation or vote during that time period."
The first-term senator is working with Senate leadership to determine how she'll be able to cast votes during the 12-week leave she's arranged to take through her office.
"You are not allowed to bring children onto the floor of the Senate at all," Duckworth said. "If I have to vote, and I'm breastfeeding my child, especially during my maternity leave period, what do I do?...Am I allowed to vote? Can I not do my job?"
The absence of Senate rules catering to women who start families comes to light as women's advocates decry a new family leave proposal by Ivanka Trump and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)--one that they claim will end the United States' status as the only industrialized nation that doesn't provide paid maternity leave, but that critics say is a wrong-headed solution to a serious problem that will actually rob women of financial security.
Under Rubio and Trump's plan, new parents could take up to 12 weeks of leave upon the arrival of a new baby--but their time off would be funded by their social security benefits.
"What this really is is a cut to Social Security," Linda Benesch, spokesperson for Social Security Works, toldThinkProgress last week. "The proposal that Rubio and Ivanka are reportedly considering involves an increase in the retirement age of people who choose to take leave. An increase in the retirement age is always a benefit cut."
\u201cHacking away at #SocialSecurity benefits to cover #PaidFamilyLeave is not a solution. It\u2019s a cheap excuse to allow employers to not grant paid family leave. https://t.co/R56RU7a43g\u201d— Fairness Project (@Fairness Project) 1517893380
Duckworth advocates for the FAMILY Act, reintroduced last year by Sen. Kirsten Gillbrand (D-N.Y.), which, as she wrote last week in an editorial for CNN, would create "a universal family and medical leave insurance program that would cost employers and employees less than $1.50 per week for a typical worker."
In her interview with Politico, she argued that women in Congress should promote family leave as an issue of economic stability for families and the nation, contrasting with Rubio and Trump's proposal.
"The more women we get into office, the more family-friendly legislation we're going to have, and the more we're going to get an understanding of the connection between family-friendly legislation and economic well-being for our nation," she said. "We need family leave not because it's the warm and fuzzy and nice thing to do, but because it's better for our economy."
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Now that Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) is set to become the first U.S. senator to give birth while in office, she is calling attention to the lack of support that exists for parents on Capitol Hill--mirrored by the absence of paid family leave laws for working Americans.
"I can't technically take maternity leave," Duckworth told Politico's "Women Rule" podcast. "Because if I take maternity leave, then I won't be allowed to sponsor legislation or vote during that time period."
The first-term senator is working with Senate leadership to determine how she'll be able to cast votes during the 12-week leave she's arranged to take through her office.
"You are not allowed to bring children onto the floor of the Senate at all," Duckworth said. "If I have to vote, and I'm breastfeeding my child, especially during my maternity leave period, what do I do?...Am I allowed to vote? Can I not do my job?"
The absence of Senate rules catering to women who start families comes to light as women's advocates decry a new family leave proposal by Ivanka Trump and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)--one that they claim will end the United States' status as the only industrialized nation that doesn't provide paid maternity leave, but that critics say is a wrong-headed solution to a serious problem that will actually rob women of financial security.
Under Rubio and Trump's plan, new parents could take up to 12 weeks of leave upon the arrival of a new baby--but their time off would be funded by their social security benefits.
"What this really is is a cut to Social Security," Linda Benesch, spokesperson for Social Security Works, toldThinkProgress last week. "The proposal that Rubio and Ivanka are reportedly considering involves an increase in the retirement age of people who choose to take leave. An increase in the retirement age is always a benefit cut."
\u201cHacking away at #SocialSecurity benefits to cover #PaidFamilyLeave is not a solution. It\u2019s a cheap excuse to allow employers to not grant paid family leave. https://t.co/R56RU7a43g\u201d— Fairness Project (@Fairness Project) 1517893380
Duckworth advocates for the FAMILY Act, reintroduced last year by Sen. Kirsten Gillbrand (D-N.Y.), which, as she wrote last week in an editorial for CNN, would create "a universal family and medical leave insurance program that would cost employers and employees less than $1.50 per week for a typical worker."
In her interview with Politico, she argued that women in Congress should promote family leave as an issue of economic stability for families and the nation, contrasting with Rubio and Trump's proposal.
"The more women we get into office, the more family-friendly legislation we're going to have, and the more we're going to get an understanding of the connection between family-friendly legislation and economic well-being for our nation," she said. "We need family leave not because it's the warm and fuzzy and nice thing to do, but because it's better for our economy."
Now that Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) is set to become the first U.S. senator to give birth while in office, she is calling attention to the lack of support that exists for parents on Capitol Hill--mirrored by the absence of paid family leave laws for working Americans.
"I can't technically take maternity leave," Duckworth told Politico's "Women Rule" podcast. "Because if I take maternity leave, then I won't be allowed to sponsor legislation or vote during that time period."
The first-term senator is working with Senate leadership to determine how she'll be able to cast votes during the 12-week leave she's arranged to take through her office.
"You are not allowed to bring children onto the floor of the Senate at all," Duckworth said. "If I have to vote, and I'm breastfeeding my child, especially during my maternity leave period, what do I do?...Am I allowed to vote? Can I not do my job?"
The absence of Senate rules catering to women who start families comes to light as women's advocates decry a new family leave proposal by Ivanka Trump and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)--one that they claim will end the United States' status as the only industrialized nation that doesn't provide paid maternity leave, but that critics say is a wrong-headed solution to a serious problem that will actually rob women of financial security.
Under Rubio and Trump's plan, new parents could take up to 12 weeks of leave upon the arrival of a new baby--but their time off would be funded by their social security benefits.
"What this really is is a cut to Social Security," Linda Benesch, spokesperson for Social Security Works, toldThinkProgress last week. "The proposal that Rubio and Ivanka are reportedly considering involves an increase in the retirement age of people who choose to take leave. An increase in the retirement age is always a benefit cut."
\u201cHacking away at #SocialSecurity benefits to cover #PaidFamilyLeave is not a solution. It\u2019s a cheap excuse to allow employers to not grant paid family leave. https://t.co/R56RU7a43g\u201d— Fairness Project (@Fairness Project) 1517893380
Duckworth advocates for the FAMILY Act, reintroduced last year by Sen. Kirsten Gillbrand (D-N.Y.), which, as she wrote last week in an editorial for CNN, would create "a universal family and medical leave insurance program that would cost employers and employees less than $1.50 per week for a typical worker."
In her interview with Politico, she argued that women in Congress should promote family leave as an issue of economic stability for families and the nation, contrasting with Rubio and Trump's proposal.
"The more women we get into office, the more family-friendly legislation we're going to have, and the more we're going to get an understanding of the connection between family-friendly legislation and economic well-being for our nation," she said. "We need family leave not because it's the warm and fuzzy and nice thing to do, but because it's better for our economy."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.