This Law Will Kill Opportunities for Pregnant Workers
"These policies are motivated by good intentions. But that doesn't mean that the consequences of these policies will turn out well."

Having a baby? There's a new law meant for you: the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
America needs this law, say activists, because "pregnant workers, especially those in low-wage and physically demanding jobs, have been forced to choose between their health and a paycheck."
In my new video, Vanessa Brown Calder, director of Family Policy at the Cato Institute, explains why this new law will make life worse for many women.
"These policies are motivated by good intentions," says Calder. "But that doesn't mean that the consequences of these policies will turn out well."
Calder, who is pregnant, thinks the law will lead to fewer women being hired in the first place.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a good example of that.
Both Democrats and Republicans applauded when President George H.W. Bush signed it. Everyone loves the ADA.
But the law hurt disabled people who want to work.
Before it passed, more disabled people got jobs, year after year. When it passed, almost 30 percent were in the workforce. But once the ADA passed, employment of disabled workers dropped by half!
It happened because of the job "protection." Employers fear disability lawsuits. They're afraid that if a disabled person doesn't work out, they'll never be able to fire them. Now the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will make hiring young women risky.
"You may be a lawsuit bomb," I say to Calder, who nods and says: "It does make women more risky and more costly to hire. Employers don't know exactly what accommodation the woman might ask for."
It's safer for the employer to say, "I'm just not going to hire you. There's no way for the government to know why I didn't hire."
"Companies get good at working their way around these regulations," Calder responds.
But government officials assume their laws will do what they're supposed to do. They also are eager to please special interest groups.
The chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission went before cameras to brag that this law has support from "businesses, faith, health, women's and civil rights organizations!"
So what?
"Activists think of the short-term effects of the law," says Calder. "It's pretty easy to get behind a superficial reading of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and think that it could be a good idea."
"The momentum is always for more rules," I say.
"Oftentimes there's guidance issued many years after the fact," says Calder. "This is probably just the beginning."
The growing number of rules kills jobs in several ways.
Since the rule applies to companies with 15 or more employees, it's an incentive for companies with 14 employees to stay small.
"You get penalized as you grow," says Calder.
"Without a law like this, who would hire someone like you?" I ask. "You might have more medical problems. You're going to leave, for weeks at least."
"Pregnant workers bring a lot to the table," she responds. "Many employers see that. But when you create a one-size-fits-all policy like this, it starts to raise many employers' concerns."
I ask: "The Cato Institute should have the right to fire you because you got pregnant?"
"I think they should," responds Calder. "Because I want people like me to be able to be hired in the first place."
Exactly. I'm a stutterer. I didn't have my stuttering under control when I applied for my first job. Had the ADA existed then, I could have demanded special accommodation. "Disability lawyers" would have been ready to protect my "rights."
No TV station would have risked hiring me! I would have never gotten a chance.
Now the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will kill opportunities for women.
COPYRIGHT 2023 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The intentions of fascists are never good.
“ There's no way for the government to know why I didn't hire."
Bullshit! Criminalize lying and ask tough unambiguous questions.
The employer may think committing two crimes is worth the risk, but not all the subordinate co-conspirators will, especially if everyone has the right to record everything they witness everywhere they go.
Truth can’t be refuted but lies can be. All those interconnected lies need to seamlessly support each other and the moment one is refuted the house of cards tumbles.
This demonstrates that people don’t need to suffer from corrupt repercussions when their inconvenient rights are supported.
If I lied and said that's a great post what punishment should I receive? Note that I'm not Jooish. Do I get Qualified Immunity?
What sort of intrusive State are you aiming at, where they perform exhaustive interrogations of employers to determine why they hire and fire people? Does it begin with an F? And run by a political party that begins with a N? And where do Joos fit in this scheme?
I simply provided irrefutable evidence of correctly applied logic and science that refutes the holocaust in another article.
Now every lying waste of skin Kol Nidre boy thinks everything is about jew. Hahaha
Due process isn’t fascist.
Has anyone seen the Jew Zelensky called out in the mainstream media for employing real Nazis like his AZOV battalions in Ukraine today with funding and weapons provided by the US?
Hahaha
Keep ‘em barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
The law not working is not a problem. In a year or two, when the law's real effects become apparent, simply amend the law to make it a civil rights violation to fail to hire any fertile female (or any male who identifies as a fertile female) who submits an application for a job, whether the employer "needs" another employee or not. Enough laws will fix any problem.
What could go wrong?
"What could go wrong?"
It's illegal for employers to ask about fertility or infertility.
But it's something that one can generally assume about young women. And yes, of course not all young women are fertile, but those who aren't are outliers.
I guess that's why they haven't asked me about my sperm count.
I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart
This Website➤---------------➤newyorktimebank
“I guess that’s why they haven’t asked me about my sperm count.”
Same reason they don’t ask about your secret life as muslim fundamentalist. It’s the law. People value their privacy. Go figure.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/WhatCouldPossiblyGoWrong
In no particular order: death, dismemberment, burning, scalding, maiming.
Alternatively:
What a great idea! With the best of intentions.
I thought that job candidates weren't required to reveal personal details like place of origin, medical history, religion, sexuality, race, marital status, indebtedness, political views, pregnancy, and so on. It is actually illegal to ask such questions.
I thought most people could detect a young woman sitting across from them during an interview.
Some commenters, apparently not.
What is a woman?
Fuck, I'm no biologist, don't ask me!
"detect a young woman sitting across from them"
The issue is whether commenters could tell if the young woman is pregnant, which for most of the term, they can't. And requiring prospective employees to take a pregnancy test is even more illegal than merely asking about pregnancy.
You really have a knack for missing the point.
The point is a banal cliche. It deserves to be missed. Or Ms.ed, Mrs.ed etc.
Is there a rigorous mathematical proof of this claim?
It would seem the solution is absolute immunity.
There was a rigorous mathematical proof, but is had to be deleted when math became racist.
Asking for rigorous mathematical proof indicates you may be racist, doesn't it?
Which claim are you talking about?
Any time you create or increase a penalty for exiting a situation, you create a disincentive for entering it. That's a truism that neither requires nor permits 'a rigorous mathematical proof'.
I posted this question on Poe.com
- Me
Here was Chat GPT's response
- ChatGPT
Yep. ChatGP is a lefty.
It's safer for the employer to say, "I'm just not going to hire you. There's no way for the government to know why I didn't hire."
'Poor communication skills'. That's always a good option.
Jokes on you! The government can just make up why you fired or didn’t hire them based on nothing but vague conjecture. Even if you try to politically blackmail and sexually harass your fellow coworkers by soliciting them to join your gay softball league, a feat for which the EEOC otherwise indicates you should be unequivocally shit canned, SCOTUS will declare “We don’t know what a woman is so you can’t fire employees for soliciting fellow co-workers based on sexual orientation on company time because LGBTQIA+.”
'...Not a team player...'
Bukkake? Orgies?
Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence.
Just because government officials tell the public a law is supposed to do X does not mean that those officials actually want the law to do X.
The policies and laws are never "motivated by good intentions," they're sold by appealing to those who think the intentions are good.
You’re describing an environment of lying Kol Nidre boy.
Criminalize lying.
Most policies and laws are proposed to get votes and campaign contributions. The others are to gain more power.
The policies are motivated by selfishness and people who think 'guns' make everything happen. WE mob of 'gun' toting self-entitled Power-Mad psychopaths. Learned behavior from the [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s].
For more on the effect of the ADA on employment of people with disabilities, see Figure 1 in https://dsq-sds.org/index.php/dsq/article/view/4927/4024.
I'm making more than $75k by just doing very easy and simple online job from home.Last month my friend sis received $94280 from this work by just giving only 2 to 3 hrs a day.Everybody start earning money online. visit for more details...
See...........>> https://supercashstore1.pages.dev