Job discrimination against pregnant women damages families, workplace

Health experts say that with proper job modifications in place, most women can work well into their eighth month of gestation. Keeping them in the workforce allows them to provide for their growing families, saves employers from having to find replacement workers and cuts down on lost productivity. Everybody wins.

All too often, pregnant women face an agonizing and grossly unfair dilemma. Should they stay in workplaces that don’t fully accommodate their health care needs, or leave their jobs and give up their income for weeks or months on end?

A bill that has passed the U.S. House and been approved by a Senate committee would address this problem by strengthening workplace health protections for pregnant women.

Although Congress outlawed pregnancy discrimination in 1978, many employers deny pregnant workers of job modifications they need to keep themselves and their unborn children healthy. These modifications include scheduling changes, restrictions on heavy lifting and more frequent breaks, which are necessary for many women to remain on the job during gestation.

Without those accommodations, pregnant women in many jobs face significant hardships: Think of retail and restaurant workers who are forced to be on their feet for hours on end, for example, or office workers who are required to stay at their desks while struggling with morning sickness and facing a need for more frequent bathroom breaks.

The congressional bill, known as the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), would require employers to provide expectant women with such reasonable accommodations as more frequent breaks, help with lifting and temporary reassignment to light-duty positions.

It’s a commendable piece of legislation, and the full Senate should pass it.

Health experts say that with proper job modifications in place, most women can work well into their eighth month of gestation. Keeping them in the workforce allows them to provide for their growing families, saves employers from having to find replacement workers and cuts down on lost productivity. Everybody wins.

That’s why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the PWFA, and why a coalition of some of the nation’s largest employers — Microsoft, Johnson & Johnson, Facebook, Dow and many more — sent a letter of support to Congress in July.

Denying the added protections, on the other hand, is a de facto form of denying equal workplace opportunity to pregnant women, as the jobs they’re forced to leave often go to men.

Meanwhile, the financial impact on families can be devastating.

The American Civil Liberties Union, in an online post about the PWFA, told the story of an EMT from Alabama, Michelle Durham, who was effectively fired months before her due date when her employer refused to exempt her from heavy lifting. Keep in mind, her doctor had told her to avoid it.

“How was I supposed to live for six months without a paycheck?” Durham told the ACLU. “How could I buy what I needed to prepare for my baby’s arrival? How would I support my son after he was born?”

No one should have to face questions like these when accommodations can be made.

Unfortunately, however, the PWFA is facing some headwinds from far-right senators who are demanding that it include an exemption that would allow employers, based on religious reasons, not to cover women who choose to have abortions. The bill, as written today, applies to “related medical conditions,” which according to critics would include complications from abortions.

But reasonable lawmakers in the Senate must not let these extremist voices stand in the way of such a fair and beneficial piece of legislation. This opposition should be seen for exactly what it is — another attempt by Republican Party leadership to curtail women’s equal rights and access to health care. Forcing women to either abandon their jobs or work in potentially dangerous situations is in line with measures such as the atrocious Texas law that bans most abortions after six weeks of gestation, a time before many women even know they’re pregnant, and institutes a bounty-style enforcement method that gives citizens financial incentive to report violators.

Yes, these same far-right figures who want to outlaw abortion also want to force women out of the workplace by denying them accommodations. This brings to mind U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s recent comment suggesting that forced motherhood is no longer a problem in society — apparently it’s not, by the right’s logic, provided pregnant women quit working, stay home and accept their lot in life.

Members of Congress have introduced versions of the PWFA each term since 2012, and the House passed it twice in the past two years. Unfortunately, though, the Senate has never taken it up for a full vote.

It’s past time for Senate lawmakers to get the bill over the finish line and send it to President Joe Biden for signing.

All four of Nevada’s House members voted to pass the bill — Democratic Reps. Dina Titus, Susie Lee and Steven Horsford of Southern Nevada, and Republican Mark Amodei of Northern Nevada. Those four did the appropriate thing for Nevada and for the nation.

Now the Senate needs to follow their lead. We’re confident that Nevada Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen will rise to the occasion.

The PWFA’s current track bodes well for its passage, as the House approved it by an overwhelming majority of 315-101 and a Senate committee voted 19-2 to advance it. But it’s not a sure bet, and therefore it would help for Americans to voice their support to the Senate. Contact info is as follows:

■ Senate switchboard: 202-224-3121

■ Mailing address for individual senators: Office of Senator (Name), United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510

■ To reach senators electronically: tinyurl.com/contact-us-senate