On Friday’s "Good Morning America," reporter Elizabeth Vargas openly lobbied for the passage of legislation that would require employers to offer six weeks of paid time off to workers for maternity, illness, or the care of a loved one. In addition, the ABC correspondent bashed America for not having "flexible, family friendly polices." According to Vargas, a new Harvard University study places the United States near the bottom among countries that provide paid maternity leave. She also offered only token opposition to the idea that all employers should be forced to give six weeks, plus the standard sick time and vacation. For the most part, the segment came across as a stinging indictment of the U.S.:
Robin Roberts: "Now to a new study from Harvard about paid maternity leave all around the world. It ranks countries based on how generous or stingy their benefits were. And the bottom five countries may have you scratching your head and saying, 'You must be kidding.' ABC's Elizabeth Vargas is here with the details. And we did see this and we were like, no, no, no. This cannot be right."
Elizabeth Vargas: "Everybody has that reaction, Robin. 26 million mothers in this country work. The vast majority say to make ends meet, they must. With that many moms in the workforce, you'd think the U.S. would lead the way in flexible, family-friendly policies. Think again. For millions of working moms, those first weeks after giving birth are a time to take off, recover, and bond with your new baby. But increasingly, the question is who pays?"
In the segment, which aired at 7:44am on February 2, Vargas’ tone constantly betrayed incredulity at just how rotten America’s leave policies are. At no time was the effect of paying for an additional six weeks seriously considered. After co-host Robin Robert’s introduction, Vargas began the report by asking women on the street which country they thought would be the worst offender:
Vargas: "Most countries around the world provide paid maternity leave, but which ones don't?"
[Montage of women answering the question]
Woman #1: "Maybe India?"
Woman #2: "China?"
Woman #3: "Maybe Russia or Mexico."
Vargas: "In fact, a study out this week from Harvard and McGill University, shows that of 173 countries surveyed, only five provide no form of paid maternity leave: Papua New Guinea, Lesotho, Swaziland, Liberia, and the United States."
Michelle Porter (Mother): "I do think American women are not aware of how bad they have it."
Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut): "We took better care of pets in your automobile than we take care of your child in this country."
Vargas: "Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut says that only 12 percent of U.S. companies offer paid maternity leave, even though 71 percent of all mothers work. Late yesterday, he proposed expanding the Family Medical Leave Act to allow all employees in this country at least six weeks of paid leave, to care for a baby or any sick family member. Senator Dodd says studies show it is good business for employers to offer paid maternity or medical leave. But when we spoke to Karen Czarnecki from the Department of Labor, she disagreed.
Karen Czarnecki: "We'd end up losing jobs. I really think the economic consequences would be dire."
Vargas: "Czarnecki says it would cripple many businesses if they had to pay an employee to take time off to care for a newborn or a sick parent. She says it's up to each employee to plan for those life events."
Czarnecki: "We need to do more to encourage Americans to save more for the times that they do need to be out of the workforce."
Vargas: [Incredulous] "It's up to a person to save enough money before they have a baby to be able to stay home for a few weeks and recover and spend some time with that new baby?"
Czarnecki: "Yeah. I think people have to take responsibility for themselves and they shouldn't always look to government to have an answer for them."
First off, note that Chris Dodd is only identified as a Democrat in an onscreen graphic. Vargas simply referred to him as a Senator from Connecticut. Secondly, when Karen Czarnecki, a Labor Department advisor, actually suggested that people save for children and other life events, Vargas clearly found it difficult to hide her bewilderment at such a thought. Anchor Robin Roberts closed the report by essentially dismissing Czarnecki’s remarks:
Roberts: "In a perfect world you can save money. We just had the report yesterday, negative one percent that Americans-"
Vargas: "Right. Exactly. We're spending more than we have."
Roberts: "Exactly! All right. Also in this study, which I found alarming, 65 countries have paid paternity leave. Here in the U.S., we don't even have paid maternity live."
Vargas: "Many countries do more for the fathers who, by the way, haven't just given birth or aren't breast feeding, ‘cause that's another part of the equation. The U.S. government launched a campaign encouraging women to breast feed for a full year after they gave birth and yet they don't require employers to provide any place to breast feed. I mean, many women going back to work, especially in some of these jobs that are less flexible, you know, they don't have an office to go to, or a place to pump milk or a place to store that milk. It's really tough for a lot of these working moms."
Roberts: "And, as you said, in that report, there are some people who resent the fact that there are men and women that are going to have paid time off that they don't get."
Vargas: "--Who feel like parents are asking for special treatment. And that's a very legitimate feeling and that's why the writers of the Family Medical Leave Act say that it's not just for parents, it's not just for children or newborns. If you have a parent or aspouse who's sick, you too can take time off, paid time off from your job to take care of that loved own."
Finally, nowhere in Ms. Vargas’ piece did she point out that countries that have such generous paid leave policies, such as France, consistently have high unemployment rates and problems with giving such generous benefits. But that fact clearly wouldn’t jibe with Vargas’ liberal agenda.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Truly spoken by someone who
February 2, 2007 - 16:01 ET by MudhenTruly spoken by someone who's never tried to operate a large scale business. I work in an industry where the unpaid leave (Federal Mediacl Leave Act or FMLA) is abused terribly. I can only think what would happen with paid leave.
We might as well just go ahead and legislate an additional six weeks of paid vacation for everyone, because that's what it will end up doing.
I guess universities don't make journalism students take Economics. Then again, just what is a journalism major qualified to report on anyway?
"We might as well just
February 3, 2007 - 06:39 ET by motherbelt"We might as well just go ahead and legislate an additional six weeks of
paid vacation for everyone, because that's what it will end up doing." - Mudhen
Hey, it works for France! It's also illegal there to work more than 35 hours a week. And look at the low unemployment rate and booming economy they have!!
It's ironic that Liberalism has gone from the belief that women are the same as men, except for their genitalia; therefore someone else should take care of their kids so they could compete in the business world just like men. And now they are all in favor of policies that encourage women to be, well, WOMEN, taking care of their children instead of working.
You gotta love it.
Well, I'll admit it would b
February 2, 2007 - 16:11 ET by DyneWell, I'll admit it would be a nice idea if there was a reasonable way to pay for it and people could be trusted not to abuse it to death. There have been too many policies, businesses, and even nations throughout history that have broken down simply because of dishonest people. We're seeing it at home already and there will come the day when the US Constitution hangs by a thread.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please everyone." - Bill Cosby
"Well, I'll admit it w
February 2, 2007 - 16:27 ET by ckc1227"Well, I'll admit it would be a nice idea if there was a reasonable way to pay for it"
There IS a reasonable way to pay for it, and it's covered in the piece: Save up enough money to cover yourself when these things come about. Sure, Americans may not be saving as much as they should, according to the piece, but that doesn't mean they CAN'T save.
And about people not saving enough, is there any chance that programs like family time off, growth of the welfare state and other programs by the government that tell people "Don't worry, we'll take care of you" might be one reason behind it? If you encourage people to not take responsibility, they won't. Couple with the unfettered importation of Mexico's poverty problem, I'm not sure why the decrease in personal savings is a surprise to anyone.
Liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid.
Save up enough money to cover
February 2, 2007 - 17:55 ET by Darth DutchSave up enough money to cover yourself when these things come about. Sure, Americans may not be saving as much as they should, according to the piece, but that doesn't mean they CAN'T save.
Exactly! No one has enough money to save, but by golly they have their big screen, new clothes and brand new car. Our (America's) problem has never been a lack of wealth generated, it's been an excess of spending. My wife and I are in the upper middle class wage bracket, but we drive a car & truck that are 11 &13 years old, respectively. Why, you may ask? We're paying off student loan debt so we can then save up for new cars. Delayed gratification is better than instant gratification 99% of the time.
Dutch
Vargas...move to France...Tha
February 2, 2007 - 16:21 ET by bigtimerVargas...move to France...
That simple...your problems solved.
Btw...take all your ilk with ya...this country will be magically cleaned up and at full throttle!
(France is going under financially with all their socialistic gigantic programs...lol!)
First, Europe gives excessive
February 2, 2007 - 16:26 ET by aeroFirst, Europe gives excessive maternity benefits because they're trying to boost their birthrate. It's true. They hope such incentives will encourage more women to procreate and therefore slow their population decline. How else will they support their massive entitlements for the elderly if each successive generation paying into the system gets smaller and smaller and smaller? Gotta put some expensive entitlements up front, too!
Second, there's a huge misperception about what "making ends meet" means in the United States. I'm a mom who works at home to "make ends meet"--we couldn't pay all our bills if I didn't work--but my husband and I have decided that those ends are as far apart as they are. We know that our lifestyle choices are what cause me to need to work. We could live with less square footage, one less car, less air conditioning, no cable TV, no eating out, etc, and I wouldn't have to work. But I'm an American, and I have the idea that I "need" and "deserve" those things, so I work to pay those bills. Now, I know there are many women who are already getting by on a lot less than I am and can't cut as much spending as easily as I can--particularly single moms. But the truth is that most of our "poor" here in the United States now have televisions, cars, and even cell phones and obesity problems. There is still plenty of room for most moms to choose to stay at home with their children, at least for a little while, without everyone having to pay for it. Single moms can choose to get married (or better yet, not have kids until they're married). Either parent can choose to work at home or take opposite hours so that they don't have to pay for daycare.
I'm a big proponent of one parent staying home with kids as long as possible. If you can't even give your kid a few weeks staying at home in the best economy in the world, you probably shouldn't have kids at all.
Finally, private employers can choose to give paid maternity leave as an incentive for the best workers to come work for them. That's their prerogative as members of a competitive marketplace. But it shouldn't be legislated.
Dont mess with my air conditi
February 3, 2007 - 02:21 ET by Dan The Man 2Dont mess with my air conditioning.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
LOL! I'm with you, Dan! I liv
February 3, 2007 - 09:36 ET by aeroLOL! I'm with you, Dan! I live in Texas, and I think I'd melt 3/4 of the year without the A/C on full blast! I think I'd be willing to work part-time just to pay for A/C alone if I had to.
I agree 100%, aero! We m
February 3, 2007 - 06:51 ET by motherbeltI agree 100%, aero! We made the other choice. When my daughter was born, I stopped working to stay home with her. We made adjustments to compensate for the loss of my paycheck. We sold our boat, for one thing. No more cruising on the river on weekends. We vacationed closer to home. We didn't move to a bigger house, which we had been considering. We made those choices, because we both wanted me to be at home with our daughter. We never expected my employer to keep paying me to stay at home.
If people (notice I didn't say "women") want to have children, they should be prepared to take care of them. No one has the RIGHT to ask others to pay to maintain their pre-child lifestyle.
It really never seems to occu
February 3, 2007 - 09:44 ET by aeroIt really never seems to occur to many people to make some simple adjustments like this to give their kids more of themselves. You can spend less, and you can work differently. People often tell me how "lucky" I am to be able to work at home and be with my kids. They express jealousy that I'm able to adjust my schedule so that I can go to every school event, after-school activity, etc. I always bristle a little bit and explain that it wasn't luck. I made a plan, sought out a field that employs independent workers (I'm a freelance writer who started out as a teacher), worked in an office for a couple of years to make my professional contacts, and started working at home three months into my first pregnancy. I've been working at home ever since (10 years). It wasn't "luck," it was planning and hard work! I wanted kids, and I wanted them to have a parent at home like I did. We also didn't want to give up much of our lifestyle. We made it happen, and other people can too--without the government's help!
Oh, yeah, and no-one paid me for the weeks I took off after each kid was born. As soon as I knew I was pregnant, I took extra work during the early months of the pregnancy so that I could offset a few weeks without income. Worked well each time. People who can't pick and choose their work like I can could simply...SAVE. Foreign concept, I know.
Good for you on the choices you've made, motherbelt! Kids really do need and deserve our involvement in their lives, whatever it takes.
"People often tell me
February 3, 2007 - 17:23 ET by motherbelt"People often tell me how "lucky" I am to be able to work at home and be with my kids."---aero
I had a similar problem, aero....people would tell me how "lucky" I was that I didn't "have to work" and could stay home with my daughter. These were mothers who were picking up their kids from school in cars like Mercedes and Lexus, and had big houses with pools. Then, of course, they would expect me to do all kinds of stuff that they couldn't do, volunteering at our parochial school because I "didn't work."
You and I made different choices, but we both planned, and adjusted our lives to make it work. There's no reason why others can't do the same
Liberal dictionary: Business
February 2, 2007 - 16:31 ET by nkviking75From the liberal dictionary: Business (n) -- An economic entity, the main purpose of which is to provide decent, high-paying jobs and abundant benefits for its employees. Business also may make a product or provide a service, which it sells for profit. Those profits are frequently obscene. Businesses usually try to hide their financial resources from employees to cheat them out of the money and benefits they deserve. They fail to meet their obligation to provide ample health insurance for every need an employee may have. They fail to pay their youngest or least qualified employees enough to comfortably support a family of four. And of course, they don't pay nearly enough in taxes. When a business is an oil company, they are a ready source of government revenue by taxing almost all profits and using them to fund research into less efficient, less practical forms of alternative energy. (see also evil)
LMAO, nkviking, I love it!!
February 3, 2007 - 17:24 ET by motherbeltLMAO, nkviking, I love it!!
Women choose to have children
February 2, 2007 - 16:58 ET by AtheistRepublicanWomen choose to have children, its their responsibillity to have the money to supply for themselves. Businesses and the general public should not suffer for others choices. If a company decides to provide a benefit of any kind thats great, but neither the public or the business should be required to pay people for their own choices.
Entitlement is chipping away at freedom slowly but surely.
Elizabeth Vargas my friend, t
February 2, 2007 - 17:07 ET by ucElizabeth Vargas my friend, this is so politically incorrect. Haven't you realized if you are a liberal Hillary supporter any conversation about marriage being a recognized union and a like "All of Me" skit and not just a "half of me" Hillary trying to make standard for post coital (sp?) no longer wisdom of the apple and most natural not yet over legislated and maybe objectified just still is too mental a twist for most natural minds and successful and happy such minds to ever comprehend?
How is it Hillary thinks that the other sixteen hours of a day she hopes for with Bill still being able to be intimidating and dominating spouse she chose that the constitution as she interprets it may allow is not (don't forget she plans to give Bill near such access during the other eight hours her interpretation of "holding" office of the President" is limited to.) is not an unconstitutional access to the powers of the office of the president (small caps for emphasis) as intented to be limited by the 22 amendment?
God Bless NewsBusters.org
UNFAIR
February 2, 2007 - 19:14 ET by mostlymoderateDoes anyone know how unfair these rules are? Pardon me for being so, but I am a 31 year old SINGLE male in California. I work at a University. I became ill about 5 years ago and had to take off 3 days sick (for the entire year). At the end of the year during reviews my supervisor looked over my record and said, "3 days is borderline". I mentioned to her that the lady in the office who just had a child took 6 weeks off, came back, and has been missing about 1 day a week for several months now. My supervisor looked at me and said, "yeah, but she just had a child. The rules are DIFFERENT for her under California state maternity-leave laws. GOD I HATE SOCIALISM!!!!!
One more thing...
February 2, 2007 - 19:21 ET by mostlymoderateIn CALIFORNIA at the U.C. system, if a woman employee's child gets sick (she could have six kids ranging between the ages of 1yr and 18yr), then she can stay home under paid-maternity leave to take care of the children. (Just imagine a lot of big, fat, dohnut-eating women taking advantage of this). It drives me crazy. I hate California. Beautiful state, STUPID people. Unfortunately, I am certified in this state and can't really move anywhere else.
Why you fascist, sexist, mi
February 3, 2007 - 07:04 ET by motherbeltWhy you fascist, sexist, misogynistic pig! How DARE you criticize a woman, and woman with a BABY, at that!!!
You're lucky you didn't get fired, or at least sent to "sensitivity training" (especially since your supervisor is, apparently, also a woman.)
The first comment may be sarcastic, but the second is dead serious.
Sensitivity Training
February 3, 2007 - 20:48 ET by mostlymoderateOh I have been sent to sentsitivity training, but for not being kinder and gentler with homosexuals. See, my first year working with the University (I was like 25 yrs old) I messed up and was talking about a friends suit and tie. I said, "dude...that tie is so gay". <---they told me I was insensitive to homosexuals. I had to do an hour seminar on gay sociology.
So someone thought you were a
February 3, 2007 - 20:52 ET by AtheistRepublicanSo someone thought you were accusing a tie of having a sexual orientation?
Oh, and I'm not sure if that was a joke or true story and a joke, please clarify.
Sad
February 4, 2007 - 02:34 ET by mostlymoderateNo, as sad as it sounds, that is a true story. Apparently just SAYING something "looks gay" is an insult to the super-sensitive liberal. Now I just walk on egg shells with everyone.
Gutless Liz
February 2, 2007 - 20:42 ET by allanfVargas should have the courage of her convictions. She lost her ABC Evening News anchor job while on paid maternity leave. This is a clear violation of paid maternity leave principles.
Stand up Liz and be counted. You are woman!!!! Denounce ABC News on Air
This is such a crock.The go
February 3, 2007 - 02:15 ET by Right2thePointThis is such a crock.
The goberment doesn't provide maternity leave benefits but many health plans and companies do and that is where is should remain.
It is not a proper role of goberment pure and simple it is something you get from your companay or your health care provider.
If you can get this benefit so much the better but it is not a form of any national concern to say the least at the federal level.
This is one of those shame issues that should be thrown out with the bath water, but some assume otherwise.
Socialism at it's best, assuming it could ever have one.
I stand personally to corre
February 3, 2007 - 02:29 ET by Right2thePointI stand personally to correct myself that the goberment provides certain benefits to those in their employ related to maternity leave and other related benefits.
That is an extension of contract requirements with their employees.
This stands with the greater agenda of the EU a wrongfull experiment that will hopefully fall under it's own weight in a short timeframe.
I do not believe life assumes to expect going to the lesser common denominator.
I have avoided it, perhaps some wish for it but I pity them.
But they seem to want to carry on.
I look at the candidates to run our goberment, even without the Hillary factor and I wish to cry. Hillary is wrong for all the wrong reasons , but the lesser jackels deserve no less respect.
What have we come to?
"sick" days
February 3, 2007 - 09:45 ET by iveseenitallAnyone who has worked for the government or in a union knows its inherent abuses. Its Communism/Socialism, pure and simple. It doesn't work. When you get something for free, you don't appreciate it. Moreover, you come to believe that "freebies" are your due. It's just human nature. This reporter is naive and ignorant. So what's new?
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Libs
February 3, 2007 - 09:58 ET by iveseenitallThe liberals. A mass of contradictions. Just last week they were touting how independent women are, how they don't need a man, etc. Now they need the government to mandate their "time off". Scheech!
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Is anyone really surprised th
February 4, 2007 - 09:25 ET by Chicago RepublicanIs anyone really surprised that we are heading in this direction after the passage of the FMLA?