The United States is not friendly to women who get pregnant. It has the worst record among advanced nations on mandatory paid maternity leave, and in most American cities, child-care costs now exceed a family’s rent. The Economic Policy Institute divided the nation into 618 budget areas; in 500 of them, child care for two kids costs more than housing.
Family leave programs and child-care support are energetically backed by liberals. If conservatives are wise, they will join in the effort. This is especially true for those who are anti-abortion: They should want mothers to have the resources to help them keep their babies.
Most women who have abortions already have a child, and many millions report some combination of financial and work concerns as a significant factor in their decision to terminate a pregnancy. More than 40 percent of women who head families have incomes below the poverty line. If you are choosing between having a child and having the resources to support your family, is it any wonder that abortion becomes a desperate option?
At least some Republicans seem open to finding solutions to these problems — we might call them pro-life first, small-government second. Marco Rubio, for instance, proposed both increasing child tax credits and incentivizing businesses to provide paid family leave. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., the highest-ranking Republican woman in Congress, also has proposed more work/parenting flexibility.
Paul Ryan, speaker of the House and de facto leader of the Republican Party, suggests generously funding social programs administered by nimble local governments rather than the distant, one-size-fits-all federal bureaucracy. This approach puts him in a good position to express his Catholic faith, which insists that economic structures must permit mothers the opportunity to pursue their vocations at work and at home.
Programs that do help women as mothers and workers are sometimes criticized by conservatives as undermining that very goal. For instance, when mandatory unpaid family leave was passed by Congress in the 1990s, some believed it would lead to companies hiring fewer women. In reality, rates of hiring women increased. Would paid family leave be any different? It has worked out well for such economic powerhouses as Germany and the Britain, and California has had mandatory paid leave for nearly a decade.
Despite such evidence, these kinds of programs violate the extremist small-government orthodoxy of the Republican Party. That means that Democrats who want to see such bills pass need to come up with a carrot to get moderate Republicans on board. A nearly perfect one exists: the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would ban elective abortions past the 20th week of pregnancy. The U.S. is one of only seven countries in the world that permit abortions beyond 20 weeks.
But Democrats are also trapped by party orthodoxy, and any action that curtails abortion rights is forbidden. If there is one thing this election cycle has shown, it is that the orthodoxies of both parties are being challenged.
A political realignment may be underway, one that could free moderates to dissent from their parties’ hidebound positions. Most Americans want help with child care and paid family leave. And a 2016 Marist poll found that 77 percent (including 71 percent of those who are antiabortion) say the law can protect both mother and baby.
Charles C. Camosy teaches at Fordham University.