Pregnancy Discrimination

How Blocking the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Is Part of Texas’ Anti-Trans Agenda

and

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act’s gender-inclusive language—in notable contrast to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978—marks a crucial step towards ensuring equitable treatment and access to accommodations. Without adequate protections, Texas employers could resist making accommodations for people such as pregnant trans men by arguing that it does not apply to them on the account that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act refers specifically to “women”.

Texas has already made clear that trans and gender diverse employees will not be protected in the workplace, when a judge ruled that employers need not protect trans workers from discrimination based on dress, pronoun, and bathroom usage. The Texas legislature’s obstruction of the PWFA serves as a stark reminder of the tangled web woven by the state’s pro-business stance and its vehemently anti-trans agenda.

Now, as we navigate the treacherous terrain of a post-Dobbs landscape, the plight of transgender pregnant individuals in Texas grows increasingly dire, underscoring the urgent need for comprehensive protections and support.

Federal Judge Rules Against Pregnant Workers in Texas

Texas AG Ken Paxton sued the Biden administration last year over a government funding package that passed largely by proxy votes because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The funding package, passed in December 2022, included the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which protects accommodations for pregnant employees and allows workers to sue employers for failing to do so.

Paxton argued the Constitution requires a physical majority of members to pass legislation. Since a majority voted on the funding package by proxy, Paxton said it was unenforceable. Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the Northern District of Texas agreed with Paxton’s understanding of a quorum—ruling the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act unenforceable against the state government and its agencies.

My Thanks to Dobbs

The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs has done a much better job than I ever did to raise public consciousness about the connections between abortion, pregnancy and pregnancy loss. For more than 30 years, I have tried to communicate the fact that abortion and pregnancy are not separate issues and that all people with the capacity for pregnancy—not just those seeking to end a pregnancy—would be harmed by the loss of Roe.

Dobbs however is doing a wonderful job helping people see the connections—from the state of Texas denying Kate Cox the right to end a pregnancy with a fetus that had no chance of survival, to skilled medical professionals fleeing states where they face arrest and financial ruin for providing medical care to pregnant patients.

Welcome to the New Jane Crow

The Supreme Court of Texas notched itself into a troubling tapestry of U.S. legal history when it overturned a district court ruling that allowed Kate Cox, a 31-year-old Texas woman, to end her nonviable pregnancy. The state is committed to forcing Cox to remain pregnant, against her will and medical recommendations.

Women in Texas are living in a new Jane Crow. 

Republicans Want to Control Your Pregnancy, Not Just Your Abortion

A new Pregnancy Justice report illustrates an alarming rise in pregnancy criminalization, increasing three-fold over the past 16 years. The report finds that just five Southern states are largely responsible for this increase in arrests.

Despite the major concerns brought forth in the report, feminist organizers are not backing down. Instead, they see the findings as “a call to action, and anyone working to achieve greater bodily autonomy ought to heed that call.”

The End of Eating for Two?

An expectation of sacrificial motherhood may explain why eating while pregnant is such a fraught affair. On the food-related anxieties and pressure placed onto pregnant women:

“I discovered that “eating for two” is an anachronism, a unicorn, a thing from a svelter (or hungrier) past. … The pressure for mothers to modify their behaviors based on poorly understood risks plays out in the way that women are ‘educated’ about eating.

“Mothers are exhorted to optimize every dimension of children’s lives beginning in the womb. Good mothering is construed as behavior that reduces even minuscule or poorly understood risks to offspring, regardless of potential cost to the mother.”

Ohio Court Overturns Conviction of Pregnant Woman for Drug Use

An Ohio court of appeals unanimously overturned a pregnant woman’s conviction under the state’s “Corrupting Another with Drugs” law last month in a rare post-Dobbs win for the rights of pregnant people. Prosecutors in Ohio—and elsewhere—have increasingly sought to “protect” fetuses by manipulating state laws initially passed to protect pregnant people themselves from harm.

Though prosecutors have vowed to appeal the ruling vacating Hollingshead’s conviction, the Ohio court’s decision could help slow the march towards criminalizing pregnant women.