Laid Off – and Pregnant

I'm an American woman living in Chile, and here pregnant women do have special job protection. Any woman employed with a contract, which here covers virtually all jobs that will last for more than a few months, is entitled by law to two years of employment at her current salary from the moment she informs her employer of the pregnancy. If the company wants to let her go at some point, they can only do so if they pay her the remaining total of her two years' worth of salary prior to terminating her employment. This law (along with other laws guaranteeing free federally-funded pre- and post-natal health care for all expectant mothers and a minimum 6-week fully-paid maternity leave) is not designed to give pregnant women a "free pass" but rather to guarantee that a mother can provide for and care for her child and herself during a period of increased vulnerability for them both. It's about caring about families and wanting to give them the best start possible. Chile is a small nation with a significantly different political agenda from that of the US, but the concern for the well-being of pregnant women and their growing families is certainly admirable.

I think pregnant women should be given some type of protection, be it job security, increased severance package, and better maternity leave pay. But on the other hand, I think it's unfair to employers to be legally obligated to retain an employee if they need to cut back or if she is not performing to expectations.

Note to self - find job in Chile! Seriously, it is a domino effect. Poor prenatal care can lead to unhealthy babies. No maternity leave means moms have to go back to work sooner than they'd like, which doesn't support mother-baby bond or breastfeeding.

I was born in Chile, and reading this comment makes me so proud!! That's awesome that there's such great protections in place for new mothers. When I started reading the article I did think it might seem unfair to have special protections for pregnant women, other than ensuring that they were not being laid off BECAUSE of the pregnancy. But the issue of insurance coverage is a very important point. Maybe there should be policies to ensure that insurance coverage would continue until after the birth, even if she's been laid off. Paid leave would also be nice, but then again looking realistically at how few employed mothers get any sort of paid maternity leave, whatever severance package is offered will probably still be better... =(

I think there should be some sort of protection, to a degree. To be laid of due to poor work performance is one thing. But I don't think some employers realize what sort of predicament they put a pregnant woman when they are laid off during pregnancy. Due to the ecomony, I was let go when I was 5 months pregnant. Not for performance related reasons, but because business was slow, we were not able to find new clients. They gave me 2 weeks "severance". Thankfully I had insurance of my own. Now at 7 months, I've had to take a job waitressing just to get by. My growing belly would not have been a selling point IF I had been able to get an interview (which in this economy is tough anyway). I feel like I'm stuck between a rock and a hard-place....

Sure, "special treatment" of pregnant women COULD lead to SOME women taking advantage of the system, but there are a few key facts we need to take into consideration: A) here in the US job = insurance = medical care. No job = no insurance = no medical care; B) that pregnant woman in carrying a potential baby. That baby is going to need tons of medical care. That woman needs either a job or universal health care to take care of herself and that new little person (who has not yet proven itself to be a poor employee). If the woman chooses to carry that pregnancy to term, then it's not really that much about the woman anymore, it's about the baby. That baby needs the "special treatment" and job protection. (And, as another Chilenita, GO CHILE!!! Woot!)

The above commenter, Marvyn is my hubby and he told me about this post and I thought what a coincidence. Marvyn and I were visiting my former workplace today to show them our new baby and before I left one of the principals gave me the bad news. Apparently they can circumvent the maternity issue by removing the position. The only good news is I can collect unemployment and our medical insurance will be much cheaper (at least for the next year)

I wouldn't mind seeing insurance protection for pregnant mothers who are laid off. Some stipulation where they could not lose there pre-natal care until after the deliver. Again this creates a sticky legal situation with companies and their benefits but from a moral/societal standpoint it sure would be the right thing to do.

Although we had reservations about continuing with my pregnancy, due to my health issues. I could not bring myself to terminate the pregnancy. My husband and I were so happy and excited when doctors told us it would not be easy, but I would do just find. We were even more excited when we discovered that I was pregnant with a girl after having two boys. . . But the happiness quickly turned into worry when my husband was terminated at the beginning of my third trimester. Knowing we could not afford COBRA with our other bills rent, light/ gas bill, car insurance and the miscellaneous experiences from our other children (Ages 13 and 6), we went to our county Welfare Office for assistance. We thought we had found light at the end of the tunnel when they provided us with information about our state health insurance program for families called NJ FAMILY CARE. Our hopes were quickly crushed when we discovered that NJ FAMILY CARE does not cover pregnant women. We were told by the NJ FAMILY CARE agent that I could apply for emergency pregnancy medicaid. We though our worries were over, but that was not so. We quickly learned that our income (my husband unemployment and my social security disability) exceeded medicaid income guidelines. We were back at square one. Additionally, even though I receive Social Security Benefits I am ineligible for Medicare, because you have to be disabled for two years before you can receive Medicare Benefits. Oh and did I mention, I am high risk? Currently, I have no insurance. I have no way to fill my presciptions I need. My injections that I am required to take cost anywhere from $700 - $1000 for a month supply. We are trying to apply for Charity Care and praying that this is not another door slammed in our faces. I am due in February. NJ Family Care should change it's name . . . because Family begin with the mother being healthy. If there is no mother there is no Family. They should be call NJ Insurance or something, because they care nothing about the family. And as for the Welfare Dept of NJ, basically they want all mothers to be single and without a husband. I thought the Welfare Dept was designed to help people in need with various assistance until they get on their feet, but sadly the Welfare Dept is content with assisting the many of people who abuse the system while many deserving citizen who have worked fall by the side. They also do not consider the whole picture when it come to their income guidelines. Rent is not cheep in NJ and neither is food. Their guidelines need to be updated. Through all this I have faith that God will help me and my family through this tough time.