Jane Kassim, a mother in the U.K., finally has the babies of her dreams. After learning at age 15 that she would be unable to have children because she was born without a womb, she wasn't sure it would ever be her reality to have biological children. Then, according to The Telegraph, her cousin stepped in and offered to be a surrogate, and last month Isla Jane and Ivy May were born.
A beautiful, touching story, so far, right? That is until she found out that because she used a surrogate, she would be denied the same maternity leave rights that other mothers have. Other new mothers (adoptive moms included) in the U.K. get a full 52 weeks of maternity leave (39 of them paid); Kassim was only offered 13 weeks with no paid leave at all. The blatant discrimination and disregard for what maternity leave should be about are incredible.
Surprisingly this case in the spotlight is in the UK, where we generally look with envy at their more generous maternity leave policies. But even there, women who use surrogates aren't given the same rights as other new mothers.
While maternity leave is necessary to a certain degree for the physical recovery of a woman, the other reason that's just as crucial is that it provides time for the mother and baby to bond. Moms need that time to get to know their baby, establish feeding routines, and begin to adjust to this new change in their lives. ALL new mothers need that, regardless of how a baby enters the world. To say any mother deserves anything less is shameful.
In the U.K., they're now taking a serious look at this inequity, and legislation has been introduced to change things. But what about here in the United States, where many women don't get paid maternity leave no matter how their babies came into the world? According to the Huffington Post, while current law provides American women with six weeks of paid leave, only about 50 percent of women are actually offered that because there are so many loopholes.
Overall, it's as sad as it is maddening, and just another example of how difficult it is for mothers to return to the workforce if they so wish.
Do you think women who use surrogates should be allowed the same maternity leave rights as women who carry their own children?
Image via Kunoel/Flickr
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
This Hot Dad Cooks AND Does the Dishes
Kanye West is Gay?! 
Comments 75
No, she is not entitled to maternity leave. She didn't even give birth, and has no medical reason not to work. Also who's to say that this is not just a ploy to be paid for six weeks and then turn around and tell them she's not coming back. I mean, if she wanted babies that badly -- one would think that she would not want to drop them off at `daycare' and let someone else raise her `miracles'. I'm skeptical.
I do not get this it is work, they should be more worried about your working than a child. It is not like the parent gave birth.
I do not believe that mothers who have used surrogates should necessarily receive the same leave as mothers who have physically carried and delivered a child. Part of the point of maternity leave is to recover from pregnancy.
That said, I do feel that mothers who use surrogates and mothers who have adopted should be entitled to the same leave. The circumstances aren't that different. In both cases, a woman is now taking care of a baby that someone else has delivered. The difference is that in the case of the surrogate, they also share DNA.