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
KStew Refuses to Shower
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
This Hot Dad Cooks AND Does the Dishes
Comments 75
Hard to get past the "52 weeks of maternity leave" part! I took the maximum allowed here (12 weeks) and only two of those were paid. But, the woman should be given just as much leave as any other new mother.
I think they should be allowed the same privilege to be able to bond with their babies just like anyone does. :)
Definitely not. Part of the reason for leave is time to heal. If you don't have the baby yourself, you don't medically need that time. Use your personal time off. Or - assuming you're well enough off to pay a surrogate, you're probably well enough off to not have to work - quit and give the baby a full-time mom till they're in school.
I wonder what the UKs fraternity leave is like. I know in the US, men can take FMLA, and some companies even offer a paid leave in their benefits (my husband was able to take 3 weeks paid leave after our daughter was born). It seems to me that if the UK has one similar, that women like this should at the very least qualify for that. I kind of understand what is happening here, because she didn't physically give birth to these children, she doesn't have to recover, and most businesses look at maternity leave as a recovery from birth. I mean... we aren't even allowed to drive for a minimum of 6 weeks after delivery, and doing too much postpartum can cause heavy (even dangerous sometimes) bleeding. But we also have a federal mandate (FMLA) that is supposed to protect our jobs. It doesn't guarantee pay though. And at this point in the economy, I don't think making companies pay for more benefits is a wise idea. Would people like to have it? Yes, of course. But companies look at their bottom line, and a maternity leave plan like what the UK has would cost employers way more than health benefits. And look at what most companies are doing with those.
Definitely, they should get the same rights.
why not they are their biological children who need them just the same as anyother babies would need their adoptive or natural birth moms. It is just a companies way of getting around the rules. I swear their is no compassion or fairness anymore. Big companies just want to do what is right by them.