this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
562 points (98.0% liked)

News

31486 readers
3377 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Pregnant people in New York would have 40 hours of paid leave to attend prenatal medical appointments under a new proposal by Gov. Kathy Hochul after the state’s legislative session kicked off this week.

The Democrat’s plan to expand the state’s paid family leave policy, which would need to be approved by the state Legislature, aims to expand access to high-quality prenatal care and prevent maternal and infant deaths in New York, an issue that especially affects low-income and minority communities.

The U.S. infant mortality rate, a measure of how many babies die before they reach their first birthday, is worse than other high-income countries, which experts have attributed to poverty, inadequate prenatal care and other possibilities. The U.S. rate rose 3% in 2022 — the largest increase in two decades, according to a 2023 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] derf82@lemmy.world 59 points 2 years ago (5 children)

I really wish someday there would be more a push for paid leave for EVERYONE.

I do not begrudge parents paid parental leave and think it should be offered. But it would be nice if someone were to consider doing something, anything for the rest of us. Instead, we only get the extra work of picking up the slack.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 2 years ago (12 children)

This is leave to attend prenatal medical appointments, not vacation time. They don’t schedule those for funsies, it’s to see if you or your fetus might die.

Like, yes, everyone deserves more time off. At the same time, prenatal healthcare in the US is inaccessible for many and it has lifelong or even deadly consequences. Framing this as a “time off” issue instead of an “able to afford access to medical care” issue is missing what’s causing the need for this in the first place.

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Do you think pregnant people are the only ones that need to go to the doctor? They could still make it medical only and apply to everyone.

And medical care or vacation, you think the rest of us don’t have to pick up the slack just the same?

The fact is, the US is doing it wrong. Other countries have more generous family leave, but it is a government benefit, not employer-paid. That often lets employers hire temporary replacements regather than be short staffed. Also, they offer ample vacation benefits so everyone else isn’t burnt out.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Do you not understand that pregnancy is a high risk condition (even outside high risk pregnancies, you are already more medically fragile just from pregnancy)?

Why are so you insistent that everyone has to benefit from policies that are aimed at fixing infant and maternal death rates in the US, which I will emphasize again are comparable to developing nations and not industrialized nations?

Why are you crying about “picking up slack” when pregnant people are literally dying due to lack of access to prenatal appointments? I’m sorry but wake the fuck up. This is not a vacation. It’s not a visit to the dentist. If you think it’s more important to make sure everyone is treated the same than it is to address people and infants dying in childbirth then you have your head screwed on backwards.

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Do you not understand that pregnancy is a high risk condition (even outside high risk pregnancies, you are already more medically fragile just from pregnancy)?

Do you think pregnancy is the only high-risk condition there is? Screw people with diabetes, cancer, multiple sclerosis, ALS, lupus, Crohn's disease, schizophrenia, and a litany of other health problems, I guess.

Why are so you insistent that everyone has to benefit from policies that are aimed at fixing infant and maternal death rates in the US, which I will emphasize again are comparable to developing nations and not industrialized nations?

Why are we only worried about infant and maternal deaths and not all deaths?

Why are you crying about “picking up slack” when pregnant people are literally dying due to lack of access to prenatal appointments? I’m sorry but wake the fuck up. This is not a vacation. It’s not a visit to the dentist. If you think it’s more important to make sure everyone is treated the same than it is to address people and infants dying in childbirth then you have your head screwed on backwards.

People are literally dying of cancer and other diseases and don't get paid time off, either. I never said it was a vacation. And people need more healthcare than just going to the dentist.

If you think it’s more important to make sure everyone is treated the same than it is to address people and infants dying in childbirth then you have your head screwed on backwards.

Why is it a choice? If everyone gets medical leave, does this not address the issue for women and children as well? Where is this false dichotomy coming from?

Sorry I think equal pay for equal work is such a good concept. Since I am expected to do more work, perhaps men and the childfree should be paid more.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Just say you’re fine with pregnant people and infants dying if you don’t get something out of it and go.

If you don’t understand why this is necessary even if it doesn’t personally benefit you there’s nothing I can do to explain it further. Goodbye.

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

What a strawman. I say to prevent the deaths of more people, you claim that means I want women and infants to die.

Turnabout is fair play: Just say you’re fine with everyone else dying so long as you get what you want.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

As someone who chose not to have kids, I still support special PTO and medical leave for people who decide to have kids.

The population is aging where I live, and I would like to incentivize people to make future tax payers and future people that I can pay to wipe my ass when I’m old.

The next generation is an investment in my future wellbeing even if I didn’t have kids.

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Do you really think it is 40 hours of leave for prenatal appointments, or even long parental leave that is stopping people from having kids? No, it's expensive childcare, unaffordable healthcare, low wages, low time off generally, as well as a garbage world that seems to be circling the drain due to climate change and pollution. My workplace actually does already offer 40 hours for prenatal care along with 12 weeks paid leave after birth, and I still have zero intention of having kids. I don't make enough money anyway, and even then, I don't want them to have to live in a climate change hellscape.

And I personally think we are overpopulated and declining population would be good. How cruel to think people should have kids just so those kids can wipe our ass in the future. In fact, when the times comes that I can't wipe my ass, I hope we have options, because I would choose euthanasia.

Again, that is not to speak against paid parental leave. But everybody gets sick. Everybody gets burned out. Have time for everybody.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Sure, there are a lot of things that discourage people from having kids. This is only one factor but let’s start with one factor: I’ll also support the next.

I’ve already had my kids, not as many as I wanted due to starting late, but I love them like crazy. I also see the long term trend of population decline and am very concerned about society’s future. I’m all for giving future parents benefits that I never had, future children more chances to survive and grow into their potential

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The point is, it won’t move the needle, and lots of us don’t think the merely should move up. Continued population grown is what concerns me, which is what is actually happening (no decline). We can’t just keep moving earth overshoot day up.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You need to take a closer look at the long term population data. Sure, some of places that can least afford it continue to grow unsustainably, but essentially all developed countries have a birth rate below replacement levels. We’re still growing because previous generations are still with us, but as the bubble passes, we’re all on track for serious declines, if nothing changes. I’m all for making changes now while they’re insignificant.

Note the US is also on this track for sudden population decline but is still growing due to immigration. For all you who want to restrict immigration more, this is our future, this is what will keep us from declining like most of Europe and Asia. Immigration also should be encouraged

Population decline is now a similar place that climate change was in the 1970’s. We know what’s going on and it’s not too serious yet, but some of us are sounding an alarm. do we have the foresight to address it while it’s easy or are we going to wait until it’s critical/irreversible?

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

We literally had half the number of people on this planet 50 years ago. We had one quarter less than 100 years ago. The problem is overshoot, not too few people now. Serious decline is what we need.

[–] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

malthusianism is next to eugenics

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I disagree. You honestly think we can keep growing to eternity?

[–] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

>You honestly think we can keep growing to eternity

I didn't say that

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (11 children)

I don’t say you did. Just following your logic. And you agree we cannot grow forever. So when should we stop? You think we can’t stop now without dire consequences. But some future generation has to. So, who gets to face the consequences that you want to avoid for yourself?

[–] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

>who gets to face the consequences that you want to avoid for yourself?

you're making assumptions

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

all I want to avoid is eugenics. I don't know what vague"consequences"you're referencing.

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I’m not advocating eugenics. Where did I say only certain people should reproduce and others shouldn’t? Who is putting words into people’s mouths now? I’m done with you.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

>You think we can’t stop now without dire consequences

I didn't say that

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Population decline is now a similar place that climate change was in the 1970’s. We know what’s going on and it’s not too serious yet, but some of us are sounding an alarm. do we have the foresight to address it while it’s easy or are we going to wait until it’s critical/irreversible?

That seems to be what you are saying.

[–] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social 0 points 2 years ago

literally putting words in my mouth. what I'm saying is that malthusianism is next to eugenics.

[–] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

>some future generation has to

not necessarily

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social 0 points 2 years ago

technological advanced are unpredictable. we could develop something that brings about effectively the end of scarcity.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It’s not for encouraging people to have kids.

It’s for the people already pregnant to not fucking die or have a miscarriage due to being unable to go to necessary regular prenatal checkups.

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

I was responding to someone that said "I would like to incentivize people to make future tax payers" so yes, some people think this is to encourage people to have kids.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

We make it unnecessarily difficult to have children, we don’t give them sufficient opportunity to survive and grow into their potential, but the long term population trend is looking grim.

Yes, let’s start removing the obstacles that block having children. Yes, let’s put some effort into helping them survive. Yes. Let’s give their parents a way to have them cared for while they earn a living. Yes, let’s give them a better education to grow into their potential. Yes, let’s set up the safety nets so a treatable Illness doesn’t make them fall out of society and splatter onto the rocks

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

OK.

In reality, this is to prevent pregnant people and infants from dying.

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Ok, so I am not allowed to respond to other people?

And why can't we help all people, including pregnant people and infants?

[–] jonne 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Agreed, they always have to carve out this stuff for deserving people, and it's just making things more complicated and divisive.

This mindset of absolutely making sure nobody could possibly abuse something is really terrible policy.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

I vote every one gets 200 hours of paid leave a year, with no questions asked unless it’s sudden. (Then some brief vague questions about why.)

load more comments (2 replies)