Family Leave Policy Stirs Profamily Feud

In the past, the Religious Right has maintained a united front on family issues. Now, however, the coalition has splintered in its pursuit of profamily public policy. Bringing the matter to a head is the Family and Medical Leave Act, working its way through Congress this spring.

The bill has divided long-time profamily friends—like U.S. Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) and the Family Research Council (FRC), conservative allies who have worked together successfully on family policy involving abortion, tax reform, and child care. Last month Coats voted in favor of the Family Leave Act, which the FRC vigorously opposes. For its part, the FRC has suggested an alternative approach, but without the support of its usual profamily allies—Concerned Women for America (CWA) and Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum.

Family Ties

The Family and Medical Leave Act would require large companies to provide 12 weeks of unpaid leave and continued health benefits to workers at the time of childbirth, adoption, or serious family illness and medical emergencies. It has the support not only of Coats, but also of Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), another conservative who usually sides with the Religious Right coalition. Coats told CHRISTIANITY TODAY that he believes the bill will “promote better family ties, [and] more parental involvement” by allowing parents to be available during “those very critical points in time.”

The FRC, on the other hand, has doubts. “There is the danger that the signal could be sent that 12 weeks is a sufficient amount of time for the kind of attachment that child-development experts say is so important,” said FRC policy analyst Bill Mattox. Mattox said the leave policy could convince mothers who are considering staying at home full-time to return to work after 12 weeks, resulting ultimately in less involvement with their children.

Coats said he considered that possibility, but “came to the conclusion that rather than the typical 2 or 3 weeks that mothers take when a child is born or adopted, the opportunity to take 12 weeks would actually promote the concept of bonding,” he said. “I agree that 12 weeks is not the amount of time that it takes to bond with your child, but it is better than 3 or 4,” he said, adding that after spending 12 weeks with their children, mothers may be prompted to reassess a return to work.

The FRC also argues that a mandated leave policy may “crowd out” other family options that may be more attractive to families, such as higher wages, flexible hours, job sharing, home-based work, and part-time employment. “Instead of trying to create a one-size-fits-all type of policy, we need to look for a whole variety of options so that the diversity of needs out there can be better met,” Mattox said.

The FRC has suggested an alternative “parental preference” approach that has been picked up by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), another conservative profamily stalwart. The basic idea is that businesses would be required to give employees who quit their jobs to raise young children preference in rehiring for up to six years providing there is a job available for which they are qualified. A similar policy is already in place for veterans. Coats said he likes the idea, but as “a complement to, and not an adequate replacement for” the Family Leave Act.

Paying The Price

Concerned Women for America and the Eagle Forum oppose both approaches. According to CWA legislative coordinator Cindy Henneberger, paying for a mandated parental leave would force businesses to raise the costs of goods and services. “If the costs go up, which is the ultimate end of this policy, then families are going to have to pay for that, and as their cost of living goes up, they are going to have to work longer hours,” she said. Parental preference has the same problem, Henneberger said, because of the high expenses businesses will face in litigation over the policy. Government should not be dictating business policy or “social engineering” family practices, she said.

The issue appears to come down to whether or not conservatives believe family leave is truly profamily. Schlafly calls the concept outright “antifamily.” Henneberger declined to use that label, but she conceded, “I believe it will end up hurting the family.”

Coats believes it is a profamily concept, but he admitted, “There are few, if any, pieces of legislation affecting families and children that I have struggled with more than this one.” He noted both sides have “legitimate concerns.”

FRC’s Mattox said that while he has many deep questions about the ultimate effects of parental leave, there are circumstances where it might be beneficial, particularly in provisions for leave to take care of ill family members. “These are difficult questions,” he said. “I will confess that the Christian, profamily community needs to do some serious thinking about this.”

Some groups usually active in conservative profamily efforts are staying out of the debate. According to spokesman Richard Cizik, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) has not taken a position on the issue and probably won’t. The Southern Baptist Christian Life Commission is also not taking a position, said its director of government relations, Jim Smith. “This doesn’t seem to be an issue that is burning in the bosoms of Southern Baptists,” he said.

Tax Exemptions

Despite other differences, the profamily coalition comes back together in advocating tax benefits as the cornerstone for any effort to help the family. Last month, when Coats announced his introduction of a bill that would double the personal tax exemption, FRC president Gary Bauer, sitting on the front row, pledged his group’s full support in pushing the legislation. The CWA, the Eagle Forum, and the NAE are also firmly behind Coats’s bill. According to Coats, during the past 60 years the personal exemption’s relative value has declined to only 20 percent of its original worth. His plan would raise the personal tax exemption to $4,000, he says, in an effort to “reduce the financial burden on the American family.”

A similar proposal has been introduced in the House by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), where its supporters include Illinois’s Hyde, as well as Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.), new chair of the House Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, whose liberal family agenda is usually the target of conservative criticism.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.