Diane,

When I first read your post, I found myself nodding in agreement. I
thought after reading the lasts day's comments that you might be feeling
like the lone ranger out there, so with much hesitation I'm jumping on
the soapbox, too.

Many of the posts advocating paid maternity leave, etc., have made a lot
of sense. Prevention is always better than fixing the problems later. BUT
forcing employers (and therefore me the customer who buys their product
or service) and/or the government (again, me the taxpayer) to pay for me
to take care of my children only ends up costing me. When someone makes
the decision to stay home with their children and not go back to paid
employment, they only receive this maternity leave pay with the first,
not with any children who may come later. If the government pays this
maternity leave pay, then my taxes will have to go up to pay for it. Then
I will have less money of my own with which to raise my children. I would
rather not have to ask the government for an allowance of my own money,
thank you. Just let me keep it! When I study how much our parents paid in
taxes in the 1960's compared to what we pay today in the 1990's, it is no
wonder that moms with young children feel forced to leave them and go to
work. If one parent could just keep more of their income, they might be
able to make it on one income.

Yes, I realize that not everyone is as fortunate as I, with a wonderful
husband who has stayed with me and supports me and my children. I
definitely do not have all the answers for what to do for those mothers
who's husbands have neglected their families and left them to fend for
themselves. And sometimes Dad is not able to bring in money due to
physical/health problems or lack of available employment. These moms need
to be with their young children and yet need an income as well. Some
government oversight may be helpful in these situations. Just as
employers must make accommodations for employees who are physically
challenged, so maybe they should be required to allow moms with babies
under 12 months to have breaks for time to pump. I can think of many
'helpful' regulations, ie. mandatory 6 weeks with pay, additional 3-6
months unpaid with no risk of job loss, flexible work schedules,
reasonable sick time to care for children. All of this seems quite
reasonable on the surface, but this does cost the employer money, as
someone must get the work done. These regulations may help this one
employee, but may cause extra burdens for others. Employers are in the
business of making money, not providing social services to their
employees. There are benefits for them when they provide these services,
of course, but it still costs them money.

Charlotte Esau, LLL Leader in Olathe, KS stepping down now, and wishing I
could wave a magic wand across the world and see Dad's everywhere
supporting their families, Mom's realizing the difference their constant
availability to their young children makes to their children's future,
praying that I may see the day that our society values intact, strong
families and truly helps those who need help and working one mom at a
time to see that happen.