Pregnancy Can Be Unfair to Women, and Something Should Be Done About That

Genetic disorders, for instance, can both reduce a person's quality of life and result in limited work opportunities. While some babies can be at a higher risk for genetic disorders based on a mother's age and lifestyle, many of these genetic issues are simply heritable traits that parents can do nothing to prevent their child from getting. Most of what DNA does is instruct cells to make proteins. When a genetic mutation occurs, however, it affects this process. Some causes of genetic mutations and potential genetic diseases include chemical exposure, radiation exposure, smoking, and UV exposure from the sun. Disorders with a genetic component such as autism or ADHD can make it more difficult for employees to work with colleagues or focus on a task. They can also affect a person's social life and romantic life, as they are disorders that can result in substantial problems in interpersonal relationships. Physical genetic disorders, such as muscular dystrophy, may result in reduced mobility which can affect both manual labor jobs and office jobs (someone with MD, for instance, might not be able to access a building that doesn't meet ADA standards). They can also be costly, requiring long-term medical care and living situations that are adapted to a person's physical disabilities. According to results from the Human Genome project—which sequenced the DNA of thousands of people—there are over 6,000 genetic diseases. Of those, 10 are the most common. Those include cystic fibrosis, Down syndrome, fragile x syndrome, hemophilia, Huntington’s disease, Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy, sickle cell anemia, thalassemia, tay-sachs, and Angelman syndrome. Many of these disorders lead to physical and/or mental challenges. Those can in turn affect both someone’s ability to work and their quality of life. Whether it's relatively small things such as a slowness to read facial cues (as is the case with autism), or physical disabilities that make it impossible to hold down a job, these genetic disorders can affect every aspect of someone's daily functioning.

Ordinary accidents—from falls to car accidents—can reduce a person's capabilities. These injuries happen every year to millions of Americans, affecting not only their lives and well-being but that of their families as well. Reduced mobility can cause enormous ripple effects in a person's life. Car accidents alone, for instance, are a significant factor. Each year in the U.S., there are about 6 million car accidents. Of those, 2 million drivers will experience permanent injuries as a result. Whether because of lost limb or chronic pain (especially back injuries), mobility can be greatly reduced following a severe car crash. Some people might need even to go on disability benefits, a choice determined by the Social Security Administration (SSA). Other types of injuries such as tripping, spraining an ankle, or being injured by a falling object are in fact very common. As many as 8 million emergency room visits annually are owing to falls. The likelihood of falling—and of serious injury—increase greatly with age. One in three adults above age 65 will have a slip and fall accident, according to statistics from a law firm. There are a slew of workplace injuries, too, from violence between employees to strained muscles that can reduce mobility over time. Depending on the circumstances from the injury, an employee may or may not be eligible for workers' compensation. The benefits from that can be piecemeal and may take months to put in place. Victims of accidents may see reduced mobility and a need for extra help for things they once did on their own. Especially for people who are isolated (such as elderly people), these effects can be even more dramatic. That can mean lost income or even reduced access to life-saving healthcare services.

Military injuries—including psychological trauma—are extremely prevalent among members of the armed forces, regardless of which branch of the military Americans might serve in. These injuries can include those sustained in training or while deployed, and they might be physical and/or emotional. The Army, for instance, describes the problem of military injuries as an "epidemic." According to a recent report, the rate of injury is 2,500 per every 1,000 soldiers. This means that the average American serving in the Army will endure at least two musculoskeletal injuries. This figure includes injuries sustained both on missions and from Army garrisons. According to Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, the most common injuries include: "second and third degree burns, broken bones, shrapnel wounds, brain injuries, spinal cord injuries, nerve damage, paralysis, loss of sight and hearing, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and limb loss." Other injuries include "toxic exposure from dust and burn pits and resulting respiratory, cardiac, and neurological disease." As the Watson Institute points out, many of these conditions go undiagnosed meaning that the official Department of Defense figures are likely far lower than the actual numbers. One of the most common injuries suffered by combat veterans is post-traumatic stress disorder. As many as 20% of all veterans suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Persistent flashbacks, moodiness, or anxiety caused by PTSD can prevent veterans from functioning or working normally. Many who suffer from this condition might go untreated, as stigma surrounding mental illness persists in many communities. Specifically for women, military sexual trauma and other issues can cause permanent damage. Some 23% of female veterans report being sexually assaulted, and 55% report being sexually harassed, according to the Department of Veteran Affairs. The actual figures are likely even higher, given the number of women who are afraid to report sexual assault for fear of career repercussions. All of these different injuries can disadvantage people who suffer from them, whether physically or psychologically. These obstacles might mean consequences both for a military career and for any civilian career that might follow. In addition, they can challenge people in their family lives, interpersonal relationships, and day-to-day functioning.

The United States has an affirmative action policy that must be upheld by all contractors and sub-contractors working on behalf of the federal government. There are multiple state and federal laws that guarantee these policies for women, people of color, people with disabilities, and other marginalized groups that might face an additional set of obstacles in the workplace. According to the U.S. Department of Labor: "affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans. Affirmative actions include training programs, outreach efforts, and other positive steps." Furthermore, there are several offices of the federal government dedicated to ensuring compliance with these guidelines. Other types of affirmative action—both at schools and in private workplaces—work to mitigate the marginalization of people of color, disabled people, and LGBTQ+ people. Rather than a federal obligation, some of these policies are put in place by private institutions seeking to create a diverse environment for the better of the whole community. Affirmative action began under President John F. Kennedy in the 1960s. The idea was that fighting against discrimination was not enough; the government had to actively do something to create a more equal world. Since Kennedy's time, the term has evolved and changed significantly. In the beginning, the task force created by Kennedy was simply charged with the motto: “Don’t just stand there. Do something," according to an article in the New Yorker. In the intervening decades, affirmative action policies have often become more concrete. In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled that quotas for marginalized groups in schools or workplaces were unconstitutional. Rather, today, many companies instead have proactive policies intended to hire staff who are both diverse and qualified. Affirmative action laws tend to follow from the executive branch of government, with Democratic presidents tending to expand affirmative action policies and Republicans generally restricting them. Under President Barack Obama, for instance, the federal government put regulations in place that rewarded schools that worked to serve minority populations in the form of federal money. President Donald Trump reversed many of Obama's policies in that respect.

For over the past century, the U.S. has had a labor department, meant to guide policies and legislation for workers. These policies have often aimed to create safe working conditions, limit exploitation, and ensure profitability for both employer and employees. In recent history, labor laws have specifically attempted to level the playing field between men and women, members of different ethnicities, and those who identity has LGBTQ+. Labor activists in the first decades of the 20th century fought for such rights as sick pay, vacation days, and benefits for injured workers. Many of those early demonstrations and meetings were about protecting workers from some of the many ways in which employers, especially in urban factory settings, were taking advantage of employees. One key moment that ignited nationwide pressure to establish labor laws was the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire in New York City. Overwhelmingly young, immigrant women worked in the shirtwaist factory for a pittance in wages. To discourage taking breaks, the owners locked the doors to the factory. So when a fire broke out in 1911, many of the hundreds of workers were trapped inside. Some 150 people would die in that fire, igniting huge protests for better working conditions. An act signed by President Woodrow Wilson in 1913 would establish the U.S. Department of Labor. And the first labor laws would begin to trickle in during the years that followed. The year 1916 would see the first child labor law, greatly restricting labor carried out by anyone under the age of 16 and outright banning workers under the age of 14. This was an enormous development, as many young children had been working in factories from a much younger age. The United States Department of Labor has had a Women's Bureau for 100 years. The first law was passed 100 years ago and gave the bureau the right to "formulate standards and policies which shall promote the welfare of wage-earning women, improve their working conditions, increase their efficiency, and advance their opportunities for profitable employment.” During and after the Great Depression, labor protections were hugely expanded, establishing unemployment benefits, social security, and a federal minimum wage. The New Deal was designed primarily by a woman, Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins. By the 1930s, the secretary of labor would establish the five-day work week, paving the way for other progressive reforms. The protections established throughout the 20th century were designed to reduce inequalities and to protect workers—of all identities—from being exploited. The U.S. Department of Labor, alongside state labor boards and workers unions, have continued to create new laws and enforce older regulations in order to reach this goal.

The more chances someone has at something, the higher probability they have to learn from mistakes and ultimately become successful at it. Therefore, giving people more opportunities to be hired for a job gives them more chances to eventually succeed. Once a candidate is hired, they can do a good job, work their way up, and continue to earn an advantageous wage. That in turn can create generational wealth, setting up their children and grandchildren to earn more than they did. Generational wealth is one of the least talked about and most important factors in the American economy: even one generation of increased income can mean better education, reduced debt, and better job opportunities for the generation that follows. We can see the fruits of this correlation between more opportunities and higher income in several different case studies over American history. For instance, affirmative action policies can start a domino effect for marginalized people that . One study found that U.S. university students admitted based on affirmative action went on to earn a higher salaries thanks to that policy. A similar trend can be seen among people with disabilities. While people who are disabled remain among the highest groups of the unemployed, studies have measured the positive effects of the passage of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). While the economic benefits of the ADA require further research, one study found that since 1990 when the ADA was first passed, income poverty among people with disabilities has declined. The opposite can also be true. Too often, women and minority groups are given a single chance to succeed. At the first sign of any mistake, they are more likely to be punished and even fired than their white male counterparts. This phenomenon sets up a trend in which people from these groups see decreased opportunities. And the research bears this out. A study from Stanford and the University of Chicago found that women in wealth management, for instance, tend to be sanctioned far harsher than their male counterparts. The researchers even found that women were 56 percent more likely to get fired after a mistake than their male colleagues.

The ties between a higher socioeconomic status and better physical and mental health have been proven time and time again. It's a complex mix of factors that lead to better health, including improved education on healthy habits and better access to preventative care. In turn, having the time to focus on eating right, reducing stress, and getting exercise gives people an overall better quality of life. Studies have found that a higher income correlates to better overall well-being. Or, as the American Psychological Association puts it: "wealth secures health." That's because having a low income correlates with a lower ability to buy nutritional food, or to have the time or money to exercise. It's also psychological: struggling to make ends meet every month puts a mental strain on people that actually damages their physical health. Research has found that the opposite is true, too: people from a lower socioeconomic class are more likely to self-report poorer health, worse self-to see a lower life expectancy, and to suffer from more chronic conditions than their counterparts from a higher socioeconomic class. Part of these poor health outcomes comes from reduced access to quality preventative care because of cost. People from a higher socieconomic class on the other hand are more likely to seek preventative treatment and to take medicines required to treat chronic illnesses. For instance, someone from a higher socioeconomic class might also suffer from diabetes, but they are more likely to be able to manage it better through diet and insulin injections both because of better education surrounding food and through access to medicines. Preventative care, too, can save someone's life and livelihood. For instance, a person with financial stability might have the health insurance and money to schedule annual or bi-annual screenings for skin cancer. Perhaps they might catch cancerous cells early and be able to have them removed immediately. Someone without access to preventative care, however, might end up developing skin cancer having to spend thousands of dollars on cancer treatments. These costly treatments might send their family into debt; lost work due to appointments could mean lost income. And catching cancer too late could potentially cost them their life. A whole host of factors can affect someone's socioeconomic class and their resulting health, from their gender and sexual orientation, to their ethnicity. "We've often chosen to focus on either ethnicity or class rather than on the interaction between the two," said Hector F. Myers, PhD, a professor of psychology at the University of California at Los Angeles. "We've become a lot more sophisticated in our thinking recently."