When analyzing the contextual aspect of any article, I start by identifying the author. For the specific article at hand “If Republicans Cared about Families, They’d Stop Blocking Paid Leave” id analyze Ellen Bravo. Ellen Bravo is the director of Family Values @ Work and a life-long activist. Family Values @ Work promotes a network of state coalitions working for family friendly policies. According to the Family Values at Work website, the coalition works with 21 states to provide family friendly work environments. The Family Values at Work coalition attempts to close the gap of individuals jeopardizing their jobs because of health related problems concerning them themselves, or family members. The coalition bases their arguments on the fact
…show more content…
She cherry picks her resources and facts to fit the agenda at hand. Bravo states and demonstrates ethos in her statement “according to the Department of Labor many employed mothers who return to work after only two weeks of giving birth are often faced with maternal and infant health concerns” (Bravo 1). On the other hand, employed mothers who take adequate time to heal and bond with their infants often are faced with financial hardship because of prolonged time off work. Bravo creates a generalized polarization with contrasting both of the extremes of the effects of either not enough unpaid leave or too much unpaid leave to demonstrate her claims. The Family and Medical Leave Act was passed through congress in 1993 (Bravo 1). The act in itself provides for up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for medical concerns such as: the care of a newborn child, personal illness, and a sick family member. The problem with the FMLA is that many are out of reach from the benefits of the act, because they are not covered by its protections (Bravo 1). Bravo makes the argument that the lack of unpaid leave initially adds to inequality within the United States. Also, arguing that the lack of unpaid leave completely dismantles the idea of family and forces individuals to jeopardize their financial securities for health securities. …show more content…
Individuals should not be at risk of losing their jobs because they are faced with health concerns or faced with taking care of an ill family member. Pregnant women should be allowed enough time off to completely heal from labor, which often takes more than the usual two weeks that most employers offer. Passing the Family Act would allow individuals and pregnant women to take the appropriate amount of time off work in order to heal from illness or labor and take care of and bond with their newborns. The act would benefit and protect the structure of family in the United States. Individuals would not be forced to make detrimental decisions on whether their jobs and financial security is more important than their physical
She cherry picks her resources and facts to fit the agenda at hand. Bravo states and demonstrates ethos in her statement “according to the Department of Labor many employed mothers who return to work after only two weeks of giving birth are often faced with maternal and infant health concerns” (Bravo 1). On the other hand, employed mothers who take adequate time to heal and bond with their infants often are faced with financial hardship because of prolonged time off work. Bravo creates a generalized polarization with contrasting both of the extremes of the effects of either not enough unpaid leave or too much unpaid leave to demonstrate her claims. The Family and Medical Leave Act was passed through congress in 1993 (Bravo 1). The act in itself provides for up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for medical concerns such as: the care of a newborn child, personal illness, and a sick family member. The problem with the FMLA is that many are out of reach from the benefits of the act, because they are not covered by its protections (Bravo 1). Bravo makes the argument that the lack of unpaid leave initially adds to inequality within the United States. Also, arguing that the lack of unpaid leave completely dismantles the idea of family and forces individuals to jeopardize their financial securities for health securities. …show more content…
Individuals should not be at risk of losing their jobs because they are faced with health concerns or faced with taking care of an ill family member. Pregnant women should be allowed enough time off to completely heal from labor, which often takes more than the usual two weeks that most employers offer. Passing the Family Act would allow individuals and pregnant women to take the appropriate amount of time off work in order to heal from illness or labor and take care of and bond with their newborns. The act would benefit and protect the structure of family in the United States. Individuals would not be forced to make detrimental decisions on whether their jobs and financial security is more important than their physical