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.

    • @derf82
      link
      English
      21 year ago

      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?

      • HACKthePRISONS
        link
        fedilink
        01 year ago

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

        you’re making assumptions

        • @derf82
          link
          English
          11 year ago

          I’m all ears

          • HACKthePRISONS
            link
            fedilink
            01 year ago

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

            • @derf82
              link
              English
              11 year ago

              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.

        • @derf82
          link
          English
          11 year ago

          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.

          • HACKthePRISONS
            link
            fedilink
            01 year ago

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

          • HACKthePRISONS
            link
            fedilink
            01 year ago

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

        • @derf82
          link
          English
          11 year ago

          Feel free to explain. You say population decline (something which has yet to start) is a major problem that needs reversed, correct? So we need to grow faster? But you admit we can’t grow forever. So when should we stop growing?