Although there are numerous arguments against using unemployment benefits to support parental leave, the following one is sufficient: It makes a distinction between parents and other classes of people. As seen in New York Times article "Paid Parental Leave: Who Gains?"" many supporters of paid parental leave say it ''would benefit the economy by reducing absenteeism and the need for new parents to go on welfare'' (par. 10). Perhaps. But what if I would like to take extended paid leave from my job to attend school full time? Such a benefit would be nice, but it seems to be only wishful thinking. Why shouldn't I also be part of the unemployment protection chart, but while still being technically employed? Just as the new parents and newborn would benefit from extended time together, college students would also benefit from extended time with their academic pursuits "and while having someone else pay for it, e.g. the employer and/or the government." Yes, a new mother needs time to recover from the physical stress of giving birth, but students also need time to recover from challenging academic exams, so, as to prevent an overabundance of stress and strain, including panic attacks. Let's not forget that "the United States is decades behind the rest of the world in parental leave policy and joins Swaziland and Papua New Guinea as the only countries with no guarantee of paid leave"" (Debusmann, par. 1) These countries perhaps understand the financial stress that can be placed on businesses, small, struggling ones in particular, not to mention large companies that are near bankruptcy. If governments, e.g. the U.S. either at the federal or state level, implemented obligatory paid maternity leave, including if financial and tax incentives were offered to businesses to offer such leave to women, the financial sustainability of many small businesses still could be threatened, where taxes could increase and discrimination against females in the workplace could result, where even fewer are hired.
