The real argument surrounding a fertile woman running for president does not have to do with the “her body, her choice” argument, and instead, lies in a separate category–that of duty to her country. A person (regardless of gender) who is running for president should be ready to dedicate their lives for the next four years to the nation (with as little personal distractions as possible).

   The average maternity leave in the United States is approximately twelve weeks, but some companies offer anywhere between six months to a year of time off for new mothers. That is a significant amount of time to be away from the job when you’re supposed to be managing the country. Because we have never had a female president who is still young enough to bear children in office, there are no set maternity rules in place–the vice president will take over as long as Madame President is away and unfit to serve.

   As voters, we make our decisions based off of our morals and ethics, as well as what we wish to see change or happen in terms of laws and society. If we were to find out that a potential candidate might take such a significant chunk of leave, this might sway our decision as to which candidate we wish to nominate, or even elect.

   There is a Pregnancy Discrimination Act which “prohibits sexual discrimination on the basis of pregnancy” (an employer cannot refuse to hire a pregnant woman because she is pregnant). In an ideal world, a person would be hired based on their inward qualities, not their sex, but this will probably never be the case. The Equal Rights Amendment (proposing “equal rights for all citizens regardless of their sex”) has only been ratified in 36 of the 50 states that comprise the United States of America–just two states shy of the three-fourths majority needed in order for it to be added to the Constitution. The bill was passed by Congress in 1972, and 45 years later has made almost no progress.

   The job of president is one of (if not the most) stressful jobs in the world, and dealing with a newborn in the office adds to that anxiety greatly. Reddit user FinickyPenance commented on the issue: the “last thing the nation needs is for someone to be launching nukes because their baby has a colic.” Though this is an exaggeration, it shows how the matter of an “expecting” chief executive would affect today’s (still gender-biased) voters. Is it likely that a pregnant leader’s “raging” postpartum hormones will affect her decisions? Probably not, but the stereotype paints them as if they would.  

   If a woman in such a powerful position wishes to have a child, it is her right. But, it is her civic duty to make decisions based on what’s best for the country.