Why is Congress So Afraid of Moms?

The Proxy War in the House Matters More Than You Think

If you’ve been thinking about subscribing, this is the week to do it: I’m donating 10% of all Substack subscriptions from this week to Vote Mama to support progressive moms running for office. (promo ends Friday at midnight!)

---

Last week, The House was ground to a halt over a fight about whether new parents should be allowed to vote by proxy. Yes, that is a thing that actually shut down the House.

The proposal, championed by Representatives Brittany Pettersen (D-Colo.) and Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), would let members of Congress vote remotely for up to 12 weeks after the birth of a child. House Speaker Mike Johnson tried to block it. But enough Republicans broke ranks to join Democrats and defeat the move, handing Johnson an embarrassing loss and forcing him to cancel all remaining House votes this week. Former President Trump even weighed in, telling reporters, “I don’t know why it’s controversial.”

Then, late Sunday night Luna announced that she’d reached a deal with Johnson, that instead of allowing new parents proxy voting, House members would be able to ‘pair’ with a lawmaker who planned to vote the opposite stance and they would abstain, thereby canceling out the mother’s absence.

Yesterday The New York Times reported that the vote pairing will only be available to “women who face medical complications after childbirth that prevent them from being present in Washington.” The Times continued, “Because the practice is fully voluntary, it would be unlikely to occur on any legislation whose fate was truly in doubt. On a bill where the speaker could not afford to lose a vote on his side, it would be exceedingly difficult to find a member of either party willing to pair with a colleague who held the opposite position.”

The fact that any of this is at all controversial is indeed absurd. New parents should be given adequate leave to care for their newborns AND have the ability to vote on the issues that affect their constituents. Parents who are also executives at companies often take their leave, stay home and remain on call for big decisions. This is simply good sense. And yet, in our highly charged political climate, this too has become a fight.

It might seem like this is coming up all of a sudden, but the fight isn’t new.

Liuba Grechen Shirley has been fighting this fight for years.

Back in 2018, she ran for Congress in New York’s 2nd District as a first-time candidate with two kids under five. After leaving her job to campaign full time, she petitioned the FEC for permission to use campaign funds for childcare and won, becoming the first woman in U.S. history to do so. That win didn’t just make her campaign possible, it cracked the door open for hundreds of other caregivers to run.

She went on to found Vote Mama, the first and only organization focused on helping mothers of young children run for office and win, while also pushing for structural reforms like the one Congress is now fighting over. In fact, Vote Mama helped advocate for the very policy that shut the House down this week.

I sat down with Liuba to talk about what’s really at stake in the proxy voting debate, how caregiving is still treated like a liability in American politics, and why we need more parents, especially moms, making the rules.

EMILY: I’ve been thinking all week about the proxy voting fight that just blew up in Congress, and the fact that it literally shut the House down. Over parental leave. For members of Congress. Like… what are we even doing?

You’ve been pushing this issue for years … were you screaming at your screen? Laughing? Crying? All of the above?

And genuinely, why wouldn’t the party of “family values” support helping new parents be present for their newborns and their jobs? It’s not like we’re asking for paid leave for every American family (although, yes, that too), we’re asking if lawmakers can temporarily vote from home while recovering from childbirth.

LIUBA: Definitely all of the above! I’m so proud to see Brittany’s resolution get this far and absolutely thrilled that proxy voting is finally being discussed nationally. But yes, also screaming, crying, pulling out my hair…because how is this still controversial in 2025?!

I guess I’ve come to understand that when GOP leaders say “family values,” what they really mean is that this is the kind of family we value. And almost always, that image is straight out of the 1950s, where moms stay home, keep quiet about “women’s issues,” and are expected to make everything work for everyone else. We need a government that prioritizes every family in all the diverse forms they take, not just the ones that fit the Leave it to Beaver mold.

And you’re exactly right, this isn’t even about parental leave. Brittany wants to work! All she’s asking for is the ability to temporarily vote from her home state while she’s healing from childbirth and caring for her newborn. That’s it. A basic workplace accommodation so constituents don’t lose their voice in Congress.

EMILY: How do you feel about the new “live/dead pairing” (as Luna called it) solution? Do you think that Johnson will wield his control over the process fairly?

LIUBA: I’ll be honest, I was really disappointed to see that news come out. I can’t speak to Rep. Luna’s motivations, but what I do know is that there were moms across the country counting on her to follow through, and they’ve been let down.

This is still an evolving situation, and if it sounds confusing, that’s because it is.

Let’s be clear: vote pairing, what Rep. Luna is suggesting, is not a substitute for proxy voting. It’s a convoluted workaround that allows two Members, whose votes would cancel each other out, to have their votes paired and removed from the total. But it only works if you can find someone willing to pair with you. Often, that means relying on a member from the other party, sometimes from across the country, to agree to cancel out your vote. Every single time. This suggested change from Speaker Johnson is literally the definition of making things more complicated than they need to be.

Instead of simply voting on behalf of Colorado’s 7th Congressional District, Rep. Pettersen now has to negotiate with someone outside her state, and often outside her party, just to have her vote canceled.

Proxy voting was never about skipping work. It’s about making sure Members of Congress, especially those recovering from childbirth or caring for a newborn, can continue to represent their districts.

EMILY: And I think a lot of people are hearing the term “proxy voting” and going… okay, but what is that? Can you break it down for people? What does this policy actually do, and why has it become such a political third rail?

LIUBA: Absolutely. I’m seeing a lot of people conflating proxy voting with parental leave, which it’s not. Proxy voting is a simple practice that would allow a legislator to vote remotely without having to be physically present on the House floor in Washington, D.C. If approved, Brittany Pettersen’s resolution would allow new moms and dads to vote remotely for twelve weeks following the birth of a child.

It’s also not a new concept, Democrats enacted proxy voting in 2020 as a safeguard during COVID. Once Republicans took over, they got rid of the practice. Now, Speaker Johnson is claiming he’s against proxy voting because it’s “unconstitutional,” even though he himself voted by proxy 39 times.

Under current House rules, if a representative gives birth and wants to keep doing their job, they’re expected to return to D.C. immediately. Can you imagine getting on a plane the day after giving birth? It’s just an absurd expectation.

At the end of the day, GOP leadership’s resistance to this issue boils down to two things: maintaining power and a fundamental disregard for mothers’ lived experiences. There are more millionaires in Congress than there are moms of minor children. Right now, not a single House committee is chaired by a woman. Less than seven percent of the 118th Congress were moms of minor kids. This fight is about ensuring moms can participate in our democracy. The backlash is intense because people are being forced to confront how hostile our government’s structures are to parents, especially moms.

After Speaker Johnson lost the vote on Tuesday, he said people were only supporting proxy voting for “emotional reasons.” I think if Speaker Johnson really understood, and respected, what mothers put their bodies through during childbirth, then maybe he wouldn’t be so casual about this issue.

EMILY: The thing that keeps sticking with me is how unfamiliar this still feels to people, like it’s some revolutionary concept. But it only feels that way because the system wasn’t designed for women to be in the room. And the men who were in the room? No one expected them to be involved in the day-to-day of raising a newborn.

You’ve said this isn’t just about logistics, it’s about power. The minute we suggest redesigning the system in a way that works for caregivers, especially moms, it’s seen as radical. Not because it’s complicated. But because it threatens the assumption that leadership is supposed to look like a man, with no kids in sight, and no strings attached.

LIUBA: Exactly. Congress was created by older, wealthy, white, land-owning men at a time when women didn’t even have the right to vote. The minute we talk about redesigning the system so that it can functionally serve more than one demographic, it gets labeled as radical.

This has always been the playbook. Any time we push to make government more accessible, whether we’re talking about suffrage, the Civil Rights Act, or LGBTQ+ rights, every time people demand access and equity, those in power call it a “slippery slope.”

Listen, when I ran for Congress, I petitioned the FEC to allow me to use Campaign Funds for Childcare (CFCC). My primary opponent used the same “slippery slope” argument, saying, “Ethics rules exist for serious reasons, and using campaign funds for personal expenses is a very slippery slope.” Luckily, the FEC unanimously approved my request, and since then, Vote Mama Lobby has been working to authorize CFCC for state and local candidates across the country. Now, 39 states and D.C. have authorized CFCC, and more than $1 million of campaign funds have been spent on childcare by state and federal candidates.

What Johnson and the rest of GOP leadership are really afraid of is this: if we fix this outdated rule that keeps moms out of power, what other rules will we be forced to change? Who else will demand the right to participate in our democracy?

EMILY: I do want to note, times are changing, and so are the men. We’ve got the Dad’s Caucus out here redefining what it means to be a father in Congress. I can still picture Rep. Jimmy Gomez carrying baby Hodge during the speaker vote chaos in 2023.

Have you seen that shift in your work? That the move from “maternity leave” to “parental leave” wasn’t just a language update, but a reflection of real cultural change? Are you seeing more men in office who get it; who see the value of being with their newborns and partners and actually want that time?

LIUBA: Yes, 100%. I’m really glad you brought that up because this isn’t just about moms, this is about building a government that works for all parents. And you're right; we are seeing a shift. The rise of the Dads Caucus, dads like Jimmy Gomez showing up with baby Hodge. It signals that more men in office realize this system was never built to support families and that dads are stepping up to say, “Serving in Congress doesn’t absolve me of caregiving responsibilities.”

I’ve seen it firsthand at Vote Mama. More dads are saying, “This matters. I want to be there to bond with my baby and take care of my spouse.” And they’re pushing for the kinds of policies that make that possible, like proxy voting. It’s not just a language shift from “maternity” to “parental” leave. It’s a recognition that caregiving is not a women’s issue, it affects us all.

Even beyond children, so many members of Congress are part of the sandwich generation, caring for young children and aging parents at the same time.

When elected officials have to choose between caregiving and doing their jobs, we all lose. Just think about what that would mean: a Congress made up of only the people who can afford to outsource every caregiving responsibility. If you’ve never had to worry about finding a babysitter, taking care of a sick parent, or managing both at once, how can you write laws that actually support working families?

When more parents, moms and dads, demand a system that works for caregivers, we get closer to the kind of real, structural change this country has needed for a long time. Because representation isn’t just about identity, it’s about lived experience. And that experience needs a seat at the table.

EMILY: That photo of Rep. Brittany Pettersen carrying her baby to vote was beautiful and aspirational and also a punch to the gut. My DMs were full of moms like, “Wait, she had to fly with a newborn to D.C. just to cast a vote?” People were panicking about the airplane, the germs, the pressure changes, the childcare, the lack of sleep. And she just did it, because there wasn’t another option.

I know proxy voting is the issue in the spotlight right now, but obviously it’s one piece of a much bigger puzzle. If we wanted a political infrastructure that actually worked for parents, what else would we need to build in?

LIUBA: A “beautiful gut punch” is the perfect description of that photo. I think every mom saw it and immediately felt it in their bones. Because we remember how overwhelming postpartum is on its own, and then you add leaving your toddler at home, the fear of exposing your newborn to germs, the exhaustion, the isolation, the pain. And it’s infuriating, because we live in the 21st century. It doesn’t have to be this way. Watching someone struggle when basic, common-sense solutions exist? That’s what makes it so maddening. Updating our government to reflect modern realities shouldn’t be controversial.

And we have to remember that the system isn’t broken, it was built that way. Proxy voting is just one piece of a much larger puzzle. If we want a political infrastructure that actually works for parents, we need to change everything from how campaigns are funded to how legislative buildings are set up.

For example, only four states pay state legislators a living wage. In six states, the cost of childcare is higher than a legislator’s salary. How are working parents, especially moms, supposed to run and serve under those conditions?

We need Campaign Funds for Childcare to level the playing field. We need on-site childcare, paid family and medical leave for legislators, childcare reimbursements, pumping rooms, and changing tables, the basics. These aren’t radical ideas; they’re necessary reforms.

Since this debate began, I’ve seen so many comments online that are honestly gut-wrenching to read. Comments like: “I had to go back to work a day after giving birth, why should Congress be any different?” or “I had to leave my newborn to return to work. They should suck it up like I did.”

I hear the pain in those words, but it also shows me we’re losing sight of the bigger picture. The goal isn’t to keep forcing moms to suffer because that’s the way it’s always been. The point of having more moms in government is to change the system, so no American mother has to return to work the day after giving birth.

We’re not trying to grant special protections for Congress, we’re trying to set a precedent to ensure any mom who wants to run for office is able to. More moms in government means better policies, better protections, and a country that actually supports mothers and families with policies like paid family leave and affordable childcare.

Let’s fix the system. Not accept it the way it is.

EMILY: I remember your 2018 run so clearly, you were literally building blanket forts with your kids and hopping on donor calls in the same breath. No salary, no childcare, no roadmap. You had to petition the FEC just to use campaign funds for childcare. And I think what people don’t realize is that most parents see that and go, “Yeah… no. I can’t do all that.”

And still, moms keep running. Which is both inspiring and, honestly, enraging. Because we need them in office.

So what do you say to the woman who’s watching this mess unfold and thinking, “Could I actually do this? Could I run?”

LIUBA: Honestly, most days, I can’t believe I did it. When I ran in 2018, I had no salary and no roadmap. I quit my job to run full-time and maxed out my credit cards just to pay for groceries and basic necessities for my family. Sometimes, it feels like a fever dream when I think back to that time. I won’t sugarcoat it; running as a mom is not easy.

But it’s so worth it.

And the truth is, I decided to run because I was a mother. I didn’t want my kids to grow up in a world that was crumbling around them. I looked at the headlines, mass shootings in school, climate change, growing costs of higher education , and thought: if I don’t fight for them, who will?

So, if you’re sitting there thinking, “Could I actually do this?”, just remember that you probably already are! You’re advocating. You’re organizing. You’re solving crises before breakfast.

Being a mom isn’t a hindrance; it’s the best résumé you could have for public office. As a mom, you know what it’s like managing competing priorities, working on no sleep, navigating impossible systems, and doing it all with love and determination. That’s what this country needs more of.

When we talk to the moms we endorse at Vote Mama PAC, we hear the same stories repeatedly. Moms don’t run for power, they run for people. They run because they love their kids, their communities, and their country. They see a problem and step up to fix it because that’s what moms do.

EMILY: Okay, for the people who’ve made it this far in the conversation, they’re nodding, they’re mad, they’re texting this to three group chats, what now? How do they plug in? Who should they call? Where do we send all this outrage?

LIUBA: As I said earlier, this is an evolving situation and it’s moving very quickly. So, it’s hard to say, “Here’s the plan,” because that plan could change tomorrow. There’s still a small (albeit very small) part of me that hopes Rep. Pettersen’s resolution will make it to the floor for a vote. But regardless, this issue isn’t going away any time soon. Call your member of Congress. Tell them you support proxy voting and that vote pairing is a moronic and inadequate solution for new moms in Congress who need to be allowed to do their jobs.

Secondly, support the moms already in the fight. Share their stories. Volunteer, phone bank, host a house party, donate if you can. There’s no one right way to help, but these women can’t do it alone. They’re caregiving, campaigning, and governing all at once, trying to fix a broken system while navigating it. They need all of us behind them.

And if this conversation lit a fire in you? Run! Seriously. If you’re sitting there thinking, “Could I really do this?”, the answer is yes, you can. And we’re here to help.

Vote Mama PAC was built to support moms on the trail, from the first Google search to Election Day. We’ll give you the tools, the mentorship, and the community to help you cross the finish line, because we need more moms writing the rules, not just following them.

Follow @votemamalobby on Instagram to get updates on what’s happening with the proxy voting fight, see how you can get involved, and learn more about the incredible moms running to protect our democracy, from school board to Senate.

---