Recognising the Dignity of the Unborn: Why Bereavement Leave Is a Welcome Step

Plans to extend bereavement leave to people affected by early pregnancy loss recognise the dignity of the unborn child and the importance of family life—but they also raise questions about abortion and whether unpaid leave offers enough support.

A proposed expansion of bereavement leave, which will come into force in April next year, will give more workers time away from work after early baby loss. The measure, which will give eligible workers the statutory right to up to two weeks of unpaid bereavement leave for a pregnancy loss before 24 weeks, is a welcome recognition of the dignity of the unborn, the grief of losing a child, family responsibility and the dignity of workers.

The loss of a baby can carry profound emotional, physical and spiritual consequences, and it is important for workplaces to recognise that reality. The proposal’s recognition that losing a baby can be devastating—and that parents should not be forced immediately back into work—is honourable.

Economic activity should serve people, not reduce them to economic units. A clear right to leave acknowledges workers as people with family responsibilities and a need for time to grieve.

Helping the family – the fundamental unit upon which society is based – through grief is not, therefore, simply an employment issue; it is a recognition of the bonds that sustain people and communities. Extending leave to spouses and partners, parents, adult children, siblings, and others, reflects that commitment. It recognises that grief reaches beyond a narrow definition of family and that meaningful relationships deserve practical support.

From Rerum Novarum onwards, Catholic Social Teaching has insisted that workers have rights that protect their dignity and wellbeing. Many employers already offer compassionate leave, but provision is inconsistent and grieving workers can be left dependent on managerial discretion. A statutory safety net would give people a clear minimum protection at one of the most vulnerable moments in their lives.

It is interesting that the proposed leave entitlement would also apply following an abortion. It is fitting that the grief caused by the loss of a baby is given due recognition in the context of employment, even if that loss is because of abortion.

This, however, raises a wider question for society and its political leaders: how can our culture remain so indifferent to abortion while simultaneously acknowledging the grief and devastation it can cause?

The proposal also offers up to two weeks of unpaid leave. This helpfully creates a right to time away, but not necessarily the practical freedom to use it. For workers on low incomes, losing pay may make bereavement leave unaffordable. Policymakers must, therefore, reflect on whether support is genuinely accessible to those with the least financial resilience—and whether paid provision would better serve the common good.

Overall, these proposals are a welcome step in the right direction; they go some way to recognising unborn children as unique, unrepeatable human beings with inherent dignity. The proposal also supports family life, strengthens workers’ rights and embodies solidarity with people experiencing profound loss.

Its limitations are, however, equally clear. The inclusion of elective abortion raises serious moral questions about society’s wider acceptance of abortion and the grief it causes, while unpaid leave may fail the people least able to absorb a loss of income.