Why New Mothers Should Not Serve in Congress if They Cannot Fulfill the Job Requirements

Why Allowing Remote Voting for New Moms Undermines the Integrity of Congress

There’s an ongoing debate in Washington, D.C., that, on the surface, seems compassionate—but in reality, threatens the integrity and security of our democratic process. The push to allow members of Congress, specifically new mothers, to vote remotely from home via Zoom is not a progressive solution—it’s a dangerous precedent. Democratic Rep. Brittany Pettersen recently made headlines by making this case while holding her newborn on the House floor, hoping to sway hearts and minds with a well-calculated image. But the argument is flawed on multiple levels.

Let’s start with the basics: the job of a United States Representative is to show up. These elected officials are entrusted by the American people to be physically present, deliberate, debate, and cast votes in the House. That is the job description. It isn’t a remote position. It never was intended to be. Voting from home, while cradling an infant, may seem sympathetic, but it is an erosion of the expectations we set for the highest legislative office in the land.

This isn’t about lacking empathy for mothers. Everyone understands that parenting—especially in the early stages—is difficult and demanding. But being a parent, however noble, should not be used as justification for changing the rules of Congress. If someone chooses to run for office, they must do so understanding the job’s demands. That means being in D.C. when it's time to vote. It means prioritizing the duties of office over personal convenience. If that can’t be done, then it’s fair to say that now simply isn't the right time to take on such a serious responsibility.

We wouldn’t accept this kind of rule-bending in any other profession that deals with national security, complex decision-making, or high stakes. Can a soldier choose to defend the country via Zoom? Can a firefighter battle blazes remotely? Can a heart surgeon dial in to an operating room from their living room? Of course not. Because in serious professions, presence matters.

Beyond the issue of precedent is the very real concern about security. Remote voting opens up massive vulnerabilities. How do we verify who is really casting the vote? What about the potential for coercion, hacking, or simple technological failure? In a time when trust in government is already fragile, this is not a risk we can afford.

The idea also invites abuse. If the rules change for one mother with a newborn, what stops others from claiming similar exceptions? Why not allow every member of Congress to vote from their vacation home or from another country under the pretense of personal challenges? Once the standard shifts from show up and serve to vote when it’s convenient, the system collapses under the weight of individual exceptions.

There are other options available. Lawmakers who become parents can hire help, bring their children to D.C., or wait until their family situation is more stable before seeking public office. These aren’t draconian expectations—they’re common-sense choices made by professionals in high-demand roles every day.

This debate isn’t about opposing motherhood. It’s about upholding standards. If you run for office, you agree to meet its demands. If you can’t, for any reason—including the demanding and beautiful challenge of being a new parent—then you shouldn't be in Congress. That’s not an attack—it’s accountability.