As May was nearing an end, two ideas kept nagging me. One was the commercialization of Mother’s Day, which florists and greeting card companies love, and the other was the slashing of funds for science, which profoundly affects women scientists. I kept thinking that there was a connection between the two and finally I got it.
First, it struck me as superficial, disingenuous and trivializing to wish moms “Happy Mother’s Day” once a year. Didn’t mothers deserve more than a bouquet or a sentimental card? What would really make them happy? How about childcare, reproductive healthcare, a good education for their kids, time off and a bit of help sometimes.
Even more importantly how about a few good supportive and sane policies vs. cuts to social services like Medicaid, food stamps, rental and heating assistance, WIC which provides supplemental nutrition for women, infants, and children. Temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) would be nice. And what could honor mothers more than knowing that their kids had a safe place to go when they were working, or feeling their children were safe wherever they were. Is that really asking too much to offer as a gesture of respect in honor of motherhood?
That led me on a search to find out more about Mother’s Day. What I found was surprising. It was Julia Ward Howe, 19th century writer, women’s rights advocate, and peace advocate who believed that Mother’s Day should be a call for women to engage in global policymaking. And wasn’t it time to honor women’s work and role in the family, community, and marketplace. So, Howe issued a Mother’s Day Proclamation after the Civil War that not only urged the creation of an international body of women who could find a way to avoid war but also a day to recognize the contributions of women every other day in the year.
With that I had an epiphany that led me to connecting Mother’s Day to what’s happening now to women scientists.
Stick with me as I share some facts about federal cuts to science and why they impact women’s lives, including mothers who work outside the home.
Some time ago DOGE eliminated at least $3 million from grant programs that would have improved women’s health, and supported survivors of domestic and gender-based violence. More targeted program cuts were aimed at women’s economic security which especially threatened women of color and other working women who are often heads of households. Eliminating relevant longitudinal studies that could have led to new ways to address those needs was alarming to the scientists doing the research.
DOGE also cancelled funding for lifesaving projects that involved pregnant women. For example, a research program studying racial and ethnic differences in maternal health and their relationship to hypertension disorders was cancelled. This could result in avoidable maternal deaths, particularly among certain populations. According to scientists studying these programs and their benefits the cuts “will derail years of research progress on health issues that primarily affect women. DOGE has not only rolled back years if not decades of progress.”
These dramatic cuts and cancellations didn’t simply put women in general at risk. They also affected women scientists whose research and studies involved myriad issues that impact a huge number of people. A recent paper published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science showed that women, especially those in the early stages of their careers, were disproportionately affected by terminations even though they receive less funding by NIH than men. On average, the report said, women had 58 percent of their grants terminated while men experienced 40 percent of their studies terminated. Sixty percent of terminated grants were led by women doctoral students or assistant professors. It’s important to note that women conducting studies that were financed by training grants will suffer derailed careers in science just as they are beginning their careers.
In March this year an analysis of NIH funding changes in 2025 found that almost 2,300 active research grants were abruptly terminated which resulted in $2.5 billion dollars disrupting thousands of scientific projects. The report noted that women were disproportionately affected.
It’s important to know that the words “women”, “diversity” and “inclusion” have been banned by the Trump administration in federal funding, which along with obvious racism, have influenced who or what gets funded and who or what doesn't.
So, what’s the common denominator shared by Mother’s Day and cuts or cancellations in scientific research that has enormous consequences for women?
The more I contemplated that question the clearer it became. Misogyny and sexism are a big part of our culture, like everywhere else, but we are suffering an administration that is so anti-women it sees women as nothing more than sex objects, servants, and incubators. We are “The Other” that threatens autocratic Handmaid’s men mightily. They are powerful but pathetic because they know women are powerful in different ways. We are compassionate. We are nurturers. We are smart, capable, competent, and persistent. What they have yet to learn is that we are here and we are not going away. So when the powerful men who loathe women right now have disappeared, we will be there to shape a future they can’t even imagine.
# # #
Elayne Clift writes from Brattleboro, Vt.