The draft reform of labor legislation, presented last Thursday by the government of Luís Montenegro, has generated significant controversy. Specifically, reactions to the removal of gestational mourning leave—which provides both parents with three days off without loss of pay—prompted the government to clarify that the proposed regime “is more favorable.” But is that truly the case?
“It is false that the government intends to eliminate gestational mourning leave. All pregnant individuals retain and even increase their rights,” reads a post on the social media platform X (Twitter) by the Portuguese Republic.
However, it is factual to state that the government of Luís Montenegro intends to eliminate the regime created by António Costa’s government in 2023. They aim to include all cases of “voluntary or involuntary pregnancy interruption, as well as spontaneous abortion,” under the pregnancy interruption leave.
The Article 38-A, corresponding to gestational mourning leave, appears revoked in the government’s draft.
The ministry explained in a statement that “in the event of pregnancy termination, the worker will always have the right to take a leave of 14 to 30 days, under the terms detailed in Article 38, number 1 (subsidized at 100% under the applicable legal regime),” considering that “it doesn’t make sense to alternatively foresee the right to absence in this situation.” The ministry even stressed that the change clarifies that “in all cases of pregnancy termination, there should be respective leave.”
In this case, “the worker informs the employer and presents, as soon as possible, a medical certificate indicating the leave period,” which will be paid by Social Security.
— Portuguese Republic (@govpt) July 25, 2025
Meanwhile, the other parent is protected by the “provision of the right to absence for family member care, up to a limit of 15 days.” “Under the current provision, the other parent could only be absent for three consecutive days. Thus, also in this segment, the repeal of the norm results in a more favorable regime for the pregnant companion,” reinforced the Ministry of Labor, Solidarity, and Social Security (MTSSS).
More time for the father? Yes, but at the cost of losing pay.
The absence under the family assistance regime, although justified, results in loss of pay.
“The government’s proposal in this draft allows the other parent a more extended period of justified absence, without pay,” the ministry told Lusa.
In the case of the three days for gestational mourning, the period is paid 100% for both the pregnant individual and the other parent. For this, “the worker informs their employer, presenting, as soon as possible, proof of the claimed fact through a hospital or health center declaration, or a medical certificate.” This regime includes situations where health professionals deem no physical impact on the mother.
In other words, when the government claims that it is a “more favorable regime for the pregnant companion,” it fails to explain that this parent loses the right to three paid days, exchanging it for up to 15 unpaid days.
“It’s important to say clearly: this change represents a subtraction of rights.”
The national secretariat of Socialist Women, Equality, and Rights (MS-ID) stated on Saturday that this intention of the Luís Montenegro administration “will undoubtedly represent a backward step in the labor and social rights of families in the context of gestational loss.”
This entity within the Socialist Party (PS), led by representative Elza Pais, noted that the government falsely claimed that the leave would be “extended” from three to 15 days since this regime “already exists and corresponds to the pregnancy interruption leave, applicable exclusively to the pregnant individual, subject to medical evaluation and at any gestation stage.”
“The leave currently being revoked is different: it is a standalone labor leave, remunerated and without loss of rights, applicable to both parents in gestational loss situations up to 24 weeks,” emphasized the entity.
MS-ID also reinforced that “attempting to legally merge distinct regimes with different legal objectives and grounds constitutes an unacceptable distortion of the truth and an exercise in disinformation,” given that the proposed change leads to the “elimination of the possibility for both parents to have three mourning days when there is no medical pregnancy termination, which occurs in many early gestational losses.”
“The Socialist Women accused the government of wanting to implement an ‘unequivocal setback’ in gestational mourning, stating that ‘clarification statements’ will not mask what they see as a ‘subtraction of rights.'” the statement said.
“The proposal ignores that many gestational losses occur outside any medical or voluntary decision. Many are spontaneous, traumatic, and unexpected. It is precisely in these cases that the three-day leave applied, allowing for minimal mourning and dignity,” added the organization, reiterating that there is no “extension” but rather the removal of a measure of equity and social justice.
“It’s important to say clearly: this change represents a subtraction of rights. The government may try to disguise it with ‘clarification’ statements, but the truth is, there is no gain. There is just loss. […] Loss of dignity, loss of protection, and loss of recognition,” they accused.
They concluded, “The government once again yields to a populist and inhumane agenda that devalues pain, omits mourning, and dehumanizes society, devaluing the emotions involved in the loss of a pregnancy.”
Livre, BE, and PAN accuse the government of “cruelty.” Pedro Nuno claims: “They don’t care about families.”
For the spokesperson of Livre, Rui Tavares, the administration’s proposal is a “reversal” that “excludes people.” “These were three days that had an important function from the perspective of public policy recognition of the pain of someone experiencing a gestational mourning situation, mother and father. Ending this is in itself serious,” he said.
Rui Tavares also criticized the government not only for replacing journalists’ work through “false fact-checking pages” but also for “seeking to lie about their policy.”
“Instead of clarifying, backing down when they recognize they’re wrong, they double down on a wrong policy and try to confuse the electorate by saying: ‘no, it hasn’t disappeared; it’s still here, just with another name or in another way,”” he asserted.
PAN spokeswoman Inês Sousa Real said it was “absurd and incoherent” for the administration to “confuse in its prejudice and ideological blindness, the women’s right to voluntary termination of pregnancy with the right of a father and mother to mourn for losing a child.”
This only demonstrates that this government is once again attacking not only women’s rights but also the right we have as a society to mourn when we suffer a loss of this nature,” she added, assuring that she would request a hearing with the Minister of Labor in the Parliament, as Maria do Rosário Palma Ramalho “owes an explanation to all the women, all the families who lost their children and have the right to this mourning.”
Meanwhile, the leader and former parliamentary leader of the Left Bloc (BE), Fabian Figueiredo, called on the population to “express their displeasure,” to prevent “this cruelty from becoming law.”
“This is a cruelty and requires a civic upheaval. Losing a child is a huge pain. That in 2025, we are discussing ending the right to gestational mourning is a great cruelty that must be halted,” he warned.
The former Secretary-General of PS, Pedro Nuno Santos, also criticized the measure, saying it demonstrates “pettiness, insensitivity, and ignorance” from the government, as “what they are doing is ending the possibility for the mother and father to take three days of gestational mourning when it’s not justified that the mother takes the termination leave.”
The socialist also questioned the fact that, in the case of the other parent, it concerns “family assistance,” concluding that “essentially, this revocation is just a reduction of rights.”
“Does the father not suffer from the interruption of a wanted pregnancy? Does he not have the right to mourn?” he inquired.
He accused, “The Right should not speak about family, because, in reality, they don’t care about families or the suffering they go through when there is a gestational loss.”
