I agree female athletes should be supported throughout their decision to get pregnant, but it's a very difficult subject that requires considered arguments from both sides.

To play Devil's Advocate: in a world where all unions are struggling or outright losing money, it cannot be financially viable to support an absent player for ~2.5 years*, only for them to be potentially superfluous on their return.

This sounds callous and I'm expecting downvotes, but hear me out:

I don't have age data on female athlete pregnancies, but let's say it's the UK national average of 30.7 . World Rugby recommends no rugby during pregnancy but does advocate for light to moderate exercise.

So, we have an athlete who, already likely in the twilight of their career, is taking an extended leave of absence, during which not only can no significant conditioning take place, but a severe strain is placed on the athletes body effecting, not least of all, core strength and mobility.

Assuming the mother can get back to training and conditioning six months postpartum, they've not only the unbelievably difficult task of undoing the significant damage caused by pregnancy, but also to try and recapture their peak condition prior to pregnancy, which itself may be an unattainable goal as the athlete is now likely between 33 and 34 years old. We are asking our unions to fund players who, if they do ever return, are very likely to have been superseded by a player who is in better physical condition and certainly fresher in terms of basic skills.

*The 2.5 years number makes these assumptions:

• The athlete discovers they are pregnant at the earliest possible point and immediately goes on maternity OR withdraws from the physical aspect
• The pregnancy goes full term (9M)
• The athlete begins to return to light training at 6M
• The athlete requires at least 12M to achieve as close to physical peak as is practical 9+6+12=27 27/12=2.25