Last week, ABC News named Charles Gibson the sole anchor of “World News Tonight,” succeeding co-anchors Bob Woodruff, who was seriously injured in Iraq weeks into the job, and Elizabeth Vargas, who became pregnant shortly after she and Woodruff took over for the late Peter Jennings in January. Ratings for “WNT” had dipped substantially in that time, with ABC even finishing behind CBS for the first time in five years. ABC News and Vargas herself insisted that her removal from the anchor chair was voluntary. She said that her doctors had warned her to slow down, and she will move to “20/20” this fall after her maternity leave. But many women’s groups across the country saw the decision as something quite different. They say ABC is punishing Vargas for being a pregnant woman and in doing so has violated the spirit of the Family and Medical Leave Act. On Monday, the National Organization for Women, Feminist Majority Foundation and National Council of Women’s Organizations sent a letter to ABC News president David Westin protesting what they termed Vargas’ demotion. “With this action and your parallel decision to terminate the series ‘Commander-In-Chief,’ in which Geena Davis portrayed America’s first woman president, you have now managed to eliminate two of the country’s most visible women role models and high achievers from your television lineup,” the letter reads. ABC News has countered that it has accommodated pregnant women in the past. As for whether Vargas' decision was voluntary, an ABC News spokesman tells Media Life: "It was something they had been discussing for a while." Susan Scanlan, the chair of the NCWO, talks with Media Life about Vargas’ public image, nightly news ratings, and what Vargas shares with Barbara Walters.

What is your basic beef with ABC over the Elizabeth Vargas situation?
 
ABC has once again demoted a talented, inspirational, and hard-working woman journalist; let's not forget how Barbara Walters was treated by Frank McGee and Harry Reasoner. The fact that Elizabeth Vargas is pregnant only reinforces the message to women in the media--and working women across the country--that there can be no career/family balance for mothers in America. 
 
This was obviously a ratings decision. If so, why did ABC not go to a proven and popular professional like Diane Sawyer as a replacement for Ms. Vargas? 

 
In the statement released last week, Vargas said it was her decision to switch jobs. Do you believe that?  
 
Perhaps the most galling aspect of Ms. Vargas's removal as co-anchor of “World News Tonight” was how she was compelled to put a positive face on it. And consider her consolation prize -- a slot on “20/20.” That's exactly where Barbara Walters was pushed via a previous ABC exit strategy. As recently as March, Ms. Vargas told the Dallas Morning News that she'd be off for six months for childbirth and then "...everything will go back to being the way it was."
 

Have you contacted Vargas directly about this letter?
 
No, we have not. Ms. Vargas has graciously thanked us for our advocacy, but claims to be comfortable with this decision to be replaced. The National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority and the National Council of Women's Organizations -- representing more than 10 million women in the U.S. --are not comfortable with this discouraging return to discriminatory treatment of a dedicated, deserving professional.
 

ABC News’ ratings have been slipping ever since Bob Woodruff's injury, while Vargas was anchoring the news. Couldn't the decision purely have been based on ratings, and if so, do you still object?
 
I do believe ABC News made a ratings decision. I also believe that a white male anchor would have been allowed far longer than five months to turn ratings around. So, why not announce the real reason for anchors away?

In an awkward attempt to save face for Ms. Vargas and cloak their concern with the bottom line, ABC executives have compromised her public image--from a clever, courageous and competent journalist to a wilting violet who can't run with the big boys.
 

ABC says that it has accommodated other pregnant women in the past. What should an employer be required to do in a situation like this?
 
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 forbids employers [from denying] women jobs because of pregnancy. It requires them to hold open a job for a pregnancy-related absence for the same length of time that they hold open jobs for sick or disabled employees. It outlaws the mistreatment of employees who are temporarily unable to perform job duties due to pregnancy and requires employers to adjust job duties as they would for any disabled employee.
 
The Family and Medical Leave Act offers additional protection. It says an employee who has worked for a company for at least 12 months can take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave.
 
Has ABC announced how long they will hold a job open for Bob Woodruff?
 

Do you think this will impact women's decision to watch ABC News, depending on how they feel about Vargas' departure?
 
Perhaps women viewers will turn to another nightly news team. CBS will certainly be offering them an alternative. Or they'll turn to the internet. 
 

Could this happen to a woman with a higher profile, such as Katie Couric? 
 
Sure. Remember that white male anchors -- Cronkite, Brinkley, Rather, Brokaw -- are allowed to grow older and wiser in front of the television audience. Wrinkles and white hair inspire trust, connote intelligence and establish a beloved “fatherly” image. Do you honestly believe that Katie Couric will be accorded the same longevity when her years begin to show?

A beloved motherly image doesn't play on national or even local news. The ideal pairing at the anchor desk seems to be grizzled and gorgeous.

Is there anything that you can think of to compare the Vargas situation?
 
I think this is almost a re-run of the way ABC treated Barbara Walters in 1976. Have we had no progress for female anchors in 30 years?