The author didn't write about miscarriage at all. The only time the word appears in the article is in a quoted summary of a regulation, which the author only addresses in the following complaint about a different line:

    Seriously -- someone had to get worked up enough to create and sponsor a bill and push it through the entire process and get the governor to sign it to provide mandatory work leave for someone whose artificial insemination did not yield a child on the first try.  Good God my brother-in-law probably would have built up 6 months of leave as he had to try for years to finally be successfully, so long we started calling him the sperminator from all the times he had to fill a cup.

If you want to complain about the author, complain about him not citing the source of the quote (https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/labor/leave-laws/). The author also cut it immediately before this line:

    If an employee has more than one reproductive loss event within a 12-month period, the employer is not required to allow more than 20 days total of reproductive loss leave.

…which could be worth a complaint about a lack of context, although it is still enough leave that his brother could have taken more six months worth of leave over the course of about six and a half years, which is within the scope of what most readers would consider trying "for years".

Don't put words in the authors mouth, find actual grievances and complain about them.