|
|
|
|
Jewish World Review March 14, 2002/ Rosh Chodesh Nisan, 5762
Marianne M. Jennings
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com |
The cover of Us magazine had photos of pregnant and unwed Elizabeth Hurley bemoaning abandonment by the child's father, a cad, whose cruel parting shot was a demand for DNA tests. The cover title: "Smart Women, Dumb Choices."
Women, despite Oprah's reading club and occupying over one-half of the seats in U.S. law schools and medical schools, remain the intellectual lightweight gender. Thirty years of statutory equality have yielded a huddled, helpless mass of whiny humanity, victims of their own demands.
A recent smattering of suits establishes this sociological fact. The litigation stems from a 1991 U.S. Supreme Court decision, International Union v. Johnson Controls, Inc. In the case, employees of Johnson Controls filed EEOC complaints about their company's policy on employee lead exposure. Lead exposure leads to birth defects, even preconception. The company initially used a disclosure policy, hoping female employees would choose to work elsewhere and, if not, would sign a waiver indicating they understood the risks of miscarriage and birth defects in lead exposure.
However, the women were so indifferent to the future fruits of their loins that they simply signed the waivers to get the hourly rate hike of these lead-laden jobs. Johnson Controls, in a showing of corporate conscience not recognized by anyone amidst the equal rights mumbo jumbo, felt the risk was too high, and that it owed children a duty, even if their parents were callous. So, Johnson Controls implemented a mandatory policy: no women of childbearing age could work in high-lead exposure areas without proof of sterilization.
The EEOC flew twice backwards around its cage and challenged the policy. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the policy as discriminatory. In concurring, Justice Scalia noted the employer's potential liability for harm to the unborn children of women who could now demand work in high-risk areas. However, a unanimous court applied the protections of Title VII, "Concern for a woman's existing or potential offspring historically has been the excuse for denying women equal employment opportunities." Statutory equality gave women the right to make really dumb decisions for their children.
Fast forward 11 years to the cover story of USA Today two weeks ago with this headline, "Workers take employers to court over birth defects: Workplace hazards worry employees, their children."
The story is about women who work around solvents, chemicals, lead and all manner of industrial bubblings. They are giving birth to children with pointed ears, cancer, stomachs where lungs should be and other birth defects too painful to list.
Employers who were left with no choice, thanks to equal opportunity, must now pay the tab for the chronically ill children of women they tried to warn. Workers' compensation statutes do not preclude birth defects suits. I have taught this case since 1991 and warned students that the decision left employers with a Hobson's choice.
The safety problem is not limited to line workers. The stress of trading desks, long hours, and lack of breaks for pregnant women in high-demand professions result in high blood pressure during pregnancy and lower birth weights for babies.
Even if society curbed all of its alleged social constructs and men began using placemats and going to Mervyn's sales, no one could change the biological fact that only women can bear children. But the honor of procreation is reduced to a speed bump in a more important career or wage ladder fast lane. Is it too much to ask that ambition take a break for 9 months of safety for a developing child?
Enough already with the equality. We get it. We understand that women are capable of donning overalls and speaking as longshoremen alongside the guys on the Ford chassis line. In fact, Rosie the Riveter showed us such two generations ago, without the foul language. The issue is not equality, but rather whether a child's welfare trumps gender statements on hourly wages and career advancement.
Women demanded equality and have the legal right to choose. There are moral obligations and consequences for children in their choices. Recently released studies have shown children in day care get sick more often. A study one year ago concluded that children shuffled into daycare were more aggressive in their public school years. Just because Liz Hurley can support a child without a father does not mean that she should or that a fatherless home with super model mom is best for her child
Women have equal opportunities, but unique obligations. Studies and litigation make it clear that there are tradeoffs. The consequences of women's choices are stunning in their ripple and multi-generational effects. Dumb choices. Dumb
03/08/02: Botoxic faces
|