Can risk to potential fetus bar women from industrial jobs?

Scan page 4

L.A. pro-choice supporters defend clinics against Operation Rescue About 350 pro-choice activists turned out to defend a Los Angeles abortion clinic on April 14. Supporters of women's rights mobilized against a two-day hit by Operation Rescue in the area. Photos by Kathleen O'Nan/Socialist Action At the end of March, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case which challenges sexual discrimination practiced by a Milwaukee-based manufacturer of automobile batteries. In urging the Court to accept this case, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argued that the defendant, Johnson Controls, Inc., "requires women to make an impossible choice between their fertility and their jobs."

A "fetal protection" policy established in 1982 at Johnson Controls bars women workers from holding any jobs in the plant where they are exposed to lead. The only exceptions to this ban are those women workers who provide medical evidence of infertility.

The company rule applies to all fertile women, including those who say they do not intend to have more children or any children. The policy covers the large majority of production jobs in the company's 16 plants nationwide. These production jobs pay signiticantly more than other jobs in the plant.

The suit against the company's policy was brought by several women workers in the Milwaukee plant and the United Auto Workers union (UAW). The women suing the company include one who decided to be sterilized in order to keep her job and a 50year-old who lost her higher-paying job when she was transferred to another department.

Solidarity from other groups Women's liberation groups and civil rights organizations have joined other unions in supporting the workers and the UAW. 'This reminds me of the old protective labor laws. They protect women right out of the good jobs," Kim Gandy, an officer of the National Organization for Women told The New York Times on Oct. 2 of last year.

Joan E. Bertin, who directs the Women's Rights Project of the ACLU, explains, "If the theory behind this case is sustained or at least not successfully challenged, it will institutionalize the second-class employment status of all fertile women."

A statement released by the Women's Legal Defense Fund on March 26 stated, "Employers have used women as the scapegoat of their failure to properly evaluate the harm caused by workplace hazards to both men and women."

An ACLU spokesperson, in an April 4 letter to The New York Times, explains that supporters of the union's case want to see federal laws enforced that secure not only equal employment opportunities for both men and women but promise all workers the right to a safe and healthful workplace.

The plaintiff's lawyer points out that both men and women are as much at risk from lead exposure as a fetus is. Protective legislation should be aimed at safeguarding all workers. Johnson Controls and other companies use these discriminatory policies as a method of ignoring workplace safety issues.

Protecting companies and fetuses In March, the California Court of Appeals found that the company's policy was illegal. But that ruling only applies in the state of California. In an earlier ruling last October, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago upheld the company in a split 7-4 decision.

In ruling for the company, the court said there was clear scientific evidence that, "an unborn child's exposure to lead creates a substantial health risk involving a danger of permanent harm."

The majority of the court offered two legal theories for letting the policy stand, despite laws which prohibit sex discrimination. Under one of these legal theories, the company's policy of excluding women during their childbearing years qualifies as a "bona fide occupational qualification." The other theory justifies the policy as a "business necessity."

The majority decision said the fetal protection policy was "reasonably necessary to the FEARTNG RESOUR FREEDOM OF CHO and the League of Women Voters.

The amendment, designed to outflank a possible ban on all abortions, imposes a time restriction on legal abortions. The 24week cutoff week, after which a woman could not legally obtain an abortion, would disproportionately affect poor women and women of color, since they often must postpone abortions until they can come up with the money.

"Most of us on the [BVC] steering comthe unborn child from lead exposure."

While legal briefs for Johnson Controls cates explain that avoiding lawsuits is the real motivation in the adoption of "fetal protection" policies. "Workmen's Compensation" insurance, which covers companies for injuries workers receive on the job, does not cover fetuses-which are considered to be "third parties."

The concept of fetal protection has been experimented with in other areas of social policy as well as in the industrial sphere. Over the past several years, for example, courts have interpreted child abuse and neglect laws to successfully force pregnant women to enter drug-treatment programs and have Caesarean sections.

In other cases, judges have kept women arrested on charges like shoplifting in jail until the end of their pregnancies. The Supreme Court ruling in last year's Webster decision, which let stand a preamble to a Missouri law claiming that life begins at conception, gives a green light to those who want to use this concept to discriminate against women:

Denying other jobs to women A growing number of manufacturing corporations—using reasoning similar to that used by Johnson Controls-have adopted policies which exclude women from certain jobs. Included among them are General Motors, B.F. Goodrich, Allied Chemical, Monsanto, and Gulf Oil. As more becomes known about potential health hazards in the work place, this trend could increase.

The ACLU points out, however, that leaving the decision of what are acceptable risks to the "employer's analysis of fetal risk could limit women's participation in nearly every area of economic life."

The ACLU's argument is backed by that of one of the dissenting opinions in the Chicago Circuit Court. Justice Frank Easterbrook's opinion is that this case is probably the most important sex discrimination case ever decided under Title XII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination based on sex. Easterbrook estimates that women could be denied 15 to 20 million industrial jobs that have some risk of exposure to toxic chemicals.

The judge's opinion warns of the possible ramifications of upholding the company's policy: "A female bus or taxi driver is exposed to noxious fumes and the risk of accidents, all hazardous to a child she" carries. Would it follow that taxi and bus companies can decline to hire women? That an employer could forbid pregnant employees to drive cars because of the risks accidents pose to fetuses?"

The date for the Supreme Court to hear this case has not yet been set. While the lower courts invalidated similar fetal protection policies in the past, they have become more common in recent years. Groups supporting the UAW are publicizing the case and its potential ramifications.

plenty of time on the phone with other campuses, urging the state's students to publicize the Walkout at their own schools.

Stein noted that the pro-choice struggle has blossomed at Brandeis itself. "There's also starting to be more networking among the women's political organizations on campus," she said. "People have kind of found a way to take their direction and add it into the organization."

And what about campus activism as a whole right now? "As the years have gone on," said Stein, "people have become more aware of the issues and are willing to put their time into them, and are beginning to see a political tinge to what's happening."

BVC plans to be around for whatever comes next. "The Walkout is just one part of BVC," promised Rutkin. "We will continue networking all over the Northeast.' FIGHT A Walnut Publishing Co. pamphlet Shirley Pasholk

----- pull-quotes -----

BEWAREL KEEP ABORTION LEGAV-

claim that their policy rests on their concern for workers' safety, workplace safety advo-