Should laws allow companies to prohibit a pregnant woman from working where her fetus may be harmed?

Fetal protection policy was at issue in a case against Johnson Controls, Inc. (Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991)) In the case involving the UAW against Johnson Controls, Inc., the union argued that women should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to become pregnant and that, in the event that they do become pregnant, women should be free to choose for themselves whatever course of action they believe will safeguard their offspring from environmental hazards.

Pro: Employers want to keep pregnant women out of dangerous circumstances, so that the liability for harm may be avoided. Companies run the risk of being sued by women whose children are damaged by the activities associated with their jobs or by the environments in which they work.

Pro: Most pregnancies are unplanned, and so any woman who could become pregnant, regardless of her stated intentions, should be excluded from employment in areas hazardous to the development of a fetus.

Con: The policy of excluding women from employment in circumstances which may be harmful to the development of a fetus is too broad. The concern for safeguarding a fetus may prompt some companies to exclude from the workforce women who are only presumed to be pregnant or even women of a childbearing age who exhibit no sign of pregnancy. Such a policy discriminates unfairly against all women, including those who have no intention to get pregnant.

Con: Companies that have a right to exclude women that they deem to be at risk for fetal damage consider women to be incapable of directing their own lives.

Pro: Companies must operate in a manner that protects their workers against health hazards. Companies attempting to exclude women from employment are acting responsibly to protect fetuses.

Con: Parents and not employers should be in control of the protection of their offspring.