• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

A reallocation of rights in industries with reproductive health hazards.

作者信息

Robinson J C, Giacomini M K

机构信息

School of Public Health, University of California-Berkeley.

出版信息

Milbank Q. 1992;70(4):587-603.

PMID:1435627
Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in United Automobile Workers versus Johnson Controls prohibits hiring policies that exclude fertile women from industries posing reproductive health risks to workers and fetuses. Many toxic substances that threaten the developing fetus also pose risks to adult male and female workers. Exclusionary employment policies are socially undesirable for the following reasons: they may lead to worse reproductive outcomes if the indirect effects of lower wages and less adequate health insurance in the alternative available jobs are considered. Second, the effect of such policies could damage the individual woman's overall well-being through its economic impact and her potential loss in autonomy. Third, occupational segregation into less hazardous but lower-paying jobs reinforces gender stereotypes that are restrictive to women. The Supreme Court ruling in the Johnson Controls case reaffirms the importance of the Civil Rights Act as both a shield against unfair treatment for individual women and a commitment to eradicate sexist attitudes and economic inequality throughout society.

摘要

相似文献

1
A reallocation of rights in industries with reproductive health hazards.
Milbank Q. 1992;70(4):587-603.
2
Can employers exclude women to protect children?
JAMA. 1990;264(16):2113-7.
3
International Union, UAW v. Johnson Controls, Inc.
Wests Supreme Court Report. 1991 Mar 20;111:1196-217.
4
Fetal protection and freedom of contract.胎儿保护与契约自由。
Public Aff Q. 1992 Jul;6(3):305-26.
5
Fetal protection policies in the workplace: continuing controversy in light of Johnson Controls.工作场所的胎儿保护政策:鉴于江森自控公司事件,争议仍在继续。
Politics Life Sci. 1992 Aug;11(2):215-29. doi: 10.1017/s0730938400015227.
6
Fetal protection: law, ethics and corporate policy.胎儿保护:法律、伦理与企业政策。
J Bus Ethics. 1992 Oct;11(10):731-5. doi: 10.1007/BF00872304.
7
From spiritual descriptions to legal prescriptions: religious imagery of women as "fetal container" in the law.从精神描述到法律规定:法律中女性作为“胎儿容器”的宗教意象
J Law Relig. 1993;10(1):73-93.
8
International Union, UAW v. Johnson Controls, Inc.
Fed Report. 1989 Sep 26;886:871-921.
9
Women's job rights collide with fears of birth defects.女性的工作权利与对出生缺陷的担忧发生冲突。
N Y Times Web. 1990 Sep 2:1, 28.
10
Health, equity, and reproductive risks in the workplace.工作场所中的健康、公平与生殖风险。
J Public Health Policy. 1990 Winter;11(4):449-62.

引用本文的文献

1
Engendering health disparities.造成健康差异。
Can J Public Health. 2005 Mar-Apr;96 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S78-96. doi: 10.1007/BF03403704.