"Responsibilities are shifted each time I go to a doctor's appointment," Lukas said. "That means I'm unavailable to do whatever work needs to be done during that time, which means one of my colleagues is often picking up the slack."
As free-market economists have long suggested, there's a way to resolve such a conflict: voluntary exchange for mutual benefit. Carrie and her employer made a deal that works for both of them. She works fewer hours and earns less money.
I confronted Sanford with the idea that lawsuits he files actually harm women because companies view them as potential lawsuit bombs.
He was unfazed: "If they do take that position, they'd be violating the law. If companies lose money because of it -- and they may -- that's not necessarily a bad thing from a societal perspective."
I think it's a very bad thing. Employment and productivity matter. But viewers agreed with him. I got hate mail:
"It is unbelievable that ABC would consider airing this piece! ... This turns back the clock 30 years, and Betty Friedan is rolling in her grave!"
"What in the heck is wrong with you, John Stossel? This kind of backwards thinking only exists in third world countries."
How would the job market work without discrimination laws?
"You don't have to hire me, and I don't have to work for you," answers Carrie Lukas.
Who would hire pregnant women?
"Plenty of employers. ... Women are incredibly productive members of the workforce," Lukas said. "We have a lot to offer. If an employer is going to discriminate against enough people, it's going to be bad for them in the long run. It's a bad business practice. And that's the best way to prevent discrimination."
Losing Jobs Over Ex-Im’s Expiration? Don’t Believe ItLosing Jobs Over Ex-Im’s Expiration? Don’t Believe It | Ed Feulner