Re: DECLARED PREGNANT WORKER WAIVERS

[mozley@darius.pet.upenn.edu (P. David Mozley)]

>you said . . . that you require some minimal participation in
>the education program by all pregnant workers, not just the ones who have
>declared their pregnancy.  Did I understand correctly?  If so, how do you go
>about identifying (other than a visual inspection in the last few months!)
>those pregnant workers who must attend your training?
>
>Sue Dupre/Health Physicist/Princeton University

Touche'.  Thank you for clarifying the issue.  We do not know who is
pregnant, and it's none of our business.  Visual inspection does not always
differentiate a tumor from a baby, and we would have no right to look at a
person's belly even if it could.  Our program is intended to be
educational, and is required to be consistent with our mission as a
libertarian institute of higher learning.  Most of us did not need the
Supreme Court to tell us that we have no right to scrutinize or regulate
the behavior of women (period, or who may be pregnant, however you would
like the sentence to end).  The educational program we have predates the
recent re-politicalization of the issue.  We psuedo-require some special
education on the basis of our right to require learning radiation safety.
The tone and intent are both cooperative.  Women are not required to sign
anything.  The purpose is to help them if they want help, not cover our own
tails.

Please accept my sincerest apologies if I misrepresented our objectives.
What I was trying to say (obliquely/diplomatically) was that I found
Hawaii's approach unacceptable on several levels.

mozley@darius.pet.upenn.edu