Defenders of special protective labor
　　legislation for women often maintain
　　that eliminating such laws would
　　destroy the fruits of a century-long
(5) struggle for the protection of women
　　workers. Even a brief examination of
　　the historic practice of courts and
　　employers would show that the fruit
　　of such laws has been bitter: they
(10) are , in practice, more of a curse
　　than a blessing.
　　　Sex-defined protective laws have
　　often been based on stereotypical
　　assumptions concerning women's needs
(15) and abilities, and employers have
　　frequently used them as legal excuses
　　for discriminating against women.
　　After the Second World War, for
　　example, businesses and government
(20) sought to persuade women to vacate
　　jobs in factories, thus making room
　　in the labor force for returning
　　veterans. The revival or passage of
　　state laws limiting the daily or weekly
(25) work hours of women conveniently
　　accomplished this. Employers had only
　　to declare that overtime hours were
　　a necessary condition of employment
　　or promotion in their factory, and
(30) women could be quite legally fired,
　　refused jobs, or kept at low wage
　　levels, all in the name of "protecting"
　　their health. By validating such laws
　　when they are challenged by lawsuits,
(35) the courts have colluded over the years
　　in establishing different, less advant-
　　ageous employment terms for women
　　than for men, thus reducing women's
　　competitiveness on the job market.
(40) At the same time, even the most well-
　　intentioned lawmakers, courts, and
　　employers have often been blind to
　　the real needs of women. The lawmakers
　　and the courts continue to permit
(45) employers to offer employee health
　　insurance plans that cover all known
　　human medical disabilities except
　　those relating to pregnancy and
　　childbirth.
(50) 　Finally, labor laws protecting only
　　special groups are often ineffective
　　at protecting the workers who are
　　actually in the workplace. Some
　　chemicals, for example, pose repro-
(55) ductive risks for women of child-
　　bearing years; manufacturers using
　　the chemicals comply with laws
　　protecting women against these
　　hazards by refusing to hire them.
(60) Thus the sex-defined legislation
　　protects the hypothetical female
　　worker, but has no effect whatever
　　on the safety of any actual employee.
　　The health risks to male employees in
(65) such industries cannot be negligible,
　　since chemicals toxic enough to cause
　　birth defects in fetuses or sterility
　　in women are presumably harmful to the
　　human metabolism. Protective laws
(70) aimed at changing production materials
　　or techniques in order to reduce such
　　hazards would benefit all employees
　　without discriminating against any.
　　　In sum, protective labor laws for
(75) women are discriminatory and do not
　　meet their intended purpose. Legislators
　　should recognize that women are in the
　　work force to stay, and that their
　　needs-good health care, a decent wage,
(80) and a safe workplace-are the needs of
　　all workers, Laws that ignore these
　　facts violate women's rights for equal
　　protection in employment.

According to the author, which
of the following resulted from the
passage or revival of state laws
limiting the work hours of women
workers?
Women workers were compelled to
leave their jobs in factories.
Many employers had difficulty in
providing jobs for returning veterans.