{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,7]],"date-time":"2026-09-07T17:29:03Z","timestamp":1788802143918,"version":"build-2803163510"},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"Oxford University Press (OUP)","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2022,4,5]],"date-time":"2022-04-05T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1649116800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":94,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-nd\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2022,1,1]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n               <jats:p>This article considers challenges for the European Union (EU) maternity and pregnancy rights framework when faced with advances in reproductive technology. Specifically, we consider how the introduction of the \u2018artificial womb\u2019 technology, an alternative to bodily gestation, would impact the availability of rights that exist under the maternity and discrimination framework. Employment rights in the EU context have already been confronted by the challenges of advancements in reproduction. We use the case law on in vitro fertilization (IVF) and surrogacy as a baseline for unpacking the challenges that \u2018artificial wombs\u2019 will bring. This analysis of the legal framework on maternity rights and sex discrimination will highlight potential avenues for integrating this technology and ensuring the continuation of rights for those opting for it. We advocate against the stratification of maternity and pregnancy rights based on the reproductive and gestational choices made by the pregnant person.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1093\/jlb\/lsac009","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2022,3,3]],"date-time":"2022-03-03T12:12:53Z","timestamp":1646309573000},"source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":21,"title":["Artificial womb technology, pregnancy, and EU employment rights"],"prefix":"10.1093","volume":"9","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-2396-7359","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Victoria","family":"Hooton","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Max Planck Institute for Legal History and Legal, Theory, European and Comparative Legal History, Frankfurt, Germany"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-8774-4015","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Elizabeth Chloe","family":"Romanis","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Durham University, Durham Law School, Durham, UK"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"286","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2022,4,4]]},"container-title":["Journal of Law and the Biosciences"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/jlb\/article-pdf\/9\/1\/lsac009\/43257726\/lsac009.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"syndication"},{"URL":"https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/jlb\/article-pdf\/9\/1\/lsac009\/43257726\/lsac009.pdf","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2022,4,5]],"date-time":"2022-04-05T13:13:23Z","timestamp":1649164403000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/jlb\/article\/doi\/10.1093\/jlb\/lsac009\/6563420"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2022,1,1]]},"references-count":0,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2022,1,1]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/jlb\/lsac009","relation":{},"ISSN":["2053-9711"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2053-9711","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published-other":{"date-parts":[[2022,1]]},"published":{"date-parts":[[2022,1,1]]},"article-number":"lsac009"}}