Sophie Currier's legal victory to win extra time to pump milk while sitting for her medical boards has very little to do with the collateral facts of her case. Cases in which plaintiffs litigate big public policy issues are rarely people with whom we would want to spend time. How many of us would want to have lunch with Michael Newdow, the non-custodial father who brought the case challenging the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance or Barbara Grutter, the white applicant to the University of Michigan law school who successfully challenged that school's affirmative action policy?

The important question arising from this case is what accomodations should we make to allow women to participate in the workforce as the same footing as men. Many commentors on this forum have mentioned that Currier should have waited to have a child until a different point in her life. It seems strange to argue that a woman (and in this case, presumably her husband) should alter her child-bearing plans because of a test conducted on a single day, but I suppose each person is entitled to his or her own opinion. I simply would ask these commentators if they would ask the same of Currier's male colleagues if some circumstances arose in which their family planning choices interfered on test day. Whether we personally chose to have children or not, biologically, only women can have children and only women can breastfeed. If we want to address the twin goals of perpetuating the species and increasing the number of women in various professions that require long licensing exams, we will have to address these questions from time to time. And while it may feel like "special treatment," there is just simply not a comparable situation men experience (other than perhaps some medical situations).