There are undoubtedly other matters in which protective legislation for women might be extended for reasons not involving any deficiency of constitutional status. Without indulging in speculation regarding social needs or moral dangers, we may point to the provisions of the German trade code, which recognize the special needs of working women. The right given to women who manage their household, to ask for an extra half hour at noon, if the period of noon rest is less than an hour and a half, is probably, like all other privileges made dependent upon special request, of little practical value. The rule that women must not be employed after five o’clock in the afternoon on Saturdays and the eve of holidays, is, however, mandatory, and is likewise clearly dictated by a regard for household duties. Above all there is the prohibition of employment before and after confinement, altogether for eight weeks, the return to work requiring proof that at least six weeks have elapsed since confinement. In accordance with the recommendations of the Berlin Conference of 1890, England in 1891 likewise placed a restriction upon the employment of women for four weeks after childbirth, but the enforcement of the law seems to suffer from administrative difficulties.[66] The present scarcity of similar legislation in this country seems to be due, not so much to constitutional doubts or difficulties, as to the fact that there does not appear to have been the same demand, or perhaps, owing to the less common employment of married women, the same occasion for such a restriction. Should the necessity for such legislation arise there ought to be no fear that the constitutions stand in the way of appropriate and adequate protection. Our present statutes by no means exhaust the permissible field of state interference. III