I was assuming that someone who applies for a job is at least somewhat qualified
I see you have not spent much time trying to hire people. Especially in, say, computer science, where the
majority of applicants for any given position will have no ability to program.
or potential baby-making in the future (no matter what she says now).
Which is why the best way to handle this is to structure the incentives so men are as likely and capable of being an equal "liability" to the company.
The reality of the situation, right now, is that a woman is more likely to be a risk because of of that. Since we can't make that risk go away (and we believe the risk itself is an acceptable one), we should consider the alternatives, and seek to distribute the risk among both genders. (The fact that this would have tons of child-rearing bonuses, break down some of the walls holding men back from domestic duties, and allow women to work more are all side benefits).
If breaking this is really your goal, what you should be aiming for is making it law then men need to take at least 6 months off work to care for your children. THEN watch the situation change.
But no, you'd never see anyone pushing for a law like that because it is doable(simple law change, fairly easy to enforce as laws go), effective (it would actually accomplish the stated goals, and fairly quickly), and justifiable (parents SHOULD have to spend time taking care of their children if they decide to have children).