|
Oh No! Not Again! Equal Rights Amendment?
She's at it again! Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, a strong supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), circulated a "Dear Colleague" letter, on July 6th, 2009, in which she invited co-sponsorship of ERA, sometimes referred to as the Woman's Equality Amendment, which she intends to re-introduce soon. I believe that Congresswoman Maloney, did the same thing in 2001.
Congresswoman Maloney's resolution, adds to the Constitution, the following amendment; "Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged, by the United States, or by any State on account of sex. |
|
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of the Article. This Amendment, shall take effect, two years after the date of ratification."
Dejas Vous? In 1972, the same language was proposed, with a 7 year ratification deadline. The deadline passed, without ratification, by the required number of states. This time, Congresswoman Maloney, apparantly does not intend to attach any deadline. |
|
ERA Abortion Connection
Leading pro-abortion groups - including the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Planned Parenthood - have strongly urged state courts to construe state ERAs to require tax-funded abortion on demand, and state ERAs have been so construed in New Mexico and Connecticut. |
|
The laws, that provide women with equal rights, already exist. The fourteenth amendment of the constitution, has been interpreted by the courts, to prohibit gender-based discrimination. Other existing laws, that provide women with equal rights, cover virtually all areas of American life - education, employment, credit eligibility, housing and public accommodations. The major problem with the ERA is it's wording. It simply states, "Equality of rights under law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex." In essence, women are not being guaranteed equal rights; rather gender is being removed, as a legal characteristic, on which to base distinctions. As a result, this wording in state ERAs, has been interpreted by courts to remove the critical protection of wife and child support, mandate state funding of elective abortions and legalize same-sex marriage. Given the legal precedents, passage of the federal ERA will lead to a loss of such protections as alimony, child custody, social security benefits (for women who choose to stay home with their children), exemption from the military draft registration, and exemption from front-line combat duty. |
|
Anticipating the extreme interpretations, that would occur in a legally mandated genderless society, lawmakers in Congress proposed moderating amendments to protect women, when the ERA was drafted. Congress rejected each of these moderating amendments. The courts will look to this legislative history to determine the intent of the lawmakers, which obviates the naive belief, that the courts, under the ERA ,would continue to protect women in the areas that need distinction. |
|
The ERA would also transfer enormous power from state legislatures, to the Federal government, since it empowers Congress to enforce it. The areas affected would include marriage, divorce, family property law, adoptions, abortion, alimony, some criminal laws, public and private schools, prison regulations and insurance rates. Such a transfer would create an imbalance of power between the states and the federal government and place sensitive issues under the rule of a national government, that is far less responsive to individuals, than the state legislatures. In addition, the ERA would empower the federal courts to determine the meaning of "equality of rights" and "sex". In essence we would be handing the state's legislative power to Congress and the unelected judges of our federal courts. |
|
Once a court adopts the legal doctrine, that a law targeting abortion, is by definition, a form of discrimination based on sex and therefore is not allowed under an ERA, the same doctrine would invalidate virtually any limitation on abortion. Also at risk, would be federal and state conscious laws, which gives the right to medical personnel, to refuse to participate in abortions. Moreover, the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, published a booklet, that encourages pro-abortion litigators, to use state ERAs, as a legal weapon against state parental notification or consent laws. |
|
The ERA is not about women's rights. It's about creating a genderless society, that removes "sex" as a legal characteristic. ERA will legalize all gay rights, including same-sex marriage. The Hawaii supreme court ruled, that the denial of marriage licences, to same-sex couples is sex discrimination and un-constitutional under Hawaii's state ERA. |
|
ERA Alive or Dead?
This is strange. At the same time proponents are urging congress to approve a new federal ERA resolution, many ERA proponents insist, that the ERA that Congress approved in 1972, is still eligible for ratification by state legislatures. They also insist, only 3 more ratifications, are need to make the 1972 resolution part of the Constitution. More to follow. |
|
Remedy, An Abortion Neutral Amendment
In 1983, Congressman Sensen Vrenner offered the following amendment, "Nothing in the ERA shall be construed to grant, secure, or deny any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof."
What can you do?
Contact your U.S. Representative, ask them to adopt the Sensenbrenner amendment making the ERA itself neutral regarding abortion policy. Click here for contact information for your U.S. Representative. |
|
Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney circulated a "Dear Colleague" letter in which she invited co sponsorship of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), sometimes referred to as the Women's Equality Amendment.
We are opposed to the Equal Rights Amendment because the ERA would invalidate any limitation on abortion. It would invalidate the federal Hyde Amendment and all state restrictions on taxpayer funded abortions. ERA would nullify any state or federal restrictions on partial-birth abortions or third trimester abortions since these are only sought by women. Also, at risk, would be all federal and state conscience clauses which allow government supported medical facilities and personnel, including religious affiliated hospitals to refuse to participate in abortions. Moreover, the ACLU's "Reproductive Freedom Project" published a booklet that encourages pro-abortion litigators to use state ERA's as legal weapons against state parental notice and consent laws.
Please call your U.S. Rep and tell them NO on co sponsorship on ERA, and when introduced, NO on ERA.
CD 10 is Mark Kirk at 202-225-4835 or 847-940-0202. CD 8 is Melissa Bean at 202-225-3711 or 847-519-3434.
|
