It always shocked me that having an Equal Rights Amendment would be controversial. But apparently having constitutional rights is quite contentious.
Scripps Howard reports that Phyllis Schlafly said the ERA would require taxpayers to pay for abortions, make homosexual rights part of the Constitution and take away a woman’s special position as emotional nurturer in the home. Ahh, Phyllis. Always so logical.
From Rep. Carolyn Maloney's office:
Text of the Equal Rights Constitutional Amendment
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
Real radical, huh?
Also check out: Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy; Pseudo-Adrienne; and
ms. jared.
Pic of Kim Gandy and members of Congress from NOW.
The provisions of the ERA are covered by the 14th Amendment.
"The provisions of the ERA are covered by the 14th Amendment."
Ha ha ha ha ha. Good one. What are you, a first year law student?
sorry that may have been a little harsh. my point was only that that is a very cheery position to take of the 14th amendment.
Thanks for linking me!
Take out "ERA would require taxpayers to pay for abortions" and it may actually have a chance. As long as that is part of it, such an amendment will never pass.
But, hypothetically speaking, if it does, and we're all paying for abortions (some of us against our most fundamental beliefs), does this mean we all will be eligible for free gender exclusive medical procedures? I guess I shouldn't be surprised if we were all forced to pay for such a procedure. We already pay for things like drug treatment because people have no concept of personal accountability.
By the way, can anyone explain to me how free abortions equates to gender equity? I have to pay for all of my health care.
um, Shawn, unless i'm completely reading this wrong, the comment that "ERA would require taxpayers to pay for abortions" is _not_ part of the text of the ERA - it's what opponents are spinning the ERA as...
I just don't think there's any legal necessity for the ERA. I think the 14th amendment rather explicitly prohibit gender inequality under the law:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Yesterday saw an article, that the American men do not concede to women of a place in public transport... Well as at them there an equality of sexes etc., equality, the constitution...