The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is Dead, but Democrats try to revive Frankenstein

UPDATE 2: U.S. House Ignores Constitution to Vote for ERA!

UPDATE: Deadline 9:45 AM CST 2/13/20 Ask your Rep to vote NO on ERA!

Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121

More Details from Eagle Forum at the end of this Post!

At the request from singularzoe I am reposting some content from yesterday’s Daily Thread:

This is extremely important. Thank you for posting it, and may I suggest you post it again tomorrow early in the day on the daily thread in case some do not see it this evening? Many do not realize how dangerous the ERA is. Some are too young to know its history or the hidden agenda behind it.

Many washed up 1970s feminists have been dreaming of an epic “do-over” on the Equal Rights Amendment. Astute QTree observers during the 2019 State of the Union noticed that the ERA pin had been revived in the attire of the Democrat women present. This is despite the ERA being as dead as a door nail.

What is the ERA? The following is from Wikipedia, with my minor edits:

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex. It seeks to end the legal distinctions between men and women in matters of divorce, property, employment, and other matters.

It sounds so beautiful, so wonderful, who could be opposed to such a thing?

Phyllis Schlafly, of course! She saw through the ruse that in fact this would destroy many of the privileges and rights that women enjoyed, and wreck havoc on families. Through her tireless efforts, the amendment was successfully defeated in 1982 when the deadline for states to ratify passed three votes short.

Yes, the ERA is dead.

However, leftists are never ones to be bothered by little things like “rules” and have asserted that they can simple revise the deadline in the legislation and voilà, like magic, the amendment is ratified!

Given the radicals behind the “Green New Deal” and the “Blue New Deal” (radical immigration reform) are also pursuing the “ERA New Deal” it is worth reviewing the history and where things stand, not to mention what the future goals of the left are in a revived ERA.

In short, the goal of the revived ERA is to prevent Roe vs. Wade from being overturned in the courts by (presumably) enshrining it in a constitutional amendment.

To quote Sylvia: Evil never sleeps it is simply relentless.

No wonder she keeps a shovel beside her bed.

AFA Sounding the Alarm on the ERA

Tell Congress to vote NO on Equal Rights Amendment resolution

Wednesday, February 12, 2020

The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote tomorrow on a resolution, H.J.Res.79, to remove the June 30, 1982 deadline for state legislatures to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Obviously, the deadline has expired, but this isn’t preventing members of Congress, primarily Democrats, from attempting to remove the deadline and advance pro-abortion and pro-transgender rights enshrined in the ERA.

Pro-abortion activist group NARAL Pro-Choice America supports the ERA resolution stating, “With its ratification, the ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion by clarifying that the sexes have equal rights, which would require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws because they violate both the constitutional right to privacy and sexual equality.”

Contact and urge your member of Congress to vote no on the ERA resolution.

The ERA was a proposed constitutional amendment introduced and passed by the House (1971) and the Senate (1972). Originally, the ERA would have to be ratified by 38 state legislatures prior to the original deadline of March 22, 1979. But proponents of the ERA realized it would not be ratified by the necessary 38 state legislatures by that deadline.

Therefore, pro-ERA advocates pressured Congress in 1978 to extend the ratification deadline to June 30, 1982. Now, the House is wanting to pass H.J.Res.79 to extend the deadline, again.

If the House passes the resolution, it will face a near certain death in the Senate. That’s not the only hurdle congressional Democrats are facing in their attempt to remove the current 1982 deadline. First, there’s the legal challenge. The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel issued the following opinion on January 6, 2020:

The ERA Resolution has expired and is no longer pending before the States. Even if one or more state legislatures were to ratify the 1972 proposal, that action would not complete the ratification of the amendment, and the ERA’s adoption could not be certified under 1 U.S.C. § 106b. In addition, we conclude that when Congress uses a proposing clause to impose a deadline on the States’ ratification of a proposed constitutional amendment, that deadline is binding and Congress may not revive the proposal after the deadline’s expiration.

The other challenge would be in the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal on the court and a supporter of the ERA, recently indicated the clock has run out on ratifying the ERA. In reference to the state of Virginia’s recent vote to ratify the ERA, Ginsburg said, “I would like to see a new beginning. I’d like it to start over. There’s too much controversy about late comers.” She then referred to Virginia’s move coming “long after the deadline passed.” Justice Ginsburg’s comments follow and bolster the DOJ opinion against changing the ERA deadline.

Regardless of the hurdles the ERA will face, it’s important you contact and urge your representative to vote against removing the deadline for ratifying the ERA.

Sincerely,

Rob Chambers, Vice-President
AFA Action

Warnings by the Susan B. Anthony List

Pro-abortion members of Congress are trying yet again to massively expand abortion access and make YOU pay for it.

This time, they’re using the Equal Rights Amendment to do so. “Equal rights” sounds nice, right? Well, it’s anything but…

Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the ACLU, to name just a few, want the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) passed because they say it would guarantee a right to abortion, funded by YOU — the taxpayers.

In fact, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the state’s ERA requires taxpayer funding of abortion! We must STOP this madness to protect the lives of unborn babies across America.

When Congress was debating the amendment when it was proposed back in the 1970s, pro-abortion members of Congress rejected efforts to make the amendment abortion-neutral.

If you think it’s strange that we’re talking about an amendment that Congress considered in the 70’s, you’re not alone.

Over four decades ago, Congress passed the ERA and sent it to the states for ratification. But not enough states ratified the ERA, the deadline passed, and the amendment died.

Even the Department of Justice issued a memo on the ERA, saying that it is in fact dead, and cannot be ratified retroactively.

But today, pro-abortion politicians have decided to pretend the amendment never died.

Three more states voted to ratify the expired ERA, and pro-abortion members of Congress are pushing forward with a vote in the House on a resolution erasing the deadline that expired four decades ago!

Since Roe v. Wade, abortion has been the cause of death for an estimated 60 MILLION unborn children, of which approximately 30 MILLION were unborn little girls.

An amendment to create a constitutional right to abortion on demand would lead to the deaths of untold millions more, paid for by American taxpayers.

This is NOT equality.

Not only is this process completely illegitimate, but the ERA would also install a sweeping legal mandate for abortion on demand, funded with taxpayer dollars, into the Constitution of the United States.

So please, tell your representative to vote NO on H.J.Res. 79 to stop the ERA from ever becoming law.

For LIFE,
Hon. Marilyn Musgrave
Vice President of Government Affairs
Susan B. Anthony List

Deplorable Patriot is the News Now!

Deplorable Patriot posted the following piece immediately following the 2019 State of the Union. I’m only going to quote part of it, and like all other QTree posts is rich with insightful comments.

Democrats In White Forget That Phyllis Schlafly Was Right

 

Mrs. Schlafly’s primary concern in opposing the ERA was not to stop women from being who and what they were meant to be, she did go back to school to get a law degree after all, but to protect the American family. At the beginning of her fight in the early 1970s, Mrs. Schlafly predicted that with the passage and ratification of the ERA, several social changes would occur that would be detrimental to the future of the nation.

Why “STOP ERA”? Phyllis Schlafly traveled across the U.S. throughout the 1970s calling for opposition to the ERA because it would lead to the following, most of which pro-ERA lawyers argued were not actually real threats from the ERA:

  • Homosexual marriages: traditional gender roles were, Schlafly argued, essential for preserving the family.
  • Women in combat: women, Schlafly argued, would weaken the military’s combat strength, and serving in the military would violate traditional gender norms.
  • Taxpayer-funded abortions: Schlafly, a … Catholic, ardently opposed abortion.
  • Unisex bathrooms: one of the best-known of the arguments Schlafly promoted, this was likely meant to create fear of losing a safe space. Schlafly argued that the ERA would also remove laws that depended on gender to define a sex crime, and that it would weaken laws about rape.
  • Elimination of Social Security benefits for widows: she believed women should not be in the paid workforce (though she herself was paid a salary) especially if they had young children, and so a Social Security benefit for women who had not earned their own benefits was essential to the mother’s ability to stay home.
  • Hurt families: She argued that the ERA would abolish a husband’s legal responsibility to support his wife and family, and making child support, that it would alter child support and alimony laws to make them gender neutral. In general, she argued that it would undermine the authority of men over women, which she saw as the proper power relationship for well-functioning families.

Many of these claims about what the ERA would do are disputed by legal scholars. On the other hand, some of these results evolved after the 1970s to become public policy, accepted by a majority of the electorate.

The Eagle Forum and so-called states’ rights groups warn that the ERA would transfer a great deal of power from state to federal governments.

Amazing isn’t it, that many of her predictions came true whether the ERA passed or not.

All these years later, Mrs. Schlafly’s ability to think logically down stream, as it were, and sound the alarm on so many issues that the people of the United States have been fighting in recent years did inspire Bloomberg, at least, to admit she was correct.

So if she was correct, and the ERA would have been a disaster for American women frankly by putting us on the same legal footing as men (can be drafted into the military, etc.), and it was defeated by the deadline imposed by Congress in 1982, why were the women in white pushing support for the long ago departed?

Basically, because they don’t believe it is dead.

It’s Too Late, Virginia — the ERA is Dead

Ahh, but the ERA is dead, Democrats.

It’s Too Late, Virginia — the ERA is Dead

By RITA DUNAWAY Published on January 17, 2020

“I am prepared to do everything I can to make sure the will of Virginians is carried out and women’s equality is enshrined in the Constitution.”

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, upon the Virginia General Assembly’s passage of a resolution purporting to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, January 15, 2020.

Politics today is not much different than entertainment. So much of what happens at all levels of government is about pleasing special interest groups, making constituencies feel good, or making rivals look bad. Sometimes, as with a resolution commending a winning sports team, this is harmless. But other times, the “show” costs dearly in terms of time, money and civic understanding.

The ERA has cost valuable time in the state legislatures that purport to have “ratified” it in recent years.

The current hubbub about the Equal Rights Amendment is a good example of political grandstanding that exacts a high price on our Republic. It has cost valuable time in the state legislatures that purport to have “ratified” it in recent years. It will cost precious funds in pointless lawsuits. But perhaps the greatest cost of all is what it detracts from people’s understanding of a valuable constitutional process.

Article V — the Constitutional Amendment Process

Article V of the U.S. Constitution is one of our founding document’s lesser-known provisions — and one of its most important. It outlines the process for amending the Constitution.

Article V prescribes two ways in which amendments can be proposed. Congress can propose them when two-thirds of the House and the Senate agree. Amendments may also be proposed at a convention upon application of two-thirds of the states. Regardless of which body proposes an amendment, it must be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38) before it can be added to the Constitution.

Unfortunately, much confusion surrounds the second option for proposing amendments. The “convention of the states” process was familiar to the founders, but has fallen out of use in modern times. This lack of modern experience, combined with the lack of procedural detail in the text of Article V, has led a number of otherwise smart people to conclude that we have no idea how a convention for proposing amendments would operate.

That suggestion is nonsense. We know all the important aspects of convention process from the wealth of historical precedents and founding-era writings.

When it comes to the more familiar process of Congress proposing amendments, citizens who might like to understand are now stymied by activists who refuse to concede points of law that are well-established.

Those well-established principles include the following (among many others):

  • Congress may set a deadline for states to ratify a proposed amendment.
  • Once Congress sets such a deadline, it is binding. Congress may not change the deadline in the middle of the process.
  • States may rescind their ratification of a proposed amendment up until ratification is actually achieved.

Each of these points has been decided by the courts. Each is relevant to the current effort to add an “Equal Rights Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution.

The Life and Death of the Equal Rights Amendment

Congress proposed the ERA in 1972. It set a 7-year deadline for the necessary 38 states to ratify it. When Congress saw that the deadline would not be met, it tried to extend the deadline to 1982. A federal court ruled that this was illegal — that Congress is not permitted to change the ratification process once it has begun.

No court has ever ruled otherwise. Simply put, there is no serious grounds for suggesting that the beleaguered ERA is anything but dead as a doornail.

But wait! There’s more! Even supposing that the states or Congress could ignore the original deadline, the ERA would still not be ratified. Why? Because a handful of states that initially ratified it later rescinded their ratifications.

Thus, as Article V expert Professor Rob Natelson describes it, the ERA campaign would have us believe “That every ratification counts, no matter how late; but that no state rescission counts, no matter how timely.” Sorry, but this doesn’t pass the straight face test.

ERA advocates can hold their press conferences, dance their victory dances and tie up the courts in frivolous lawsuits, but the ERA is dead. I, for one, am not sorry. The proposal is both unnecessary and poorly-drafted.

While politicians and special interests continue to beat their long-dead horse, I can only hope that their efforts will result in a new conversation about Article V. Let’s talk about amendments that we really do need in America today, and how we might actually obtain them.

ERA Ratification Status

As a quick aside, I want to highlight the status of the ERA ratification.

Note the color scheme:

Red: Ratified
Orange: RESCINDED
Green: Ratified in one house of legislature (Only PARTIAL ratification)
Blue: Not Ratified

This causes the map to be, well, confusing – and maybe that was the POINT

Nevertheless, the BLUE on GREEN states have never ratified the ERA.

And importantly, the ORANGE STATES BAD have RESCINDED their ratification. It’s hard to have a movement to ratify a constitutional amendment when losing ground… so naturally, the ad hoc lawfare solution is to deny that states have the right to rescind their vote. Does that mean that the constitutional amendment ending Prohibition is likewise invalid? Hmm.

There is precedent for repealing an amendment, and the notion that a state could not rescind a ratification is on incredibly thin legal ice.

Not that legal protocol matters to leftists. If they get full control of the courts they’ll do whatever they want regardless – lawlessness.

States that have not ratified the amendment:

  1. Alabama
  2. Arizona
  3. Arkansas
  4. Florida
  5. Georgia
  6. Louisiana
  7. Mississippi
  8. Missouri
  9. North Carolina
  10. Oklahoma
  11. South Carolina
  12. Utah
  13. Virginia

Despite a vigorous effort by women’s rights advocates, a push to pass the ERA in Virginia died in the state legislature in February [2018]. Similar efforts also failed [in 2018] in Arizona and Florida.

Per: https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/us/equal-rights-amendment-illinois-states-trnd/index.html

How Phyllis Schlafly profoundly changed America

The following is a September 9, 2016 article on Phyllis Schlafly – my comments in RED. Phyllis was the public face of the movement to stop the passage of the ERA. Frankly, without her effort it likely would have been fully ratified. It is impossible to overstate her contributions. The article below outlines the history and how Phyllis Schlafly took on one of the most powerful political juggernauts in American history almost single-handedly, created a giant political movement, and won.

Does this sound like someone we know?

To put this in chronological perspective, Phyllis Schlafly passed away during the 2016 election season, at the time when Operation Crossfire Hurricane was moving at top speed again Candidate Donald Trump. A time when literally all the heaviest forces of government were being abused to prevent Donald Trump from becoming President of the United States. And he still won.

How Phyllis Schlafly profoundly changed America
She created the modern pro-family movement and was its greatest activist
Her book changed the Republican party
What most pro-family conservatives today probably don’t know
September 9 2016

Phyllis Schlafly, who passed away at age 92 this week [Sep 2016], actually created the pro-family movement. She was the greatest and most successful pro-family activist in its history. That is not hyperbole; it is fact. Everyone else is miles behind. …

Unfortunately, most pro-family conservatives under a certain age really don’t know that much about her, or appreciate the enormity of her contributions, which continued up until her death. In our opinion, the numerous obituaries in the conservative and mainstream media about her haven’t done her justice.

A revolution within the GOP

She broke into national prominence in 1964 by publishing a book. Titled “A Choice, Not an Echo” It brilliantly described how for decades the GOP establishment and donor class had been selling out the principles held by average Republican voters and controlling the political process. It’s chilling to realize how similar it was to the situation that has fueled the rise of Donald Trump’s campaign in 2016. She saw the problem clearly back in the 60s.

At first she felt no publisher would take the book, so she sold it out of her garage. It really caught on, eventually selling over 3 million copies. It changed the history of the Republican Party.

“A Choice Not an Echo” is credited by many with igniting much of the Republican voter base and propelling Barry Goldwater’s nomination for president in 1964 over the will of the party establishment, and opening the door for Ronald Reagan’s run. Her book was that powerful.

Barry Goldwater for president campaign button.

Stopping the radical ERA from transforming America

But Phyllis (everyone we know called her by her first name) is best known for her work stopping the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the 1970s and early 1980s.

Today, many pro-family activists take on big causes. But no one else ever took on anything like the ERA single-handedly and won.

Constitutional amendments must pass two-thirds of both houses of Congress, and then three-quarters of the state legislatures (38 states) within seven years after that.

The Equal Rights Amendment was considered by everyone to be impossible to stop. In 1971 it blew through the US House of Representatives by 354-24. It then passed the Senate by 84-8. In 1972 was sent to the states for ratification. Within the first year, 30 state legislatures had ratified it. It was on a very fast track to become a Constitutional amendment.

Phyllis could see that the ERA was being sold to Americans as a noble “equal rights” cause, but it was really a Trojan horse being pushed by the most radical elements of society, particularly lesbian activists.

In her correct analysis, the ERA would be used to draft women for the military, force taxpayer-funded abortions and homosexual “marriage”, promote a constitutionally mandated breakdown of Judeo-Christian morality, push a new sexual revolution, re-write divorce laws, and much more. Far from helping women, it would make women’s lives much, much worse.

Women are different from men, she said, and “feminism” is a false ideology that tries to make man and women the same.

Straight talk. A key part of her attack was that unlike the wimpy mainstream pro-family movement of today, Phyllis was willing to tell the sordid, uncomfortable truth about the ERA and forces behind it – calmly, unemotionally, and fearlessly – refusing to water it down into mushy platitudes. This infuriated the Left and annoyed the establishment Republicans. She was definitely not “politically correct.”

The forces that lined up aggressively promoting the ERA were overwhelming. This included the full Democratic and Republican establishments, including enthusiastic support from Presidents Gerald Ford and later Jimmy Carter,  and their wives. It included virtually all of Hollywood, with major TV and movie stars doing endorsements, support from major corporations, and of course aggressive support by the entire mainstream media.

Like many conservatives, Phyllis was hated by the Left with a visceral passion. During her anti-ERA battle she was screamed at, sworn at, spat on, had things thrown at her, and even had pig’s blood poured on her. The infantile emotions of liberals haven’t changed at all. The fact that she routinely out-debated them made it even worse!

It had eerie similarities to today’s huge “culture war” battle.

This is the part that struck me most:

In 1972 Phyllis began her fight to stop the ERA. She was not only an incredibly articulate writer, speaker, and political thinker, but she was also an unbelievable organizer. She brought together and mobilized a very formidable army of thousands of women, mostly housewives, from across the country. This was before the Internet or even fax machines existed! And she taught them how to go to their state legislatures and lobby strategically and effectively despite the opposing them. Legislators had never seen anything like it.

You see that? Unbelievable organizer. Not some fly by night community organizer either.

Barnstorming state legislatures across America.

She also created hard-hitting pamphlets, wrote countless newspaper columns, gave speeches across the country, and appeared on numerous television interview shows — usually against a stacked deck, but still coming out on top.

Over the next eight years, five more states ratified ERA. But also during that time five other states – under pressure from Phyllis and her forces – rescinded their ratifications.

DO YOU SEE IT? BOOM!!!

They RESCINDED their ratifications!

Can that strategy work today?

YES IT CAN!!!

A year before the 1979 deadline Congress voted to extend the ratification deadline three more years, until June 30, 1982! But it didn’t work. The Schlafly army kept enormous pressure on any other states from ratifying it.

In the end, the ERA fell short by three states.

The larger story of this impossible victory is really fascinating for activists today. In 2009 Phyllis made this exciting video discussing it in detail. (It’s 43 minutes long, but worth watching.)

Creating the modern pro-family movement in America

The ERA battle and was the beginning of the modern pro-family movement in America.

Then as now, the Left  had enormous, seemingly limitless funding. Phyllis and her group, called the Eagle Forum, had only what the members could pull together. They paid for their own travel and supplies.

Phyllis had an almost supernatural ability to focus on success. This is a quality that is almost completely lacking in today’s pro-family movement, which seems to fold its tent at the first sign of trouble.

In the 1980s, the Moral Majority, Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, and other groups organized nationally and took on political battles – and more large national pro-family groups blossomed in the 1990s. But Phyllis had paved the way. And none of those other groups has changed America the way she did.

Phyllis’s list of other accomplishments over the years is monumental. You can read about most of them in this Human Events article.

The Eagle Forum

After the stunning victory over ERA, Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum organization blossomed. It has chapters across America and at one point, according to reports, had nearly 100,000 members. Over the years, Phyllis would tirelessly visit chapters around the country and speak at their banquets and work with their leaders.

Interestingly, the chapters had and still have a reputation for being much more “moderate” and non-confrontational in their approach to political action than Phyllis herself, although they are completely loyal to her ideas and philosophy and do not compromise on core pro-family principles.

This is probably because the women who take on the chapter leadership positions tend to be more “organizers” rather than firebrands, and are often married to wealthy husbands who can help with the chapter’s expenses. This is completely understandable, but has sometimes caused confusion to other conservatives expecting a more aggressive approach. And as a result, the chapters have rarely been as successful as Phyllis herself in stopping destructive liberal forces.

We believe that her independent approach also allowed Phyllis to build an independent fundraising network outside of the unreliable and mushy “mainstream” pro-family donor community.

Making the Republican Party pro-life

A lot of people today just assume that the Republican Party has always been pro-life. But after the Supreme Court abortion decision in 1973, the GOP establishment had little interest taking a stand. The pro-life platform was predominately due to the force of will of Phyllis Schlafly, who attended every GOP national convention since 1952, and got her people on the platform  committee.

Phyllis and today’s national pro-family movement

As the “culture wars” began to heat up in the 1990s, Phyllis never seemed to fit in with the emerging national pro-family establishment in America. And she was rarely invited to their national conferences or asked to participate in major events or planning sessions.

We consider that a mark of high distinction for Phyllis. It appears to us that she recognized that the national pro-family movement had become like the GOP establishment – a double-dealer to its supporters. Over time the pro-family “establishment” has consistently compromised the core principles of the larger base. It’s happened on homosexuality, civil unions, gay marriage, comprehensive sex-ed, and most recently transgenderism. They do it to appease the more moderate conservative donor class and avoid confrontations with the LGBT movement and the liberal media. Phyllis has consistently refused to play that dishonest game.

That “mild” approach would never have won the ERA battle. Phyllis never wavered on her core principles on any of the increasingly incendiary “culture war” issues. Instead, she held her own annual pro-family conference where she took on the issues she felt important, honored the politicians who deserved honor, and did it her way.

Skipping to the end of the article:

An intellectual dynamo until the end

Most people slow down when they become elderly. But Phyllis was an exception. She never missed a beat. Through her eighties she continued to be a forceful and dynamic speaker on the college circuit – often taking considerable abuse from “liberal” audiences while continuing to dish it out.

Right up until her death she continued to write books, columns, and articles that were simply outstanding. And it’s utterly amazing to watch the videos her interviews of her sharp analysis of current events from even weeks before her passing.

And the liberals hated her even in death. The Boston Globe called her “polarizing.” The wave of hateful and odious tweets and posts from the mindless liberal pundits and celebrities is a testament to her power over them.

There will never be another Phyllis Schlafly. She was the best. RIP.

The End?

To quote Sylvia: Evil never sleeps it is simply relentless.

The moral battle against the wickedness of leftism will not end. The leftists do not let little things like “laws” and “rules” get in the way of achieving their objectives.

Despite their preening that “the arc of history bends towards [NeoMarxist] ‘justice'” reality is an unforgiving teacher. History is there for anyone to learn from, and see the mistakes of others, and gives us a path on how we can move forward, if we allow ourselves to lose the self-righteous chronological snobbery that somehow, by magic, the youngest least educated and least experienced among us are the enlightened ones who will lead us into a new golden era. Idealists always believe their own rhetoric, even when faced with towering mountains of undeniable contrary evidence.

UPDATE!

Deadline 9:45 AM CST 2/13/20 Ask your Rep to vote NO on ERA

Since last April, Eagle Forum has been tracking the Equal Rights Amendment in the U.S. House of Representatives. Democrats and ERA activists have falsely claimed only one state is left to pass the ERA.

Upon passage in 1972, the ERA was sent to the states for ratification. 38 states needed to pass the amendment within seven years. In that time frame, only 35 states passed the ERA and 5 states rescinded their ratifications (Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky, South Dakota). The ERA failed ratification and in 1982 the Supreme Court in NOW v. Idaho ruled that the ERA was dead.

To validate their belief that the ERA is still eligible for ratification, the House is attempting to pass H.J. Res. 79, which retroactively removes the ratification deadline. Removing the ERA’s ratification deadline in this manner would be like Congress voting today to overturn a veto by President Carter. In addition, this maneuver sets the dangerous precedent that Congress can legislate away pieces of law that prevent them from furthering their political agenda. To add to this, Congress is undermining the will of the people in Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky, and South Dakota, who all rescinded ratification, by counting these five states as part of the original 35.

Consistent with the decision in NOW v. Idaho, the Department of Justice released an opinion on January 8, 2020. The DOJ stated:

“Congress may not revive a proposed amendment after a deadline for its ratification has expired. Should Congress wish to propose the amendment anew, it may do so through the same procedures required to propose an amendment in the first instance, consistent with Article V of the Constitution.”
Upon the release of this opinion, Representatives Maloney (D-CA), Speier (D-CA), Reed (D-NY), and Fitzpatrick (R-PA) released a joint press release. They said:
“Virginia’s vote and the outpouring of support from Americans –men and women – across the country have shown that it is finally time to affirm women’s equality in our Constitution and that there is no timeline or expiration date when it comes to achieving it.”

It should concern everyone that these ERA supporters call the deadline “arbitrary” and believe that the Constitution doesn’t already protect all people, including women, when indeed it does.

To add to this, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Dillon v. Gloss (1921) that Congress has the power to choose a reasonable time frame for the states to consider amendments. Amendments should have a “contemporaneous consensus” or a time frame that protects the Constitution and Americans from amendments that are no longer relevant to the current day. Most would agree that we’ve come a long way since the 1970s.

Even if the deadline hadn’t passed, the ERA is still a bad policy that harms women. There are many unintended consequences of not distinguishing between biological males and females. The clause “on account of sex” will surely be interpreted to provide for men identifying as women. Indeed, at the Federal level, the Equality Act and the Violence Against Women Act include provisions allowing men to take advantage of women’s only institutions, like women’s prisons, shelters, sports teams, restrooms, and locker rooms.

In addition, the amendment removes all protections for women merely because men don’t need those same protections. These include workplace practices that accommodate pregnant women, state labor laws for women who do heavy and manual work, government programs that support mothers, like WIC, and laws and presumptions that support women in the areas of alimony, child support, and the requirement of husbands to pay the medical bills of dependent wives. The ERA is sex neutral.

More importantly, the ERA will expand abortion. In both New Mexico and Connecticut, the state’s ERAs were used to overturn abortion restrictions and mandate taxpayer funding of abortion (N.M Right to Choose/NARAL v. JohnsonDoe v. Maher).

The ERA is dangerous and threatens the well-being of women and unborn children. Please ask your Representative to vote NO on H. Res. 79.

Click here for more information on the ERA.

Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121

UPDATE 2: U.S. House Ignores Constitution to Vote for ERA

Today the House voted to remove the ERA’s 7-year ratification deadline (H.J.Res. 79). For Members of the House supporting H.J.Res. 79, this was a purely symbolic vote. The ERA doesn’t give women anymore protections than they already have. The 14th Amendment, as well as many other laws like Title IX, the Equal Opportunity Act of 1963, the Equal Employment Opportunity Discrimination Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the Equal Pay Act provide women equal rights.

Removing the 7-year ratification deadline doesn’t bring the Amendment any closer to ratification. For 24 of the states that passed the ERA, their votes to ratify the ERA explicitly expired on March 22, 1979. To add to this, in 1982, the Supreme Court ruled in NOW v. Idaho that ERA failed ratification and was effectively dead. Earlier this year, the DOJ released an opinion supporting this decision.

On Tuesday, a Vox headline said, “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has “…dealt a fatal blow to the Equal Rights Amendment.” According to Justice Ginsberg, the ratification process must start over for the ERA to become enshrined into the Constitution. Phyllis Schlafly and RBG agree: ERA is dead on arrival.

The article went on further to say that, “Ginsburg’s comments are likely to be the death knell for the ERA. Without Ginsburg’s vote, it’s tough to imagine that five members of the Supreme Court would agree the ERA was properly ratified.”

“Congress should heed RBG’s advice instead of passing a Resolution removing a deadline that can’t be removed. In doing so, these Members have failed to protect the many women who’ve elected them.” said Eagle Forum President Eunie Smith. “Under the guise of “women’s equality,” the ERA will remove every distinction between the sexes and enshrine abortion into the Constitution. The ERA is not about protecting women. The Senate will be wise to not consider the measure.”

Eagle Forum’s Washington, D.C. staff, Tabitha Walter and Kirsten Hasler, were able to witness the vote in the House Gallery.

For more information on the ERA, please visit Eagle Forum’s website and listen to episode 6 of our podcast, Engage with Eagle ForumKirsten HaslerTabitha Walter, and Anne Schlafly Cori have also written on the harms of the ERA.

33 thoughts on “The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is Dead, but Democrats try to revive Frankenstein

  1. Sorry, I’ve got to take some issue with this. At the very least, the logic seems sloppy to me:

    And importantly, the ORANGE STATES BAD have RESCINDED their ratification. It’s hard to have a movement to ratify a constitutional amendment when losing ground… so naturally, the ad hoc lawfare solution is to deny that states have the right to rescind their vote. Does that mean that the constitutional amendment ending Prohibition is likewise invalid? Hmm.

    There is precedent for repealing an amendment, and the notion that a state could not rescind a ratification is on incredibly thin legal ice.

    Yes there’s certainly precedent for repealing an amendment. It must be done with another amendment!! It cannot be done, and wasn’t done, by states rescinding their approval.

    What I quoted appears to be trying to conflate the two concepts.

    I’m not sure one way or the other if a state can legitimately rescind its approval of an amendment that has not yet been ratified; that’d have to be decided by SCOTUS, probably. (The issue would come up if some amendment were ratified by the requisite 38 states, but before that happened, one of those states rescinded, making it arguable that the amendment were ratified [on the theory that states may not rescind], and arguable that it hadn’t been, because of the rescinding state, on the theory that states can do so. Only in that case would the issue matter enough that SCOTUS would take it up.)

    But it’s a certainty that a state cannot rescind a ratification after the amendment has been ratified. Once ratified an amendment is a part of the Constitution and can only be superseded by another amendment; it can’t be rubbed out because a ratifying state decided to change its mind.

    The quoted text implies that if we deny states the power to rescind their approval of an amendment, we are also denying that it’s possible to repeal an amendment by passing another amendment. That’s just utter nonsense; the two things are completely different.

    If we deny states the power to rescind approval of a not-yet-ratified amendment, it has NO effect on the ability of states to remove an amendment through the Article V process of another amendment. In fact you could do literally ANYTHING with an amendment, if you can get it ratified; we could change the US into an absolute monarchy run by the Caliph and provide for the execution of all non-Muslims–if we can get the amendment through Congress and ratified by 38 states.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. I understand the distinction you are making.

      “I’m not sure one way or the other if a state can legitimately rescind its approval of an amendment that has not yet been ratified….”
      I don’t think this is settled. I found an article that discusses a lot of the issues surrounding ratification at length:
      https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-5/ratification
      One passage:

      “…the Court in Dillon v. Gloss observed that Article V left to Congress the authority ‘to deal with subsidiary matters of detail as the public interest and changing conditions may require.’ 61 And, in Coleman v. Miller, Chief Justice Hughes went further in respect to these ‘matters of detail’ being ‘within the congressional province’ in the resolution of which the decision by Congress ‘would not be subject to review by the courts.’ 62

      “Thus, it may be that, if the Dillon v. Gloss construction is found persuasive, Congress would have constitutional standards to guide its decision on the validity of rescission. At the same time, if these precedents reviewed above are adhered to and strictly applied, it appears that the congressional determination to permit or to disallow rescission would not be subject to judicial review.”

      Several “ifs,” there. If Congress has the power to decide whether states can rescind, both houses would have to agree.

      Liked by 4 people

    2. Steve you caught me red-handed 😉

      I was rushing to push out the content and didn’t draw the distinction between rescinding an approval vs. rescinding an amendment. I had to make a choice between my perfectionism or saying “good enough” and actually getting something published.

      I’m not totally happy with the post but . . . meh, good enough 😉

      Definitely thanks for drawing attention and clarifying that difference – you are correct. And you do a good job at keeping us all honest around here!

      I’ll try to update the argument when I have a few more brain cycles to throw at it.

      Liked by 5 people

      1. Excellent article and complication. Unfortunately, I’m here in Virginia which just took up a big leftward term – thanks to Soros and Bloomberg money is our local elections…

        Anyway, I suspect it would hold up – a state could rescind their ratification of said amendment before it became enshrined in the Constitution. Afterward, it would require the states to rescind the entire amendment to remove it from the Constitution.

        The date for ratification has passed. That’s what the Supreme Court will deal with.

        It’s time, and I think it’s happening, there’s more of us than of the radical lefties, and we just have to stand up to them. POTUS is showing us how.

        Liked by 3 people

  2. I might be crazy but today, I think th ERA might be a good idea.

    It would end all these transgender arguments, and Title 9. Or it could be Title 9a and Title 9b.

    It would force true biology to be taught in school, instead of queer theory.

    I could go on but I need to prepare my fortifications for the soon-to-arrive rotten fruit assault.

    🙂

    Liked by 3 people

      1. Male and female humans are complementary…..they are in no way equal. Certainly, they should enjoy equal protection of our laws…..but good laws can recognize reality-based distinctions.

        As someone once wrote, regarding “The Female of the Species”

        When the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
        He shouts to scare the monster who will often turn aside.
        But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail,
        For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

        When Nag, the wayside cobra, hears the careless foot of man,
        He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can,
        But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail –
        For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

        When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
        They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws –
        ‘Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale –
        For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

        Man’s timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say,
        For the Woman that God gave him isn’t his to give away;
        But when hunter meets with husband, each confirms the others tale –
        The female of the species is more deadly than the male.

        Man, a bear in most relations, worm and savage otherwise,
        Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise;
        Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
        To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.

        Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
        To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
        Mirth obscene diverts his anger; Doubt and Pity oft perplex
        Him in dealing with an issue – to the scandal of the Sex!

        But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
        Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same,
        And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
        The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.

        She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
        May not deal in doubt or pity – must not swerve for fact or jest.
        These be purely male diversions – not in these her honor dwells –
        She, the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else!

        She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
        As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate;
        And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
        Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.

        She is wedded to convictions – in default of grosser ties;
        Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him, who denies!
        He will meet no cool discussion, but the instant, white-hot wild
        Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.

        Unprovoked and awful charges – even so the she-bear fights;
        Speech that drips, corrodes and poisons – even so the cobra bites;
        Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw,
        And the victim writhes with anguish – like the Jesuit with the squaw!

        So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer
        With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her
        Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
        To some God of abstract justice – which no woman understands.

        And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
        Must command but may not govern; shall enthrall but not enslave him.
        And She knows, because She warns him and Her instincts never fail,
        That the female of Her species is more deadly than the male!

        Liked by 7 people

    1. You’d be one of those Trojans saying, “it’s a fine idea to display this Greek sculpture of a horse in our main plaza — let’s open the gates and wheel it in!”

      Liked by 4 people

    2. You aren’t the only one who noticed this problem.

      In fact, the transgender issue might actually a be a “feature” rather than a “bug” in this new ERA push.

      And remember, with AOC and her Justice Democrat friends, they know that this legislation will die – they are pushing the Overton Windows, and setting people up for when a new leftist President is elected, that he can pass all these leftists dreams by executive order:

      The Green New Deal – Destroy the capitalist economy
      The New Way Forward – Destroy the American national identity
      and of course the ERA – Destroy all remaining concept of traditional sexual identity

      For those leftists who dream of social engineering writ large, this will be a giant celebration of their victorious colonization and conquest of the United States. Give them credit, they do prefer to think BIG.

      The Transgendered ERA
      Hadley Arkes
      https://americanmind.org/essays/the-transgendered-era/

      Yes, the ERA would extend beyond the federal government; it would override any laws in the States that contained any lingering discriminations between the sexes. But what our friends doing “conservative jurisprudence” are less apt to notice is the force and dynamism of the “moral” judgment that would come along inescapably with this Amendment: It is not merely that discriminations based on sex would be barred. They would be pronounced as deeply “wrong,” and they would fire the moral imagination.

      People would be cued then to notice, throughout the landscape, all those parts of our lives where differences in “sex”—and “sexuality”—can now be discovered.

      Who could have imagined in the 1950s or even 1960s that legislatures in the States and cities could actually pass laws decreeing penalties for employers or landlords who would dare express a personal distaste, or a moral objection, to the homosexual life? Laws barring discriminations based on “sexual orientation” are abounding now in the land. They have been fueled no doubt by the parts of the Civil Rights Laws that bar discriminations based on “sex”; and yet they run well beyond anything that has been enacted in federal law. And is it really unimaginable that legislatures, instructed and fired by this new principle, may actually forbid the formation of new private, secondary schools confined to boys or girls?

      When it comes to the “transgendered,” any principle contained in the laws on discrimination have been run well past the edge of anything plausible or coherent. Any serious deliberation over the ERA today will be quite radically transformed by this new phase in our politics. For since that brief moment when the ERA rose brilliantly in the firmament—and then flickered out—the very meaning of “sex” has become a fiercely contested term in our courts.

      The Supreme Court has the question of “transgenderism” before it now, with a former funeral director, claiming to be a former male, litigating over his firing (Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act barred discriminations based on “sex” as well as “race”; but no one imagines that anyone in Congress voting for that bill in 1964 had in mind “gender identity” or “transgender status.”

      Liked by 4 people

  3. Abortion is out of control…Anything that promotes abortion should never ever happen.
    Please take this right—Congress passes a bill to protect animals but not humans WHY.

    In one day 100 times more babies are murdered by abortion then children of Illegals separated at the border over the last decade.
    Where are these innocent children’s right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

    Liked by 12 people

  4. Thank you for this comprehensive priner on the ERA. We need to spread the word just as Phyllis and her armies did.

    One error I noticed: “Phyllis Schlafly, who passed away at age 92 this week [Sep 1996]…” She died in September of 2016. She supported Pres. Trump’s candidacy and introduced him at a St. Louis rally a few months before her death.

    Liked by 9 people

    1. Never forget – Phyllis Schlafley was born a Stewart – Full name – Phyllis McAlpin Stewart Schlafley. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly

      PDJT’s mother was born in Scotland – a McLeod.

      They also had something else in common – their hair turned gold in old age rather than silver – their golden years.

      My mother was the same – did not turn grey but gold.

      Trump greatly resembles my mother when she was angry in this photo – he was also angry as all get out during the early campaign when the media was lying and attacking him.

      Liked by 7 people

    2. Mrs. Schlafly was dying at the time. She had pretty advanced cancer. It was a closely held secret by her family, and her daughter who was the main care-giver was overruled in wanting her mother to retire and rest. That daughter lost a lot of weight in the midst of the family fight.

      By September 2016, Mrs. Schlafly was on her deathbed, literally.

      Liked by 4 people

    3. The day Phyllis did the endorsement was one of the happiest days of my life. I respect
      her that much. Phyllis was my idol. When I was running for the public school board, she sent me her hand written notes on how to win the election. I wish I still had the notes. I knew she was a National treasure, but didn’t then realize how much of a National Treasure she was.

      Her soul must be basking in His Glory.

      Liked by 5 people

  5. Michael, well done!
    Terrific compilation. This is a great summary and an excellent read. Thoroughly enjoyed it. And here, I only (snark) thought you were a fantastic snack maker, dedicated patriot, wonderful father, and a geopolitical expert who saw the brilliance of Greenland….. (Ha!)

    Phyllis Schlafly was one of my early heroes although I was too young to grasp the whole idea of what she was doing.

    There was a picture of Phyllis Schlafly which made me stop in my tracks. The picture is in black and white. She was standing outside, on a window ledge in the Eisenhower BLDG in DC, and smoking a cigarette. I was in high school at the time……..

    In our debate class, of course we vigorously debated the ERA. As my father’s daughter, it was inconceivable to me that there was ANYTHING I could not do…. and I can’t stress that enough…. Dad never had limits and it never crossed my mind that there were any limits because I was a woman (until I hit the age of about 40). Naturally, I was predisposed to think ERA was a good idea….. until I saw that picture of Phyllis Schlafly.

    What was she doing out on that ledge? Certainly she could have gone downstairs, outside, to smoke a cigarette. She didn’t see the need to waste the time. Her attitude was different. I liked it. Ballsy. It was the first time I can remember thinking….. “I want to be like her.” I decided to look further into what she was doing and she made sense.

    Take a look back to the big map in Michael’s article of red states which confirmed ERA and the mostly southern states which resisted the idea. We have to ask the question, why do southern states resist the ERA? It’s simple…. southern women don’t want it. We know better.

    Why would a southern woman want equal rights when we’ve been running the world and our little kingdoms/communities/families for hundreds of years? None of us would willfully give up that kind of power, and we would protect that legacy for our daughters.

    Almost all of my family is from the north. I never understood the mystique of a southern woman and lived outside the south in my early life. When I moved back here, it took me a decade from 30-40yrs old to learn how to be a proper southern woman. By age 40, I was a master. When I started dating Big T and spent more time in Boston, northern women were instinctively afraid of me…….. they would clutch their husband’s arms…. as if I had the power to cast a spell over all men. Weird, eh? But oh so powerful. Who would give up that kind of power?

    Not me. Not a chance.

    Men are better at being a man than I could ever be. They’re better husbands and fathers than I could ever be. Long live the differences between the sexes.

    Liked by 8 people

    1. There were some attitudes that needed changing – in the professional fields and trades, but we were already going through that evolution.

      I once said that I felt empowered as a woman, that I had no need or desire to be a man.

      Being a woman was “enough.”

      Liked by 1 person

  6. I had forgotten I wrote that.

    I wouldn’t worry too much about the ERA resurrecting in its past form. I’d be more worried about a new one constructed after 50 years of feminist ideology worming its way into the culture, and the simple acceptance that women belong in the workforce from 16-65 in debt up to their eyeballs, and that children raised in day care centers is normal. After 47 years, and the results of a fairly free abortion industry, the damage is documented, and support is on the wane. It’s a good selling point, but I think the least of the impact a “new and improved” ERA would have.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. Exactly. The current push isn’t going anywhere, but it’s all about re-introducing the idea to a new generation of social justice warriors, complete with the narrative of how vile and unjust all the opposition to the ERA was.

      That and, the meaning of the word “sex” has been brought into question, so an ERA passed now would be much more devilish than could be imagined in the 1970s. I posted a link in a comment above.

      Liked by 3 people

  7. The other thing….

    Umm, the Schlaflys are, shall we say, old upper middle class/lower upper class money. I mean money. The whole clan has it. At this point, of the ones I’ve come in contact with, there’s a big wig at Stifel, and several successful entrepreneurs. It’s not just her kids, but nieces and nephews. Don’t forget, Mrs. Schlafly was able to finance her own crusade.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. Having even a modest war chest makes a HUGE difference.

      Is it any wonder why TPTB want the middle class under constant financial strain and barely able to make ends meet?

      Or why we can’t buy a dang printer that will last for more than 18 months at a time?

      Or why anyone who tries to do anything is TARGETED FOR DESTRUCTION by the IRS?

      If Schlafly had to deal with Obama’s IRS harassment the ERA battle would have turned out very differently – and the left knows it.

      Liked by 5 people

  8. Wow what a thread Michael I really didn’t know about any of this, what an eye opener….
    Growing up I never had time for anything other than school and work, I sure did miss out on alot of history, thank you for opening my eye and mind to something I never cared to know about, I was always just to busy for politics and news…

    Liked by 1 person

  9. I’m not sure where to post this, but given the timing, I’m going to put it here. It’s plain and simply unreal.

    Charlie Kirk
    @charliekirk11
    Did you know:

    Two recent studies show that biological men treated with hormones have an unfair advantage over females athletes

    Where is the feminist outrage?

    Aren’t they supposed to advocate on behalf of “disadvantaged” women?

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Democrats Pass ERA That Creates Unlimited Right to Kill Babies in Abortions Up to Birth
    NATIONAL MICAIAH BILGER FEB 13, 2020 | 12:50PM WASHINGTON, DC
    https://www.lifenews.com/2020/02/13/democrats-pass-era-that-creates-unlimited-right-to-kill-babies-in-abortions-up-to-birth/

    U.S. House Democrats jammed through a resolution Thursday to revive a constitutional amendment that could end all abortion restrictions and allow unborn babies to be aborted for any reason up to birth.

    The Democrat-controlled House passed House Joint Resolution 79 in a 232-183 vote in an attempt to nullify the seven-year deadline for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) that expired in 1979. Five Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the resolution.

    The bill now heads to the Senate, which will not likely take it up for consideration.

    The constitutional amendment appears to be simple. It states that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” But both pro-abortion and pro-life leaders say the language could be used to end all abortion restrictions, even common-sense laws such as parental consent for minors and the partial-birth abortion ban. It also could force taxpayers to pay for abortions, something most Americans oppose.

    The ERA is “anything but pro-woman,” said U.S. Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Missouri, who voted against the resolution.

    “… the ERA would not bring women any more rights than they currently have but it would entrench the legality of abortion. We know this from court precedent and by listening to those who have the most to gain from constitutionally protecting abortion on demand,” she said, pointing to statements by several prominent pro-abortion groups.

    The House resolution attempts to revive the ERA by allowing the recognition of recent state legislatures’ votes to ratify it. Virginia became the 38th and final state needed to ratify the amendment in January; Nevada and Illinois also voted to ratify the ERA decades after the 1979 deadline.

    “The House Democratic leadership put on a partisan political stage-magic show – the 40-years-dead ERA was just a prop,” said Douglas D. Johnson, senior policy advisor for National Right to Life. “Efforts to resuscitate the 1972 ERA are likely to encounter insurmountable obstacles in the federal courts – and also, given the now widely admitted connection to abortion, in the U.S. Senate.”

    “Abortion activists have made clear their intent to persuade activist judges to strike down pro-life laws and enshrine abortion-on-demand in the Constitution of the United States,” adds Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “To install a ‘Right to Abortion’ in the U.S. Constitution would be to deny the most basic right upon which our nation was founded: the right to life.”

    Dannenfelser expressed optimism that their efforts will not succeed, especially after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who supports abortion and the ERA, recently admitted that the amendment is dead and advocates need to “start over.”

    During an event at the Georgetown University Law Center, Ginsburg pointed out several problems with ratifying the amendment now, including the three states that voted past the deadline and five additional states that voted to rescind their ratification within the deadline.

    In January, the Department of Justice issued an opinion saying the ERA cannot be added to the U.S. Constitution because of the long-past deadline. National Archivist David Ferriero, whose agency is in charge of adding amendments to the Constitution, said he will follow the DOJ decision.

    Abortion advocacy groups have been lobbying for the amendment for decades. On its website, the pro-abortion group NARAL said the ERA would “reinforce the constitutional right to abortion by clarifying that the sexes have equal rights, which would require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws because they violate both the constitutional rights to privacy and sexual equality.”

    National Right to Life senior policy advisor Douglas Johnson said the ERA, if added to the Constitution, could be used to dismantle laws that protect unborn babies and mothers from abortion.

    “Numerous abortion-rights groups now openly proclaim that they would employ the ERA as a powerful legal weapon against pro-life laws,” Johnson said. These include NARAL, Planned Parenthood, the National Women’s Law Center, the Women’s Law Project and the National Organization for Women, he said.

    Should the ERA be adopted, it could invalidate the federal Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding of abortions in Medicaid, and all state restrictions prohibiting tax-funded abortions. Likewise, it could nullify any federal or state restrictions on partial-birth abortions or third-trimester abortions (since these are sought “only by women”).

    Johnson said laws that allow government-supported medical facilities and personnel — including religiously affiliated hospitals — to refuse to participate in abortions likely would be in jeopardy as well.

    Tom McClusky, president of March for Life Action, said pro-abortion Democrats are being aggressive in their attempts to enshrine abortion on demand into American law.

    “Efforts in the House include resurrecting the misnamed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and holding a hearing on Rep. Judy Chu’s (D-CA) bill that would codify Roe, effectively making abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy federal law,” McClusky said. “In states that have adopted an ERA, it has been used to force taxpayer funding for abortion. And one need look no further than the vigorous support that radical abortion groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood have put behind the ERA to know it would have disastrous consequences for pro-life laws. Rep. Chu’s bill to codify Roe would go even further than the ERA, not only doing away with any existing laws that limit abortion but also preventing pro-life legislators from introducing new ones.”

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s