The Equal Rights Amendment Will Hurt Women and Our Society
2/27/2008 1:00:00 PM -Elise Bouc, Director of Illinois Stop-ERA
 | TAKE ACTION: Please CLICK HERE to contact your State Representative to ask him/her to vote AGAINST the Equal Rights Amendment. |
The Federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) which is currently before the Illinois legislature for ratification isn't what it appears to be. It's touted as a simple amendment that will provide equal rights to women.
While we all agree with equal rights for women, this amendment will not increase women's rights, but instead will strip away their current protections and benefits. Because of its vague language and broad coverage, it will also legalize same-sex marriages, mandate state funding of elective abortions, and weaken the balanced structure of our government.
In over thirty years of debate, ERA proponents have been unable to identify any additional rights women will receive through the ERA. 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 (1).
The major problem with the ERA is its 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 (2), mandate state funding of elective abortions (3), and legalize same-sex marriage (4). Given the legal precedents, the 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. A loss of such protections would harm women and their children.
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 (5). Congress rejected each of these moderating amendments. The courts will look to this legislative history to determine the intent of the lawmakers, which refutes the naïve belief that the courts under the ERA would continue to protect women in 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, abortions, 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.
The ERA is not about women's rights. It's about creating a genderless society that removes "sex" as a legal characteristic. Its ramifications will negatively impact women, families, society, and the structure of our government. Those who claim the ERA is an innocent piece of legislation that gives women equal rights aren't giving you all the facts.Footnotes:
(1) A partial listing of these laws includes the Equal Pay Act of 1963, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Health and Manpower Training Act of 1971, Equal Opportunity Act of 1972, Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1972, Small Business Act of 1972, Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and Federal Employees Compensation Act of 1974.
(2) In Maryland, the court held that under the state ERA, a husband could no longer be required to support his wife. Coleman v. Maryland, 37 Md. App. 322, 377 A.2d (1977). Under Pennsylvania's state ERA, a father was exempted from providing primary support for his minor children Conway v. Dana, 456 Pa. 536, 318 A.2d 324 (1974), and a husband's legal responsibility for his wife's hospital and medical bills was nullified Albert Einstein Medical Center v. Nathans, 5 D&C 3d 619 (1978).
(3) The Supreme Court of the state of New Mexico recently ruled that since only women undergo abortions, the denial of taxpayer funding is "sex discrimination" N.M. Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 975 P.2d 841, 1998.
(4) The Hawaii supreme court ruled that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples is sex discrimination and unconstitutional under Hawaii's state ERA. Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 1993. The people of Hawaii had to pass a state constitutional amendment to overturn this decision.
(5) This rejected moderating amendment shows the full extent to which the ERA will be applied: "The provisions of this article shall not impair the validity, however, of any laws of the United States or any State which exempt women from compulsory military service, or from service in combat units of the Armed Forces; or extend protections or exemptions to wives, mothers, or widows; or impose upon fathers responsibility for the support of children; or secure privacy to men or women, or boys or girls; or make punishable as crimes rape, seduction, or other sexual offenses" (Cong. Rec., pp. S9538-S9540).
 Become a Sustaining Partner of our Work
You can become a Sustaining Member with automatic monthly deductions from your checking account or credit card. Click HERE to access the Sustaining Member form. Your gift will go even further than ever because:
Our paperwork will be reduced.
Our income will be more predictable, leading to improved cash management.
Our administrative costs will be reduced, putting your gift to work immediately.
It is simpler and saves time for you!
E-mail this article to a friend | Printer friendly format
|
 |
|
| |
|
