Alyssa Milano: An Equal Rights Amendment would have helped Christine Blasey Ford

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

WASHINGTON – To Alyssa Milano, the Kavanaugh-Ford hearing underscores a point many women have been arguing for nearly 100 years: The country needs an Equal Rights Amendment.

The actress and activist, who helped launch the #MeToo movement with a tweet this time last year, told USA TODAY that an ERA would have helped Christine Blasey Ford, who testified in an emotional Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last month that she was sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh in high school. Kavanaugh denied those allegations and others and was sworn in Saturday as a Supreme Court justice.

“When we are not in the Constitution for any protections except for the right to vote, I think that it allows for a perspective of ‘lesser than,’ ” Milano said. “It will just put women on an equal footing in the legal system, particularly in areas where women have historically been treated like second-class citizens, especially in cases of domestic violence and sexual assault.”

The string of #MeToo scandals involving Hollywood, congressional and newsroom leaders had reignited interest in constitutional protections against sexual discrimination when the ugly drama over Kavanaugh’s confirmation poured gasoline on it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/alyssa-milano-an-equal-rights-amendment-would-have-helped-christine-blasey-ford/ar-BBOguta?li=BBnb7Kz

[Jim Lane]

1. Alas, it would not have.

Nothing in the ERA would change the law in a way that would have affected Ford's testimony or Kavanaugh's confirmation -- or, for that matter, the incident of Kavanaugh's attack on her.

Aside from the limited changes in the law that the ERA would bring about, would it change attitudes? Would today's young Kavanaugh's be less likely to assault women because they read (or, more likely, because someone told them) that the ERA had been ratified? Would women be encouraged to come forward with reports of violence? Maybe, but I doubt it. My guess is that it's wishful thinking to ascribe that kind of cultural impact to an amendment that effects very little change in the law.