If Romney Cares About Women He Should Call For Passing The Equal Rights Amendment

[TheMastersNemesis]

Romney should call for the reintroduction of the Equal Rights Amendment. He should insist on its passage. That would mean equal pay for women and nondiscrimination in insurance premiums. It would also mean equal coverage for reproductive health.

In the 21st century it would mean NO discrimination on the basis of sex.

[enlightenment]

1. Are you familiar with the

ratify the ERA website? The argument for the 'three state' solution to the issue would mean the bill does not have to be reintroduced. This idea is what is driving most of the current push.

http://www.united4equality.com/

I think it would be an easy thing for Romney to claim to support ratification. It would be more of a challenge for him to support the current resolutions calling for Congress to remove the time limit that was imposed on the 1972 bill - which would mean that only three more states need to ratify (they've already extended it once, which proves that Congress can remove the limit if they want to do so).

For Romney, saying he thinks ratification is a good idea is largely toothless, since it's a state issue. Saying that Congress should remove the time limit on the current bill's ratification is actually asking him to stand for something; since it might actually happen he'd have to put his money where his mouth is.

I don't believe the current Congress would ever approve a new version of the bill - and if they did, it is not clear if states that ratified in 1972 would do so again. I could see several of the states pulling back if we tried ratification again (since we seem to be speeding backward, not forward, in terms of rights). The three state solution is the better route, I think.

[TheMastersNemesis]

2. I Was Not Aware

I did not know about that site. It would be the best if they did not have to start over. I am all for it if it is legal to do it that way.
And I do agree that starting over again in today's climate would be just impossible.

There should be a mantra Ratify ERA - 3 state solution.

We are more than heading backward. The GOP is using indirect force to end women's rights altogether.

[enlightenment]

3. Yes,

I've been wondering what century they are headed for - can't be the 19th, women had a few rights. Can't be the 18th, what if we get another Mary Wollstonecraft or something? Can't be the 17th - that pesky Enlightenment. The 16th? Possibly . . . but I'm thinking that the 14th or 15th is looking pretty good.

sigh.

[brooklynite]

4. ...and if it passed the three States...

...the Supreme Court would soberly recognize it as having legitimately passed in the inevitible lawsuit over eligibility, right?

[enlightenment]

5. Oh, I'm sure the fur would fly.

It would certainly be establishing precedent, wouldn't it (real question - my knowledge of constitutional law is fuzzy at best)?

I don't like the current court overmuch, but as foolish as they can be in matters financial/political, I wonder if they have the collective will to accept the validity of such a challenge. Given their venal nature, I think they might be more inclined to simply refuse to hear a case. Or maybe I'm just pinning unreasonable hope on that . . .

Congress established that they could change the 'rules' when they extended the original seven year time limit to ten years. That was accepted by the states, so how could they now argue that Congress does not have the right to change (abolish) the time limit again?

Not that they wouldn't argue it, but would they have legal ground?