ERA Amendment Re-Introduced in House & Senate

[Book Lover]

I got this info from the copyediting listserv(!) These bills were introduced 3/15.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hj109-37

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sj109-7

And here's the text of the Senate bill. Gee, where have I read this text before? A history book maybe?

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
MARCH 15, 2005
Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mrs. MURRAY, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. CORZINE, Mr.
KERRY, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. SARBANES, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mrs. BOXER,
Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. HARKIN, and Mr. DODD) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-
thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol-
lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con-
stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all
intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
States:
2
ARTICLE --
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 article shall take effect 2 years
after the date of ratification.

[LSparkle]

1. GOOD FOR THEM!

I always wondered why we allowed this bill to die ... It should have been re-introduced before now, but better late than never!

[tubbacheez]

2. Cool. Maybe they'll actually pass it this time.

Now that Muslims and dissenters are the undeserving focus of the Federal scorn, maybe women can get some breathing room... or a fair shake even.

[salin]

3. this effort collapsed

around the time I began paying attention. Does anyone know details... didn't some states vote for this (how many) - is there a time by which that no longer counts (eg do those states have to revote?) What was the status at the time the effort petered out... and what is the status today?

[Book Lover]

4. From what I recall

The previous effort in the 70's died because two states revoked their approval; I would love to be corrected if anyone knows better. As I understand the process, this effort is not affected by any previous efforts.

[Bridget Burke]

5. The effort did not simply "collapse"--it was defeated by strong enemies.

Arguments by ERA opponents such as Phyllis Schlafly, right-wing leader of the Eagle Forum/STOP ERA, played on the same fears that had generated female opposition to woman suffrage. Anti-ERA organizers claimed that the ERA would deny woman’s right to be supported by her husband, privacy rights would be overturned, women would be sent into combat, and abortion rights and homosexual marriages would be upheld. Opponents surfaced from other traditional sectors as well. States’-rights advocates said the ERA was a federal power grab, and business interests such as the insurance industry opposed a measure they believed would cost them money. Opposition to the ERA was also organized by fundamentalist religious groups.

Thirty-five of the required 38 states ratified the amendment. Can the effort resume at this point or must it begin all over again? There's more discussion here:

www.equalrightsamendment.org/era.htm

Beverly LaHaye, wife of Rev. Tim ("Left Behind") LaHaye, founded Concerned Women for America specifically to oppose the ERA. Her website is now a great place for checking up on the Right Wing Talking Points of the day.

www.beverlylahayeinstitute.org/bli/

Aren't we glad that women aren't in combat! (The ones killed or injured are mostly in support roles.) And all you married ladies still have your lives of leisure! (Bitter laughter in the distance.)

[JerseygirlCT]

8. Yes, but thanks to the brave work of

Phyllis Schlaffly, we've been saved from the horror of unisex bathrooms.

[Book Lover]

9. Thank you for the clarification

I had forgotten that CWA was founded to oppose the ERA. The fruit of the poison tree...

[salin]

11. great link

got the info I couldn't recall:

first

The Equal Rights Amendment passed the U.S. Senate and then the House of Representatives, and on March 22, 1972, the proposed 27th Amendment to the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification. But as it had done for every amendment since Prohibition (with the exception of the 19th Amendment), Congress placed a seven-year deadline on the ratification process. This time limit was placed not in the words of the ERA itself, but in the proposing clause.

Like the 19th Amendment before it, the ERA barreled out of Congress, getting 22 of the necessary 38 state ratifications in the first year. But the pace slowed as opposition began to organize – only eight ratifications in 1973, three in 1974, one in 1975, and none in 1976.

Then - and this is where my memory jumps in (right after it ellasped in the early 80s.)

As the 1979 deadline approached, some pro-ERA groups, like the League of Women Voters, wanted to retain the eleventh-hour pressure as a political strategy. But many ERA advocates appealed to Congress for an indefinite extension of the time limit, and in July 1978, NOW coordinated a successful march of 100,000 supporters in Washington, DC. Bowing to public pressure, Congress granted an extension until June 30, 1982.

along with current analysis.

Thanks!

[XemaSab]

6. ABOUT DAMN TIME

n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

7. Awfully glad to see both my senators there...

Wonder if enough has finally changed since the last go-round to see this through?

I'm afraid it will be held up by the "we don't need that, it's silly" crowd -- which spans both parties.

[CTyankee]

10. Yeah, I was around when this happened last time

As I recall the two states that "done us in" were Virginia and Illinois. In VA the amendment got locked up in committee and never made it to the floor for a vote. In Illinois the state lege changed the rules, requiring a supermajority rather than a simple majority.
I lived in Northern VA at the time and I couldn't wait to get out of that goddamned state.

Here is my take on it: the combat thing was a tough thing to counter since at that time our most recent image of war was Vietnam, not the higher tech wars to come. Women in the service academies were a novelty. Women were not in the rank and file military to the extent they are today. The other, less emotional, argument against the ERA was that the 14th amendment pretty much allowed a lot of victories in women's rights so people said they didn't "need" the ERA (of course that ignored the fact that the suffragists had tried the 14th amendment in court to get the vote but were deterred and had to go for the constitutional amendment.

Now there is a new push for the ERA, trying to bring the voting in thestates back to needing just two states (picking up where they left off)because we now have the precedent of some constitutional amendment (not to do with women's rights) being adopted after many years (I forget what it was about). That's one strategy. The new introduction of the ERA into the Senate is the second strategy e.g. start over and try to get 2/3 of the congress and 3/4 of the states needed.

My guess is that the repubs will introduce their own "ERA" which will be something like their "Medicare prescription drug" bill or their "no child left behind" garbage. Then Dems will have to go on record voting against the ERA!