liberals killed e.r.a., not “religious right”

https://www.catholicleague.org ^ | 04/20/2018 | Bill Donohue

[heterosupremacist]

The April 20 editorial in the New York Times on the Equal Rights Amendment (E.R.A.) is flawed in several ways. It is not the “religious right” that is responsible for the failure of this amendment, it is liberals.

The editorial demonizes the “religious right” for “fearmongering,” when, in fact, it was liberal women who fought the E.R.A. for decades.

If the E.R.A. wins the support of two more states, it will have the 38 needed for ratification (the male-dominated Congress overwhelmingly passed it in 1972), though it may not survive a legal challenge: when advocates of the E.R.A. failed to muster 38 states in 1972, Congress extended the deadline for seven years, and then again for another three.

The clock has long run out, so it is debatable whether getting the needed three-fourths of the states to approve will count 36 years after the measure failed for the third time.

Moreover, five of the states that voted for it later rescinded their vote, thus complicating matters even further.

Legalities aside, the Times editorial fails to tell the truth about the evolution of the E.R.A. Proof of the following account is detailed in my 1985 book, The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union, published by Transaction Press.

The idea that women should have the identical rights afforded men was first broached in 1916, and in 1923 the E.R.A. was proposed by the National Women’s Party. Working against it were feminists who objected to identical rights, led by Eleanor Roosevelt. She said women needed special protection against hazardous and “demeaning” occupations, jobs that only men should have to do. Her opposition proved to be successful, though the measure would later resurface...

[RedMonqey]

It’s interesting that you say that.

If the liberal of today were “switched” with the libs of yesteryear, “today’s” liberals would just pack the courts and declare it a “right’ already found in the constitution.

No need for those fussy amendments the Founders thought were needed to update the “Living Constitution”

[Finalapproach29er]

The unwritten rule is a 7 year time limit. However, libs these days would do anything to get what they want.

[Publius]

There is no "unwritten rule." Congress either states a specific ratification window or not.

Before the 18th Amendment, there were no ratification windows declared by Congress, so once an amendment was sent to the states for ratification, it was still valid for ratification no matter how many years it took. The 27th Amendment, sent to the states for ratification in 1789 and finally ratified in 1992, is an example.

Starting with the 18th Amendment, however, Congress began declaring ratification windows.

[SunkenCiv]

The idea that women should have the identical rights afforded men was first broached in 1916, and in 1923 the E.R.A. was proposed by the National Women’s Party. Working against it were feminists who objected to identical rights, led by Eleanor Roosevelt. She said women needed special protection against hazardous and “demeaning” occupations, jobs that only men should have to do. Her opposition proved to be successful...

IOW, Eleanor was a feminist. Thanks heterosupremacist.