Replies

Oops:

before an amendment to the federal Constitution can be validly acted on by the States, it must first be passed by both houses of Congress,

OR

be passed by a Constitutional Convention originating from the passage of an appropriate resolution calling for the convening of such a body by 3/4 of the States.

Which doesn't affect the truth of the rest of my post.

Schlafly's statement to IL Senate on ERA

Friday, May 30, 2003

- Phyllis Schlafly, founder of Eagle Forum and national leader of opposition to Equal Rights Amendment

Phyllis Schlafly, founder of Eagle Forum
OPINION -- It's so unfortunate that some women are deceived into believing that the Equal Rights Amendment will give them a better break in job hiring, promotion or salaries, because ERA will do absolutely nothing in the area of employment. Chief Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a 230-page analysis of what ERA would do, and she made absolutely not claim that ERA would anything for women in employment.

It's so unfortunate that women are deceived into believing that the Equal Rights Amendment will "put women into the Constitution." Women are already in the Constitution just as much as men are. The Constitution is completely gender-neutral; it uses all gender-neutral words such as we the people, citizen, resident, President and Senator.

The ERA is a fraud. It would give no benefit to women whatsoever, but it would do a lot of mischief, as you can see from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's book. Women would not only be subject to the draft like men, but under ERA they could not be excluded from military combat, and women would have to be given the benefit of affirmative action to equalize the number of women with men.

It gets crazier. Among the laws that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes are open to challenge under the Equal Rights Amendment are laws that restrict prostitution, bigamists and women cohabiting with bigamists, statutory rape, and the Mann Act. Justice Ginsburg says that ERA would requires the sex-integration of all educational institutions, prisons and reformatories, fraternities, sororities, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.

That's because the word used in ERA is sex, not women. I was on the platform with Senator Sam Ervin, the great Watergate Senator, when he said, "The only group of people the ERA would do any good for is homosexuals."

In the ten years Illinois debated and voted on ERA (1972-1983), the proponents were never able to show that ERA would give a single benefit for women. The arguments for ERA are dishonest, and it is a Pandora's box of legal mischief.

Please don't join the group that is trying to deceive women into thinking that ERA will do something for women. It won't. Stand by the language in the Illinois State Constitution -- it treats the issue perfectly.

Ron, that is what is in progress. Despite the current passage of time, there are those who believe if they can get the required #of states, the amendment can be passed. This is why the lobbying continues to pass the ERA amendment in those states which have not previously done so.The legislators also believe this is the case.