Replies

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.

ERA will be held in Senate for more hearings

Thursday May 29, 2003

By JOHN O'CONNOR
Associated Press Writer

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) The Equal Rights Amendment, dormant since Illinois lawmakers killed it two decades ago, got approval from a key Senate committee Thursday.

Whether it will be called for a vote by the full Senate was up in the air, however.

Opponents said it doesn't have the 36 votes it needs to pass the Senate. And its sponsor, Senate President Emil Jones, D-Chicago, appeared to agree, telling the committee he intended to hold more hearings.

But later, Jones said he might push ahead if he gathers enough votes.

``I promised I may hold hearings, but if I don't need hearings, I may go ahead and call it. I might,'' Jones said.

Approved just a week ago in the House, the proposed 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution passed the Senate Executive Committee 8-5 on a partisan roll call.

The sometimes-raucous debate recalled the fierce, 10-year battle to get Illinois to OK the amendment, which ended when Congress' deadline for ratification expired in 1982.

Phyllis Schlafly, who led the fight against passage in the 1970s and '80s, said Thursday the amendment would require county clerks to issue licenses for same-sex marriages and states to fund abortions because it would be discriminatory not to.

``Women are in the Constitution to the same extent that men are,'' said Schlafly, president of the conservative Eagle Forum. ``It is a beautiful document that is sex-neutral.''

That angered Jones, who said he heard the same arguments against civil rights legislation.

``I know discrimination,'' said Jones, who is black. ``I heard the same arguments identical arguments that you're protected by the Constitution, you do not need this. It just so happens the Constitution was blind on those issues.''

Gayle Guthrie, president of ERA Illinois, said the issue is in the forefront again, even if the Senate does not vote this spring.

Illinois would be the 36th of 38 states that need to ratify the amendment. Proponents say others states are watching what Illinois does and that Congress can extend the 1982 deadline.

^ =

The resolution is HJRCA1.

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.

Fascinating. I'm supposed to accept as a guide to the legal effects of the ERA someone who doesn't know who the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America is.

Her clarity of thought is a comfort, too:

... and she made absolutely not claim that ERA would anything for women in employment.

I'm glad that this was clearly labeled "OPINION", as God knows it's pretty tough to find a fact in it.