Posted on 04/26/2023 5:53:22 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
Removing the deadline is an unprecedented maneuver that seeks to bypass the rules of the amendment process. Feminist icon and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg explicitly stated that Congress must start again from the beginning in order to ratify the ERA. Not only has the deadline expired, but the majority of voters today were yet to be born or not of voting age at the time the ERA was moving through the states. Senator Lee pointed out that the deadline included in the original amendment was added as a compromise in order to get the votes to pass the ERA back in 1971. Deleting it in 2023 is an affront to the process then, as well as our rights to weigh in as citizens today.
It’s clear the ERA is even worse for women today than it was when originally proposed. This amendment allows biological men to legally usurp women’s rights. Access to women’s sports teams, women’s nursing rooms, and women’s domestic violence shelters (just to name a few) puts women’s privacy and safety in jeopardy. The Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County in 2020 changed the legal definition of sex in Title VII to include ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’(SSOGI), not just biological sex. Now males who ‘identify as female’ will be able to be considered women and gain protections put in place for females.
Unfortunately, the ERA’s negative impact does not stop there. The ERA will expand and mandate abortion access through tax-payer funding. This has already been done in Connecticut and New Mexico (N.M. Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, Doe v. Maher). The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) even encouraged litigators to use the ERA to strike down restrictions on abortion such as parental consent laws. They also filed briefs in abortion cases in Hawaii, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut arguing that since an abortion procedure is only performed on women, that a state’s denial of taxpayer-funded abortion should be considered “sex discrimination” under their state ERA. Because a Constitutional Amendment has more authority than state laws, it will overturn every state-level pro-life protection and have the effect of nullifying the Dobbs decision.
ERA was a bad idea in the 1970s, but it is an even worse idea now because we have a female Supreme Court Justice who refuses to define “woman”. We have physicians who ignore biology and try to make males into females and make females into males. We have elementary school teachers who confuse children by teaching that gender is not binary but fluid. We even have a male assistant Secretary of Health who thinks he is a woman.
If ERA were in the U.S. Constitution, then males and females would be forced to be interchangeable in every situation. Women, girls, and anyone in a vulnerable situation would be harmed by eliminating the legal recognition and protection that males and females are biologically different from each other.
53 votes means there are at least 2 RINO votes for this garbage. Who are they?
It would have to go thru the congress againt and I don’t see that happening.
Maybe. But Fienswine isn’t voting, if she’s even alive.
I think this link is what you meant to include.
https://eagleforum.org/publications/alerts/2023-archives/stop-the-senate-from-erasing-women.html
The deadline was in the text of the original proposed Amendment. That was what the states voted on. They have to start all over again.
I don’t know, but you can guess that at least one of them is Susan Collins.
Yep, even RBG said so.
Thanks.
Susan Collins and the Alaska alleged republican
Indeed. It will take some work but this will all wind up with the SCOTUS. At that point...IF...and that's a big IF... the SCOTUS does their job and interprets the Constitution as they are tasked...it will be sent back with a big "No. Start over."
Another issue that has to be dealt with, is that a few States rescinded their ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, during the period in which it was distributed to the states for ratification.
Can the states rescind ratification of a constitutional amendment?
If so then they are still a few States short of the 38 states that would be required.
A do over won’t have the same language as TPTB will want to include the non-binaries (whatever that is).
The two (D) cretins who “represent” Virginia — Mark Warner and Tim Kaine — are impervious to concerns from the people of this state. They are totally in lockstep with Schumer.
From what I know of Article V, yes they can. And they can resubmit.
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals already said, "No. Start over." Resubmission from scratch is the only constitutional course available. Ginsberg was right. It's dead.
House won’t pass it, leastways not by a two-thirds majority. States won’t pass it.
Haven't you figured out by now that they are not playing by a set of rules, but according to raw power? If they can get away with it. They will. Over and over they've shown it, told us, and proven it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.