PDA

View Full Version : ERA back from the dead?


johnmeeks1974
03-27-2007, 01:04 PM
Democratic Lawmakers to Reintroduce ERA
By Monisha Bansal
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
March 27, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Liberal Democrats in the Senate and House plan to resume "the fight for women's equality" on Tuesday, when they reintroduce the Women's Equality Amendment.

Sens. Ted Kennedy (Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (Calif.) and Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Jerrold Nadler, both of New York, plan to join Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority, in making the Tuesday afternoon announcement.

This time around, supporters say they hope "women will finally achieve official equality in America." But a conservative group said women's rights activists are "fighting old battles."

First proposed in 1923, the ERA states: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."

The amendment passed both houses of Congress in 1972 but it fell three states short of ratification and lapsed ten years later.

The proposed amendment would affect issues ranging from hiring and wages to restrictions on women serving in military combat units.

This year, organizers say the ERA has more than 190 original co-sponsors.

"It's been a long, hard fight for women's equality," Maloney said Monday at the Women's Equality Summit hosted by the National Council of Women's Organizations in Washington, D.C.

"We've achieved a lot for women -- even in my lifetime," she said. "But we have not done enough.

"There is still a great deal of discrimination out there," Maloney argued, citing income disparity between men and women, gender-based "discriminatory clubs" and "gender-based hate crimes."

"Discrimination is real; it's out there," Maloney said. "They are constantly trying to roll [women's rights] back.

"It's never going to go away until we pass the women's equality amendment," she said.

Maloney said the House Judicial Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution, civil rights and civil liberties will hold hearings on the ERA.

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, raised doubts about the activists' agenda.

"These are topics that are 30 years old," she told Cybercast News Service. "A lot has changed in those 30 years, and it seems that agitating is a way for them to justify their existence.

"They claim to be speaking on behalf of all women, but they obviously don't," Wright said. "In this country, women have it awfully good, and that's why so many women from other countries are trying to get here, to the U.S.

"If they were truly concerned about women's equality, what they would look at is the horrific way women are treated in other countries around the world," she said.

"There's a very serious problem of gender imbalance around the world," Wright argued, pointing to "sex-selection abortion," inheritance rights, property rights, and "literally being treated as second-class or sub-class human beings."

"If these women truly cared about inequality, they would be focusing their attention on these horrific injustices happening in other countries," she said.

Jim
03-27-2007, 01:25 PM
Oh come on. Are they for real? Do they want equality or a leg up? :rolleyes:

Geez, if you get discriminated against based on gender, sue.

Charles Hunter
03-27-2007, 08:28 PM
What effect would the ERA have on gay rights issues? It would seem it might open the door for gay marriage. If it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender, then laws against same gender marriages may be questionable.

Yes, I've just given Conservatives another reason to hate the ERA.

Joe
03-27-2007, 08:37 PM
Ironically, women already make slightly MORE than men if you isolate it on a per job basis. The 70 cents per dollar is based on the entire working population, which is useless because women might be voluntarily choosing lower paying professions (ie teaching) in larger numbers than men.

Charleston native
03-28-2007, 09:07 AM
What effect would the ERA have on gay rights issues? It would seem it might open the door for gay marriage. If it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender, then laws against same gender marriages may be questionable.

Yes, I've just given Conservatives another reason to hate the ERA.It could be a hidden agenda for that, certainly. But what the ERA will do to the military is weaken standards for combat units, especially special forces such as the Navy SEALS and Air Force's Combat Control. This was only slightly mentioned in the article, but I believe that is a huge issue. Now I'll say this, if a woman can perform the EXACT physical standards as men in combat unit training, then let the woman in. However, in all cases with the military, when women are required to be placed in units by law, lower standards in PT are created to accomodate them.

Charles Hunter
03-28-2007, 11:47 PM
Don't think the Prez can veto a Constitutional Amendment.

RiversideGator
03-29-2007, 12:34 AM
The ERA is totally unnecessary. Men and women already have equal rights under the law. This is actually a means of discriminating against men (the source of all evil according to radical feminists) in favor of women. The bottom line is the ERA needs to be left in the 1970s with other bad ideas like shag carpeting, disco and green appliances.

BTW, I cant believe the Dems are dredging up this moldy oldy. Is this an example of their new ideas for America? :rolleyes:

Charleston native
03-29-2007, 08:38 AM
Oh no, RG, this was the [ahem] "mandate" of the American people who voted for the Democratic Congress. :rolleyes: ;)

linebacker
03-29-2007, 08:48 AM
"The Song Remains the Same"

Is this an example of their new ideas for America?

Commentary: Tax and Spend Democrats
(CNSNews.com) - The new Democratic majority on Thursday begins the next phase of its tax-and-spend program in the House of Representatives, writes political pundit Robert Novak. Following the example of their Senate brethren last Friday, House Democrats will adopt a budget resolution containing the largest tax increase in U.S. history amid massive national inattention.

RiversideGator
03-29-2007, 11:07 PM
Hopefully that budget is dead on arrival at the White House. Warm up the veto pen.

JohnCocktosen
03-30-2007, 10:57 AM
Pretty unlikely that the ERA ever becomes law as it first takes a two thirds vote for passage in both the House and Senate and then goes to the states where I believe that 35 of them via their legislatures must also approve.

Of course they could go the constitutional converntion route but that has not been done in modern times.

This looks much more like grandstanding in order to keep the D coalition together.

johnmeeks1974
03-30-2007, 11:12 AM
Oh no, RG, this was the [ahem] "mandate" of the American people who voted for the Democratic Congress.

Why is it the both Left and Right find the need to amend the Constitution in order to placate their respective bases?

I don't know much about the ERA. I only remember it being a hot topic when I was a child but would love to know more about its ramifications...

Chrissy
03-30-2007, 12:30 PM
The ERA is totally unnecessary. Men and women already have equal rights under the law.

How do you know, are you a woman?

Rampant
03-30-2007, 12:48 PM
How do you know, are you a woman?
What law makes women unequal? I cant think of one off hand. (not being sarcastic, truely curious)

RiversideGator
03-30-2007, 02:49 PM
How do you know, are you a woman?

I am a human. Men and women are equal under the law. This is a fact.

dv8
03-30-2007, 04:31 PM
I am a human.

damn, i thought you were a reptile !

Men and women are equal under the law. This is a fact.
women can't take their shirts off at the beach. what's up with that? sounds unequal to me.

Jim
03-30-2007, 04:33 PM
Somehow I doubt that's the motive behind the resurrection of the ERA.

dv8
03-30-2007, 04:47 PM
women might be voluntarily choosing lower paying professions

women are definitely segregated in low paying occupations. i think it has a lot more to do with things like tradeswomen being harassed and girls believing they won't have to support themselves and their kids than free choice.

and gender discrimation cases are pretty difficult to prove, especially in an 'at-will employment' climate.

read labor statistics. they say women earn .76 because men's wages are well, drooping.

Screamin Eagle
04-12-2007, 04:03 AM
I would say that gender discrimination, like age discrimination is almost a moot law. Both are nearly impossible to prove, yet both exist rampantly in American society.