The Equal Rights Amendment May Pass Now. It's Only Been 96 Years.

[ancianita]

Last edited Wed Nov 6, 2019, 05:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: New York Times

Of all the things that Virginia may pass now that Democrats have won control of the state legislature, none have been so long in the making as the Equal Rights Amendment.

First proposed almost a century ago and passed by Congress in 1972, the constitutional amendment -- whose main clause reads, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex" ... In 2018, Illinois was the 37th. Now, Virginia's incoming Democratic leaders have promised to take up the amendment immediately when the legislature convenes in January -- and given that it failed in the Virginia Senate by only one vote when the body was under Republican control, passage is almost assured.

... nothing in Article V of the Constitution, which lays out the process for amendments, says ratification must happen within a certain period of time: After all, Congress approved the 27th Amendment in 1789, and the final state did not ratify it until 1992.

"We fully anticipate that there will be a Supreme Court decision involved in this," said Krista Niles, outreach and civic engagement director at the Alice Paul Institute, one of the main organizations promoting the Equal Rights Amendment. "Both sides of the argument have lawyers waiting to file their amicus briefs at any moment that the 38th state does ratify."

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/us/politics/virginia-ratify-equal-rights-amendment.html

---

The ERA is back! Thank you, Virginia!




NOTE: I've moved this OP over to General Discussion. Since it appeared from NYT online today, with a time stamp and byline, I took it to be news, though hosts might decide otherwise.

Please follow comments in GD if you see this get "locked." Thanks, all.

[pnwest]

1. Wouldn't that be something?!

[ancianita]

3. Indeed. A fundamental constitutional right for half the population. Finally!

It would go a long way to restoring trust in rule of law. And even shore up Roe v Wade.

[pnwest]

9. I don't even dare to hope.

[IronLionZion]

2. Lots of liberal women won last night so it's possible

Congress probably has to pass something to update the deadline for ratification but it's doable. It would be sweet to impeach Trump and pass the ERA same time.

[ancianita]

5. Mitch will let it come to the floor because the pressure's been just too great.

[mtngirl47]

4. Oh my. How wonderful!

[ancianita]

7. Right! I picture women like me, seeing this headline, going ...

We fought so hard for it for so long, now that it's almost here, it seems too good to be true, and yet...

[mtngirl47]

10. I joined NOW as a young woman and remember debating

about the amendment in college.

My daughter's initials happen to be E.R.A. and my ex-husband joked that I did that on purpose. (Just a happy coincidence!)

[BigmanPigman]

6. About fucking time!

[customerserviceguy]

8. We have one hurdle to go before that happens

Right now, the SCOTUS has a case before it that will decide whether laws enacted in the 1960's which used the word "sex" to ban discrimination apply to GLBT individuals. If they decide that those laws do encompass the affected individuals, then I fully expect that to be used against Virginia's ratification of the ERA.

I'm sure that there will be some Democratic officeholders in swing seats that will be under heavy pressure not to ratify the ERA if a vocal minority of their constituents believe that all sorts of "bad" things will happen, given the SCOTUS decision.

[ancianita]

11. About your first paragraph, I've heard nothing; your second paragraph is moot. VA is #38 and

it will pass state ratification. All previous state acts to rescind have not been legally allowed to quash their original ratification dates.

We'll see how SCOTUS weighs the interests of word usage, status of an amendment compared to case law, etc.

[customerserviceguy]

14. Here's something I found quickly

on the case before the Court:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/10/08/supreme-court-set-rule-lgtbq-rights-work-addressed-gender-discrimination-years-ago/

Oral arguments were heard about a month ago. While I would expect a case of this gravity to have its decision released in the usual pre-Fourth-of-July flurry, it is possible that if it goes in favor of the appellants (pro-equality groups), it might be strategic for the dissenting Justices to push for a pre-January release, in order to influence politics in Virginia.

And my post has nothing to do with rescinding anything, Virginia never ratified the ERA. If they are about to become the 38th state to ratify, and the reich-wing pulls out all the stops on a hysteria campaign, trying to keep at least a couple of Democratic delegates and senators from ratifying, then it might not happen.

I can envision Faux Snooze, etc. pulling out all of the old tricks like unisex bathrooms, affirmative action for GLBT individuals, and probably more BS than I can even imagine. African-American Democratic voters might be particularly susceptible to the hysteria, and might urge their Democratic members of the VA legislature to not vote for ratification.

I'm not saying they're going to win, but I am saying that they may try.

[Liberty Belle]

33. A main argument against it before was that a draft would have to include women and

that women could be forced into combat roles, potentially taking mothers away from babies against their will, etc.

It was a powerful argument and I expect to see that one revived again, though we no longer currently have a draft, and women in the military are increasingly being used in combat roles, though solely on a voluntary basis.

[customerserviceguy]

34. I do recall that

It was a tough thing to overcome with the Vietnam War still raging. However, only males are required to register for the draft, and the ERA could change that, even though we're not moving away from an all-volunteer military any time soon.

[IronLionZion]

36. Israelis, Russians, Kurds, and more have managed just fine

The nature of warfare is more drones and missiles now so there is less chance of a draft like Vietnam where they needed lots of human sacrifices.

[IronLionZion]

12. OP says it lost by one vote in VA last time

so there should be enough votes now

[robertpaulsen]

13. I hope Kavanaugh is impeached before this reaches SCOTUS.

A fair hearing is impossible with him on the court.

[customerserviceguy]

15. Under the Constitution

both the President and the SCOTUS have no official role when it comes to amending the Constitution. That power is solely within the hands of the Congress and the state legislators.

[ancianita]

16. Great. Just what I needed assurance of. This whole legal fight has to end.

Thank you!

[robertpaulsen]

17. From the OP:

“We fully anticipate that there will be a Supreme Court decision involved in this,” said Krista Niles, outreach and civic engagement director at the Alice Paul Institute, one of the main organizations promoting the Equal Rights Amendment. “Both sides of the argument have lawyers waiting to file their amicus briefs at any moment that the 38th state does ratify.”

[customerserviceguy]

22. You can file anything you want before a court

The court doesn't have to take it up. Precedent on constitutional amendments is that unless they specify a time limit for ratification, it's open-ended.

If the reich-wing makes it that far, it's like a Hail Mary in football, a very low chance of success. My feeling is that they're going to try hard to keep Virginia from ratifying, a much more achievable goal. Frankly, if the SCOTUS decides that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does NOT apply to gender-expression/orientation issues that were not the subject of debate 55 years ago, it makes it easier to get the ERA ratified in VA.

Not a situation I'm hoping to see, but one I am willing to predict may happen.

[ancianita]

27. I don't see that happening in VA, since no time limit has historically existed on amendments'

being passed.

They'll try one last gasp fight and VA will pass it, and they'll lose.

Mitch McConnell, knowing KY ratified it in '72, and that he'll be up for re-election, will bring it to a vote, and that will be IT.

[customerserviceguy]

29. I'm sorry

I don't know what Mitch McConnell has to do with the ERA at this point. It passed the Senate nearly fifty years ago, so it's a done deal there.

[ancianita]

30. Sorry, too, that I didn't know that. Thanks.

[Sgent]

42. SCOTUS

was the "decider" on whether the 27th amendment was valid or not, and given the history of the ERA it will be challenged as not validly adopted. The 27th amendment was passed during the Bill of Rights but not ratified until the early 90's -- but had no time limit in its original wording. The ERA does.

[cstanleytech]

20. They can issue rulings on if something is or is not Constitutional but they have no say on

the passing of amendments to the Constitution itself.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. For anyone interested the Alice Paul Institute is near Philly in South Jersey.

Open for visits:
Public hours- Tuesday-Friday 
12:00-4:00 pm
Second Saturdays (March-November) 12:00-2:00 pm
Price: $10/person for self-guided tours
Call 856-231-1885 for guided tour appointments and pricing.

https://www.alicepaul.org/

[Demsrule86]

25. I lived in Alice Pauls house in Ridgefield Connecticut as a child...my parents bought it...

She was in a nursing home there in the 70's my big sister actually worked there as a teen and her one regret from those years is that she didn't know who Alice Paul was and never asked her anything about her time as a suffragette.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

35. I've been to Ridgefield

I drove through on the way to an interview in Danbury.
Nice town.

I also drove by what was the Occoquan workhouse when I worked in Virginia.

[Demsrule86]

46. I graduated high school from Ridgefield and started college at Danbury ....Western Campus UConn...

My boyfriend when I was in High school lived in Danbury. I remember when the mall was where they had a giant fair every year.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

60. I'm not remembering a mall but I was only in town for 5 hours

Drive up, get coffee, interview, eat lunch and drive back.
Didn't get the job.

[Demsrule86]

62. It is towards Danbury on the back way...not route 7...used to be the old fair grounds...we would get

out of school every September in order to attend. I miss New England.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

63. I was at a place West of town near the Welcome Center

The place was called Owl. It was right off 84. I think I took the route through Ridgefield because of some construction.

[Demsrule86]

64. yeah...this would be the back way to 84...did you get the job?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

65. I didn't take 84 either but I drove past the interchange after making a wrong turn

Didn't get the job. I ended up working in Atlanta for 2 years. Most of the Atlanta area is very blue, except Cobb County.
The joke is that even the interstate running through Cobb County has only a far-right lane.

[Demsrule86]

68. Haha...I lived in Marietta for a couple of years...then in Woodstock...You know Newt

Gingriche's old seat went to a Democrat in in 18...times they are a changing...thank God. I lived all over the place.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

69. The farthest out 75 I've been was Smyrna

I haven't lived too many places but I've worked all over.
I hate moving by the way.


Newt was born in PA like me only in the red T section.

[cstanleytech]

19. If it passes could it be used potentially to protect a women's right to choose to have

an abortion? After all it does say "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." and nothing is more equal than having the right to choose what goes on with ones own body.

[ancianita]

21. Yep. It's probably been behind the fight to stop ratification. It should finally settle Roe v Wade.

[customerserviceguy]

24. I was politically aware

around the time of the ERA's passage through Congress, and I don't recall abortion being part of the discussion. Clearly, Roe vs. Wade was decided without the ERA being part of the Constitution.

[cstanleytech]

47. Yes but given the dramatic political shift of the court over to the far fringe right

Roe vs Wade is in great danger however the ERA could actually be used to defend that right.

[Demsrule86]

23. That would make my life complete...fought for women's rights my entire life...and never believed

this bill would be ratified in my lifetime.

[CaptYossarian]

26. This would be a two-fer.

Equal rights for the two heavily populated genders AND it would piss off the Evangelicals.

Just so it doesn't lead to Rush waiting tables at Hooters.

[ancianita]

28. It could go even further and quash all current cases from states fighting against Roe v Wade.

Roe v Wade won't even have to exist anymore if this gets passed.

Finally, women will have fundamental constitutional rights that men have about their bodily autonomy.

[Buckeyeblue]

41. I don't think it will be that simple

The anti-choicers will continue with their laws that make access to abortion all but impossible in some places. And a conservative SC will interpret the amendment conservatively.

[ancianita]

43. Given that the amendment hasn't been passed yet, we'll see.

Amendment tests aren't simple, true.

However, the constitutional meaning of the ERA renders "anti-choice" arguments moot.

How lawyers might try to interpret women's fundamental rights to bodily autonomy relating to the ERA amendment is arguable, to them and their plaintiffs. But it just won't be arguable anymore, really.

I'm interested in the arguments they'd offer. They'd likely have to show proofs of "harm," and/or that there is actual legal standing of some tissues within a body -- of humans who have prior legal rights of "life, liberty..." -- that is now recognized nationwide as having the same constitutional fundamental rights that male bodies have.

Anti-choicers presume a legal status in case law that will not exist after the ERA.

[Buckeyeblue]

44. I agree with you and I think the constitution already guarantees reproductive rights

The pro-choice argument would be that any limits on reproductive rights violate the ERA because they only apply to women.

But the anti-choice argument would be that in the case of abortion there is a compelling state interest to protect the fetus at the stage of viability.

It changes the argument for sure. But it doesn't prevent conservative judges from narrowly defining it application.

[ancianita]

53. Fetuses don't even have citizenship or constitutional standing, since they are not viable to the

Last edited Sun Nov 10, 2019, 02:57 PM - Edit history (1)

state, and so no compelling state interest.

The already born have the constitutional rights of freedom. Their choice renders moot any others who would take them away -- namely, the anti-choicers.

"Narrow" definitions that widen rights to non-viable tissue that are not persons, are not narrow at all. Instead, they are broad, radical interpretations that serve male control interests and not women's freedoms. Radical conservatism presents itself as "the" narrow definer of interests belonging already to males' wealth and control over other humans. And that's how they've tried to interpret "law" for centuries.

Not for nothing, the only other unfair application of the constitution re personhood, is SCOTUS broadly granting corporations personhood. Now there's a wholly made-up, non-narrow legal construct if I ever saw one.

[crickets]

75. Thanks to everyone for their part in this discussion.

I am learning a lot. Fingers crossed the ERA will finally pass!

[cstanleytech]

48. That's assuming of course the far-right justices on the court want to set a precedent

and totally ignore the Constitution in favor of their own political views.
If they actually do that though then I think the next time we have the majority in the Senate and the house as well as white house we should increase the number of scotus seats.

[Buckeyeblue]

49. Isn't that what they do today?

[cstanleytech]

51. Largely however if they are willing to totally ignore a clearly written

Constitutional amendment like the ERA should it pass then we will have to take steps to correct the high court's mistake.

[ancianita]

76. Their own political views are interpretations either supported or NOT supported by the Constitution.

To ignore the Constitution is a constitutional crisis.

[Nitram]

31. It will pass!!!!

[pandr32]

32. Awesome news

[Kaiserguy]

37. About time this passed

Religion should be ashamed of itself for opposing this. But Right-Wing religion has no shame not matter what evil it causes, and it has caused a lot of evil.

[llmart]

38. Somewhere Phyllis Schlafly is rolling in her grave.

That makes me smile.

I joined NOW way back when I was in my 20's and had very little money back then but sent what I could to NOW to fight the good fight for the ERA. I was so bummed when it wasn't ratified. Maybe I'll see the day when those efforts were not in vain. We came so close.

[ancianita]

39. I hope so. Her name is so much worse to me than curse words, that I can't even say it.

At the time, women woke up to how men use front women to fight their battles, as if those very few could ever speak for half the population's constitutional and human rights.

Her blathering patriarchal puppetry muddied the public's clarity about what the ERA meant constitutionally.

Hers was a blow that kept women's rage simmering across generations.

[stuffmatters]

40. "She" persisted! 2020 will be exactly 100 years after the 19th Amnt & 50 since NOW US March..

Tears of utter joy today.

[Polybius]

45. It had an expiration date that politicians agreed to

I'd be willing to bet money that it has to start over again. We'll find out when the courts take it up.

[ancianita]

54. That date has been declared by constitutional experts as unconstitutional. It won't hold.

[Polybius]

59. And the few states that rescinded won't hold either?

It will go to the SC for sure.

[ancianita]

67. No. No matter what they say now. Their original ratifications will still officially stand.

[Polybius]

71. I'll bookmark this

When it's been decided, I will come back and be sure to either apologize or say I told you so.

[ancianita]

74. Haha... I hear you.

[melm00se]

50. While both sides can sue and go before the Supreme Court

the Court is caught in an odd situation:

The Court can rule on the Constitutionality of something but once an Amendment is ratified it becomes part of the Constitution, therefore, by definition, it is Constitutional.

IMO, the US Supreme Court will probably boot this for that exact reason. They will probably say that they could have made a ruling on this before the ratification passed but once passed, their hands became tied.

[ancianita]

55. Exactly. The People have spoken after the 38th state's ratification. No other branch can alter it.

[MosheFeingold]

52. The downside

Is this would make a lot of Affirmative Action programs based on sex illegal.

[ancianita]

57. Probably not. I'm the first to say that the universe is half negative; in this case, doubt and

downside talk are the symptom of women living in that negative universe for centuries. And the affirmative action that pretends to solve it.

It's now time to balance out women's status under rule of law, now that men have tried everything else over centuries to justify their own privileged status.

The ERA, unlike "affirmative" action, could just as well affirm even more areas than ever before. Including equal pay, clubs, sports teams, military status, etc.

It depends on one's existing perspective about women, I think. Doubt, well founded, or imagined, still points to that perspective, one based on institutionalized, forced inferior status of half the nation.

Even affirmative action laws have to be enforced through courts, since discriminators won't admit to their illegal actions unless made to.

I'd prefer to think of the upsides.

[Polybius]

61. Hmm...

Wouldn't it make all bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms unisex too?

[MosheFeingold]

70. I don't know abou that

But that was the argument of Phyllis Shafley (sp?). Regardless, we could figure that out.

I'd be more worried about things like the Violence Against Women Act. A number of the protections expressly only apply to women.

[obamanut2012]

72. of course not -- this is a ridiculous RW argument

Used by the anti-ERA folks. Why in the world do you think this would happen? It isn't logical.

[Polybius]

73. I wan't saying it as a bad thing

I would support it, I oppose separate but equal.

[ancianita]

77. Why not. Your own house is.

[Polybius]

78. Not exactly

While my shower is unisex, it's one at a time.

[RobertDevereaux]

56. Long long LONG overdue...

Make it happen NOW! :^)

[MuseRider]

58. This discussion always makes me cry.

Yeh, I know, emotional women should not be in charge of anything including their own bodies.

I grew up in an extremely male oriented home with an abusive father AND mother who wanted to always be "his" girl. My brothers lives took off. I worked really hard to get the little I was able to get. I was only allowed to go to college if I joined a sorority so I could meet a man to marry. They never expected me to stay in college. This attitude was common but mostly as just an attitude, my parents meant it and the fact that I was continually engaged only to break it off never crossed their mind as anything more than my being a horrible prospect for a wife. I got the education I wanted that way.

No sports so I would not get muscles....you all know the drill from back then. This was the 70's and I got the crap beat out of me for getting caught without a bra (if they had only known what else I was up to).

The very fact that this will not actually do a lot for me personally, physically as an older woman means nothing. The very fact that young women, girls, female babies can be looked at as more than something for others to use, LEGALLY looked at that way means more to me than I can ever express.

We are people, full human beings perfectly capable of doing what we need with our own bodies and minds and lives. Please let us live that way. <---I am feeling positive but wary.

[ancianita]

66. I feel you. When our hearts are hurt or healed, the tears flow. May we move forward to be healed.

Last edited Sun Nov 10, 2019, 03:06 PM - Edit history (1)

The last millennia was hard, but superior beings protested, resisted and lived to teach our forebears.

What we and our descendants will have in the next millennia, are the product of our forethought, witness, and action. Even the most anti-feminist among us now live better lives because of female activists and male allies who were willing to fight for generations that they would never know.

Be wary, but be hopeful.