“Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
On March 22, 2021, the House of Representatives passed House Joint Resolution (H.J.Res.) 17 to “remove the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment” -- an amendment that has been dead for thirty (30) plus years! It now goes to the Senate for consideration.
Notwithstanding that its way too late for this, it is just another example of the Democrats’ grim determination to legislate our way of life out of existence, and to turn a losing proposition into a winning one! They never give up! Neither should we! We are all Phyllis Schlafly’s now!
The H.J.Res. reads:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that notwithstanding any time limit contained in House Joint Resolution 208, 92d Congress, as agreed to in the Senate on March 22, 1972, the article of amendment proposed to the States in that joint resolution shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the United States Constitution whenever ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.
The history of passage of the ERA indicates that it was passed by Congress on March 22, 1972 and sent to the states for ratification. In order to be added to the Constitution, it needed approval by legislatures in three-fourths (38) of the 50 states. By 1977, the legislatures of 35 states had approved the amendment. Congress passed a bill extending the deadline for ratification from March 22, 1979, to June 30, 1982, but the ERA still fell short of the required state ratifications by the second deadline.
In or about 2017, Nevada, Illinois and Virginia purportedly became the 36th, 37th, and 38th states to approve the ERA. However, by this time, not only had five of the original States that passed the ERA—Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee and South Dakota—rescind their ratifications, under President Trump, the Justice Department maintained that the ERA could no longer be ratified because its deadline expired in 1982. Therefore, ratification of the ERA by Nevada, Illinois and Virginia did not count. Apparently, this 117th House of Representatives agree. Why else H.J.Res.?
The 1923 version of a proposed ERA read:
“Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
However, the 1972 version of the proposed ERA was changed to read:
- Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
- Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
- Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
Like its 1923 version, the 1972 version of the ERA also sought equality between men and women. But today in 2021, our understanding of how the Democrats view and interpret the phrase “on account of sex” would appall its early framers. It clearly no longer just means men and women. In 2021, as we see in H.R. 5, the Equality Act, it also means “gender identity and sexual orientation.” For this reason alone, no Republican should want to see the ERA revived and passed by 38 State legislatures.
Phyllis Schlafly was one of the first conservative women to successfully campaign against ratification of the ERA. She was vilified! There have been other conservative women who have followed in her footsteps. Calling the ERA “a war on women,” in 2020, Concerned Women for America adds that this misguided amendment — if it were ever to be revived and passed — would:
- Wipe out all ability to use any laws using “sex” as a defining characteristic, therefore overturning workplace and family laws that protect women.
- Overturn privacy laws that define who may use men’s and women’s bathrooms and locker rooms.
- Attack religious-freedom laws in situations where faith-based groups recognize distinctions between the sexes, such as in women-only domestic violence shelters run by faith-based organizations.
- Be used to write abortion rights into our U.S. Constitution with the rationale that restricting access to abortion is a form of gender discrimination (since it singles out women for a physical trait unique to them).
- Affect Social Security, Medicare benefits, health-insurance benefits and more.
Is there not equality under the law for men and women? Who doubts there isn’t? Apparently, Democrats doubt that! Oh, and these few Republicans who voted for the Resolution doubt that:
- Curtis (R- Utah)
- Fitzpatrick (R – Pennsylvania)
- Reed (R – New York)
- Malliotakis (R – New York)
Republicans Fitzpatrick and Reed, along with Katko (R-New York), also voted in favor of H.R. 5, the Equality Act, so they cannot claim ignorance of what “on account of sex” could mean and does mean if the Democrats have their way in the Senate. These Republicans want gender identity and sexual orientation written into the Constitution? On almost a daily basis, we are being undermined by other Republicans!
They are ___________ to the Republican Party or is this too strong a word to use on them? And, yet and still, the NRCC wants money to fund the campaigns of these ___________ (you fill in the blank)!
I hope this is of value!
Demetria Carter