On the surface, the Equal Rights Amendment seems quite innocent. The main text states, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex.”
Posted in Federal, Illinois Politics, Sanctity of Life
Tagged Abortion, Albert Einstein Medical Center v. Nathans, Coleman v. Maryland, Elise Bouc, Equal Rights Amendment, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Insurance Commissioner, Infants and Children, military draft, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Selective Service, Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, SJRCA 4, women
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA – Bill #SJRCA 4) is a poorly worded proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would restrict all laws and practices that make any distinctions based on gender or sex. While we believe in equal opportunity for men and women, we also recognize that there are situations where we must make distinctions based on our biological differences such as providing privacy through separate bathrooms and locker rooms. If the ERA becomes fully ratified, men and women could not be treated differently, even if the different treatment is due to physical differences.
Like Medusa, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has reared its chthonic head again, and this time it’s wearing a silly pink hat over all those snakes.
Here’s what the ERA actually says:
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Since the ERA says precisely nothing about women, why do feminists continue to claim that it’s all about women’s rights? In fact, the harm the ERA will cause will redound primarily to women.
What the ERA will do is prohibit the public recognition of …