The same ACLU that cited Reed in its understanding of women’s rights ten years ago now ignores the landmark case and 40 years of precedent, demanding the ERA’s passage. The ACLU argues that the ERA would pave the way to “reproductive freedom” - meaning near-unrestricted abortion. The National Organization for Women writes, “ ERA - properly interpreted - could negate the hundreds of laws that have been passed restricting access to abortion care and contraception.” NARAL Pro-Choice America fundraised on the link between the ERA and abortion, claiming it would “enshrine” abortion in the U.S. Don’t take my word for it, listen to what those in the abortion lobby acknowledge. So, why in 2021 do we see such an effort to convince women they are not equal under the law, and will not be until a nearly one-hundred-year-old idea is carved into our Constitution? Because a well-funded, politically active industry stands to benefit in a major way. For example, the University of Arizona recently paid $100,000 to settle a gender disparity lawsuit. Women typically work fewer hours than men they choose different education and training they choose different career paths and they take time out of the workforce or choose to work from home over higher wages. When the work is comparable and women are denied equal pay, the Equal Pay Act, the Civil Rights Act, and other laws ensure equal pay under the threat of penalty. Women usually do not do the same job, working the same hours, with the same background as men. Neither does the “wage gap” claim stand up to scrutiny. In decision after decision, many authored by conservative Supreme Court justices, this principle has been reaffirmed.” Reed, it has been clearly understood that the 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination based on sex. The ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project Director, Lenora Lapidus, was adamant back in 2011, saying, “Since the 1971 case, Reed v. The American Civil Liberties Union boasted a 40-year precedent of equality for women.
#EQUAL RIGHTS PROTECTION CLAUSE FULL#
Virginia, the Court affirmed Reed, writing, “Since Reed, the Court has repeatedly recognized that neither federal nor state government acts compatibly with equal protection when a law or official policy denies to women, simply because they are women, full citizenship stature-equal opportunity to aspire, achieve, participate in and contribute to society based on their individual talents and capacities.”
Twenty-five years later, in the United States v. Reed set precedent when the Court applied the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to unanimously strike down a law that discriminated against women. Supreme Court has consistently ruled for decades that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects women from unequal treatment under the law. In 1971 - one year before the first resurgence of the ERA - Reed v. Here’s why: The ERA’s Redundancy: Existing Protections for Women To clamor for the ERA, breathlessly painting women as victims who need their own Constitutional Amendment, while Vice President Kamala Harris stands one breath away from becoming President of the United States, is laughable. Just two years later, Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro became the first woman on a major party presidential ticket. Sandra Day O’Connor had become the first female U.S. Women had held a presidential cabinet position, sat on a federal court bench, headed a political party, and more. When the ERA hit the second deadline without reaching the 38 state ratification requirement in 1982, it had lost much of its urgency. Following the momentum of the equal rights movement, amending the Constitution to affirm those achievements would have radically changed women’s standing in society.īut even without the ERA, women had made great strides by the time the effort resurfaced in 1972.
Women had just won the right to vote three years prior, and the first woman to serve in Congress was elected just three years before that. The Equal Rights Amendment made more sense in 1923. In Name Only: The Inequality of the Equal Rights Amendmentīy Cathi Herrod – President, Center for Arizona Policy The Growing Power of Women They have generously shared this content with us see original piece by Cathi Herrod and Sean Fischer here.
They publish written debates between individuals who disagree in order to demonstrate productive civil discourse and bipartisanship. Divided We Fallis a non-profit news publication working to provide bipartisan dialogue for the politically engaged.
0 kommentar(er)
