ERA is fraught with potential unintended consequences: While at a quick glance the ERA seems like a good thing, it is fraught with danger due to its removal of any legal distinction between men and women with its broad and rigid language. 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.” It conspicuously lacks any language that provides for reasonable exceptions. Instead, its inflexible language could potentially invalidate any law that recognizes the inherent differences between the sexes including many affirmative action programs such as the Small Business Administration programs for women owned businesses.
The fear that any reasonable legal distinction would be removed is not merely a matter of speculation, but has been realized in states that have adopted an ERA for their State constitutions similar to that currently being considered for passage in Virginia in an attempt to support the ratification of the ERA for the U.S. Constitution.
Abortion on Demand: If we remove the veil covering the ERA, we see a Trojan horse intended to advance radical Left-wing objectives such as unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortion and special legal rights based on sexual orientation and “gender identity.” While the promoters falsely claim, “The ERA has nothing to do with abortion,” in reality it has everything to do with abortion! The ERA could be interpreted as enshrining in our Constitution a right to taxpayer-funded abortions. For example, in New Mexico Right to Choose, NARAL, et al v. Johnson, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that because of the state’s ERA there is no difference between abortions and medically necessary procedures sought by men, so the state must pay for abortions under Medicaid. When it comes to a left-wing agenda, logic doesn’t count. NARAL and Planned Parenthood strongly support the ERA for this expressed purpose.
Elimination of Sex-segregated Sports Programs: The ERA would supersede Title IX and permit males and females to compete for inclusion on the same sports teams. For example, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court invalidated sex-segregated sports policies, including contact sports, citing the state’s ERA. Likewise the Supreme Court of Washington cited their state’s ERA in ruling that all schools must open their sports teams to both sexes.
Co-ed prisons: Male and female prisons will become integrated, according to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and result in harsher discipline for females since they would be required to be treated in the same way as men. While Delegate Kaye Kory (D-38th District) wrote an op-ed recently in which she argued that the ERA would somehow correct unfair treatment of incarcerated females, this is disinformation. If ratified, the ERA would actually result in females being subjected to MORE unfair treatment because it would lead to the integration of male and female prison systems!
Lower Physical Standards for Military Personnel: Standards could not be different for men and women resulting in the lowering of standards for all. Women would have to register for a potential draft: If ERA becomes as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, there will be no legal distinction between Men and Women in regards to Draft Registration. The requirement to register for the draft did not go away with the end of the Vietnam War. Under the law, virtually all male U.S. citizens, and male aliens living in the U.S., who are ages 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service. If you are required to register and you don't, you will not be eligible for federal student aid, federal job training, or a federal job. You may be prosecuted and face a fine of up to $250,000 and/or jail time of up to five years. According to Justice Ginsberg, the ERA, would require that all women be included in the draft and placed on front-line combat in equal ratios to men.
Loss of Battered Women’s Shelters: All shelters would have to be sexually neutral.
Elimination of Separate Bathrooms, Locker Rooms and Dressing Rooms: Traditional male and female bathrooms, locker rooms, hospital rooms, nursing homes, etc. would be nullified because under the ERA women and men must be treated as indistinguishable. This would place our young children at risk and seriously jeopardize privacy.
Increase in Women’s Insurance Premiums: Additional dangers inherent in the rigid language include the increased cost of auto and life insurance for women as their rates would have to be the same as for men whose risk factors are higher. Regardless of the statistical evidence showing that women live longer than men or women have better driving records. For example, under Pennsylvania’s ERA, gender-based automobile insurance rates were disapproved by the state insurance commissioner due to a claim of sex discrimination. Now women will have to pay the same rates as men even if they statistically have better driving records (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Insurance Commissioner, 482 A.2d 542 [Pa. 1984] and 543-44).
The ERA will be DOA: ratification of the ERA is a moot issue because it failed to receive approval by the requisite number of states by the 1982 deadline, as ruled in NOW, Inc. v. Idaho. However, after eight years of the Obama administration’s packing the federal courts with activist judges, this sound and widely-regarded legal conclusion seems much less reliable today than it once did.
Loss of tax exemptions for churches: If Virginia passes the ERA during the 2019 General Assembly Session and if it is somehow added to the U.S. Constitution, hundreds of churches in Virginia will almost certainly be faced with a dilemma: Change your doctrines, policies, and practices regarding male-only clergy, or risk losing your tax-exempt status.
ERA’s language is broad and inflexible: Broad and inflexible language inevitability results in the activation of the “Law of Unintended Consequences.” As the Washington state case regarding sports teams shows, even more significant than the particular details of the case is a statement from one of the justices that illustrates just how sweeping and uncompromising the ERA’s language really is. He states,
ERA is a 1970s solution to a 21st Century Problem: The left is digging back into the past for old ideas rather than new fresh ideas to deal with current situations. Most issues that were the target of the 1970s ERA have already been dealt with. For example the false claim that “The ERA would guarantee equal pay for women” has already been accomplished as women are already guaranteed equal pay for equal work under both federal and state law. The ERA was bad in the 70s and 80s and it is still bad today.
Loss of Government Programs Supporting Women: Government programs that support women as mothers such as the Women Infants and Children program (WIC), Small Business Administration support for Small Women Owned Businesses, and Social Security benefits for stay-at-home mothers based on their spouse’s income would, among others, be eliminated.
ERA Hurts Women: In the 18 states that passed state Equal Rights Amendments, we have not seen any benefit for women. Instead, court cases prosecuted under the state ERAs have shown that women were harmed. Examples include, in Maryland, the court held that under the state ERA, a husband could no longer be required to support his dependent wife. (Coleman v. Maryland, 37 Md. App. 322, 377 A.2d (1977)) And under Pennsylvania’s state ERA, a father was exempted from providing primary support for his minor children, AND a husband’s legal responsibility for his wife’s hospital and medical bills was nullified. (Conway v. Dana, 456 Pa. 536, 318 A.2d 324 (1974)/ Albert Einstein Medical Center v. Nathans, 5 D&C 3d 619 (1978).
Summary: The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a poorly worded amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would restrict all laws and practices that make any distinctions based on gender. Such an extreme restriction would wipe out beneficial programs for women and prohibit necessary distinctions even when they logically make sense. Stop the ERA. Through unintended consequences, the ERA hurts women!
The fear that any reasonable legal distinction would be removed is not merely a matter of speculation, but has been realized in states that have adopted an ERA for their State constitutions similar to that currently being considered for passage in Virginia in an attempt to support the ratification of the ERA for the U.S. Constitution.
Abortion on Demand: If we remove the veil covering the ERA, we see a Trojan horse intended to advance radical Left-wing objectives such as unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortion and special legal rights based on sexual orientation and “gender identity.” While the promoters falsely claim, “The ERA has nothing to do with abortion,” in reality it has everything to do with abortion! The ERA could be interpreted as enshrining in our Constitution a right to taxpayer-funded abortions. For example, in New Mexico Right to Choose, NARAL, et al v. Johnson, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that because of the state’s ERA there is no difference between abortions and medically necessary procedures sought by men, so the state must pay for abortions under Medicaid. When it comes to a left-wing agenda, logic doesn’t count. NARAL and Planned Parenthood strongly support the ERA for this expressed purpose.
Elimination of Sex-segregated Sports Programs: The ERA would supersede Title IX and permit males and females to compete for inclusion on the same sports teams. For example, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court invalidated sex-segregated sports policies, including contact sports, citing the state’s ERA. Likewise the Supreme Court of Washington cited their state’s ERA in ruling that all schools must open their sports teams to both sexes.
Co-ed prisons: Male and female prisons will become integrated, according to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and result in harsher discipline for females since they would be required to be treated in the same way as men. While Delegate Kaye Kory (D-38th District) wrote an op-ed recently in which she argued that the ERA would somehow correct unfair treatment of incarcerated females, this is disinformation. If ratified, the ERA would actually result in females being subjected to MORE unfair treatment because it would lead to the integration of male and female prison systems!
Lower Physical Standards for Military Personnel: Standards could not be different for men and women resulting in the lowering of standards for all. Women would have to register for a potential draft: If ERA becomes as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, there will be no legal distinction between Men and Women in regards to Draft Registration. The requirement to register for the draft did not go away with the end of the Vietnam War. Under the law, virtually all male U.S. citizens, and male aliens living in the U.S., who are ages 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service. If you are required to register and you don't, you will not be eligible for federal student aid, federal job training, or a federal job. You may be prosecuted and face a fine of up to $250,000 and/or jail time of up to five years. According to Justice Ginsberg, the ERA, would require that all women be included in the draft and placed on front-line combat in equal ratios to men.
Loss of Battered Women’s Shelters: All shelters would have to be sexually neutral.
Elimination of Separate Bathrooms, Locker Rooms and Dressing Rooms: Traditional male and female bathrooms, locker rooms, hospital rooms, nursing homes, etc. would be nullified because under the ERA women and men must be treated as indistinguishable. This would place our young children at risk and seriously jeopardize privacy.
Increase in Women’s Insurance Premiums: Additional dangers inherent in the rigid language include the increased cost of auto and life insurance for women as their rates would have to be the same as for men whose risk factors are higher. Regardless of the statistical evidence showing that women live longer than men or women have better driving records. For example, under Pennsylvania’s ERA, gender-based automobile insurance rates were disapproved by the state insurance commissioner due to a claim of sex discrimination. Now women will have to pay the same rates as men even if they statistically have better driving records (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Insurance Commissioner, 482 A.2d 542 [Pa. 1984] and 543-44).
The ERA will be DOA: ratification of the ERA is a moot issue because it failed to receive approval by the requisite number of states by the 1982 deadline, as ruled in NOW, Inc. v. Idaho. However, after eight years of the Obama administration’s packing the federal courts with activist judges, this sound and widely-regarded legal conclusion seems much less reliable today than it once did.
Loss of tax exemptions for churches: If Virginia passes the ERA during the 2019 General Assembly Session and if it is somehow added to the U.S. Constitution, hundreds of churches in Virginia will almost certainly be faced with a dilemma: Change your doctrines, policies, and practices regarding male-only clergy, or risk losing your tax-exempt status.
ERA’s language is broad and inflexible: Broad and inflexible language inevitability results in the activation of the “Law of Unintended Consequences.” As the Washington state case regarding sports teams shows, even more significant than the particular details of the case is a statement from one of the justices that illustrates just how sweeping and uncompromising the ERA’s language really is. He states,
“With some qualms I concur in the result reached by the majority. I do so, however, exclusively upon the basis that the result is dictated by the broad and mandatory language of Washington's Equal Rights Amendment. Whether the people in enacting the ERA fully contemplated and appreciated the result here reached, coupled with its prospective variations, and may be questionable. Nevertheless, in sweeping language they embedded the principle of the ERA in our constitution, and it is beyond the authority of this court to modify the people's will. So be it.” (emphasis added).
ERA is a 1970s solution to a 21st Century Problem: The left is digging back into the past for old ideas rather than new fresh ideas to deal with current situations. Most issues that were the target of the 1970s ERA have already been dealt with. For example the false claim that “The ERA would guarantee equal pay for women” has already been accomplished as women are already guaranteed equal pay for equal work under both federal and state law. The ERA was bad in the 70s and 80s and it is still bad today.
Loss of Government Programs Supporting Women: Government programs that support women as mothers such as the Women Infants and Children program (WIC), Small Business Administration support for Small Women Owned Businesses, and Social Security benefits for stay-at-home mothers based on their spouse’s income would, among others, be eliminated.
ERA Hurts Women: In the 18 states that passed state Equal Rights Amendments, we have not seen any benefit for women. Instead, court cases prosecuted under the state ERAs have shown that women were harmed. Examples include, in Maryland, the court held that under the state ERA, a husband could no longer be required to support his dependent wife. (Coleman v. Maryland, 37 Md. App. 322, 377 A.2d (1977)) And under Pennsylvania’s state ERA, a father was exempted from providing primary support for his minor children, AND a husband’s legal responsibility for his wife’s hospital and medical bills was nullified. (Conway v. Dana, 456 Pa. 536, 318 A.2d 324 (1974)/ Albert Einstein Medical Center v. Nathans, 5 D&C 3d 619 (1978).
Summary: The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a poorly worded amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would restrict all laws and practices that make any distinctions based on gender. Such an extreme restriction would wipe out beneficial programs for women and prohibit necessary distinctions even when they logically make sense. Stop the ERA. Through unintended consequences, the ERA hurts women!
Comments
Post a Comment