The Leader’s ERA obsession
ArchPundit
With the tactic to try and bring back the ERA for consideration to the US Constitution gaining steam, the Illinois Leader opens fire and is either too dumb or just lying about the effect of the Equal Rights Amendment. It is really a twofer for them since Illinois House Minority Leader, Tom Cross, is a supporter of the ERA, they can attack both at once.
First, let me say, I don’t really understand the movement. It seems to me that the language of the amendment precludes it being considered further at this point, but I’ll leave that to Constitutional Scholars. I am for an ERA though and fail to understand why it has never been passed.
The Leader decides to pull out all of the garbage Phyllis Schlafly and other conservatives used to defeat it the first time.
Let’s run them down:
1) Women will be drafted and forced to serve in combat
2) It will legalize gay marriages
3) It entitles women special rights
4) It automatically means state funded abortions
Well, one is correct. Women will be drafted and if they made the fitness levels, they would serve in combat. Some do now, though only in the Navy or in jets. Welcome to the 21st century, women have the same obligations as men in our republic.
Two is nonsense, absolute Schlafly bullshit. The ERA would make gender a suspect classification, not sexual orientation. I’m for sexual orientation being a suspect classification, but the ERA doesn’t do that.
Three, well no, forcing the state to only treat you differently if there is a compelling state interst isn’t a special right, it is something that should be normal for a feature that is irrelevant to one’s participation as a citizen. Having ovaries is irrelevalant to one’s participation as a citizen.
Four, is simply not true. There is some argument that abortion would be further protected by the ERA because of equal protection. IOW, because men don’t have the same restrictions on reproduction, similar restrictions on women would be unconstitutional. However, claiming state funding of abortions would be mandated is simply not true. Given the state doesn’t have to fund health care, this is a silly claim.
My favorite not contained in the article is that there will only be unisex bathrooms. I’m sure that is in the next article.
The ERA should be a non-controversial issue. It isn’t solely about women either, despite what the wingnut fringe would like to claim. It makes gender a suspect classification just as race, religion and national origin currently are. There is nothing special about this at all.
The ERA is yet another attempt by the loony Left to force through an agenda that would have slim popular support if it was not couched in egalitarian feel-good sophistry. It might also help if Republican lemmings stopped chasing the almighty suburban soccer mom vote right off the sanity cliff.
Or if wingnuts got a clue…