Latest posts by Nancy Thorner (see all)
- Nearly 40 Years Ago, Soviet KGB Defector Warned About Communism Going Mainstream - January 14, 2020
- Communist/Socialist Elements in Democrat Party Threaten This Nation’s Republic - January 6, 2020
- UN’s Climate Change Strategy is a Wealth Confiscation Game - December 27, 2019
Should Democrats and some Republican legislators have their way, the thirty-nine years past the original deadline set for its ratification by 1979, the Equal Rights Amendment will reappear for a vote in the Illinois Senate early in April this year. Supporters say they will claim this as a “retroactive ratification.”
It matters not that ERA has already been voted down thirteen times by former Illinois lawmakers, that five states recinded their passage of the Equal Rights Amendment before the 1979 original deadline, and that only two states have ratified ERA between 1979 and 2018 — Nevada and Utah. Illinois proponent of ERA, NOW (National Organization of Women) and the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), refuse to give up.
Why Illinois is a pivotal state in passing ERA
With NV ratifying ERA in 2017 and UT this year, only one more state is possibly needed for this “retroactive ratification”, then they will claim that the ERA has reached the required 38 votes for it to become a Constitutional Amendment. Accordingly, it is very important for Illinois’s ERA Bill to be defeated. Individuals in every state must check the status of ERA in their own state.
If Illinois should become the one additional state needed to ratify ERA, there is a good chance that the time limitations for approval of the amendment would reach the Supreme Court, as did the recission issue decades ago, when the Supreme Court agreed to hear cases on the ERA rescission question, only to subsequently dismiss the cases as moot when ERA expired before the cases could be heard.
Concerning the time limitation for the ratification of ERA, proponents are maintaining that states did not vote on the clause which addressed time limitations, arguing instead that the three-year extension was NOT relevant to the passage of the amendment because states ONLY voted on the text of the 1972 ERA amendment.
Given the nature of the Supreme Court, it would be unwise to play Russian roulette over how the judges might vote in deciding the ERA time limit question. An affirmative majority vote would mandate that the ERA amendment become the law of the land, which makes it doubly important for ERA to be defeated here in Illinois as a targeted state.
ERA Amendment Explained
The text is as follows:
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. (The mention of sex is gender neutral. There is no legal definition of sex differences.)
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. (All power is given over to the federal government to regulate the states.)
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification. (The date for states to ratify has long passed.)
At first glance ERA may sound good to some people, especially as set forth by its proponents. For what is wrong with equal rights for men and women? Education is therefore the means to understanding the disastrous consequences should the ERA Amendment pass the muster of states. Paramount is that ERA has nothing to do with equal rights for women. Besides, doesn’t the 14th Amendment require equal protection under the law for both men and women?
Foundational arguments for opposing ERA
Issues under intense pressure by the Left — gay rights, abortion, women in the military, discrimination in athletics, etc. — are presently being dealt with by judicial fiat and legislation. If ERA were passed and became a Constitutional amendment, it would become more difficult to make any variation or moderation in any of these areas by individual states. It’s one thing to change customs by law or judicial rulings. If something doesn’t work out it can be modified; however, if it’s a Constitutional amendment we might never be able to change or get rid of things we don’t like at any given time down the road. All states would be required to abide by the gender-neutral requirements of the ERA amendment.
As to why ERA has become so important to pass now by proponents of ERA, with Illinois having a bullseye on its back, stems from its link with the progressive Left’s concerted effort, funded largely by Marxist, billionaire George Soros, to create confusion, chaos and descent among the American people as to how they view today’s social issues. There is an attempt to convince the public, not unlike the ERA Amendment would require if passed by 38 states, that there is no difference between a man and a woman, that there are more than two genders, that it is impossible to differentiate between abortions and the medical procedures sought by men, etc.
How ERA would Affect Illinoisans
Although there are many troubling aspect of the ERA Amendment, I’ve chosen several that I thought should be of concern to most Illinoisans, unless they are blind to what is happening in society or political correctness prevents them from admitting the dangerous path this nation is on and the cesspool it’s becoming, if the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and NOW (National Organization of Women) are successful in convincing enough legislators that Mother Nature can be altered according to a person’s whim or fancy, so no difference exists between a man and a woman in every aspect of their lives.
Did you realize that if ERA were passed, women would be drafted into the armed services as the ERA amendment does not recognize any gender differences. Men and women must be treated the same way. What is good for the goose is good for the gander! Granted, there are some women who might fit the bill, having the necessary strength and endurance needed to serve with men in combat, but women are already able to enlist and serve, but as volunteers.
What about gender neutral bathrooms? Are you fine with unspecified bathrooms being the norm wherever you go? If men and women are equal in every way, why the need for separate bathroom?
And what about girls and boys sports in high school and college? The perceived unfairness of men having more sporting activities to participate in than women in high school and college than woman was legislated by Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, which is federal law. Title IX, among other things, requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX doesn’t require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play. In some school situations girls and boys do play on the teams of each other by design, but ERA would open up all sports teams to both men and women. As to the transgender issue in sports, recently a boy who is now undergoing hormone therapy to become a girl was found to have an unfair advantage over his female opponent because she/he still had a more powerful muscular structure.
Paramount Issue of Concern
What should really resonate is among the thousands of homemakers here is Illinois who never worked outside the home, or who didn’t work enough years to quality for Social Security but who are now receiving, upon the death of their spouse, what their husbands would have received in Social Security payments. It would take away the security of a homemaker who perhaps never worked but was instead a full-time Mom. There must be thousands of women in Illinois who are receiving SS payments based on what their husbands would have received. These benefits would be denied to women because they never earned it! And why are homemakers important at a time when women are being driven to become part of the work force whether by necessity of not?
In June of 1979, Phyllis Schlafly, recognized as a national leader of the conservative movement since the publication of her best-selling 1964 book, A Choice Not An Echo, and who was also instrumental in defeating ERA in Illinois in 1972, wrote in her Phyllis Schlafly Report titled, Changing Social Security to Hurt the Homemaker, of the Women’s Lib plan to drive all wives and mothers out of the home by placing financial penalties on the traditional family unit.
- “The Women’s Lib Movement is determined to change us into the Gender-Free (or Unisex) Society, in which there will be no traditional or “stereotyped’ roles for men or women. Women’s Lib advocates do not want it to be considered any more natural for a woman to be a Homemaker than for a man to be a House-husband.”
- “Woman’s Lib advocates are green with envy at the present Social Security system under which the Homemaker receives as much in Social Security benefits when she retires as the woman in the work force. Women’s Lib advocates think the Homemaker is worth nothing because she isn’t paid a money wage, and Women’s Lib is determined to wipe out the Homemaker’s benefit OR make her pay a heavy new tax to continue receiving the Social Security benefits Homemakers now receive in the present system.”
The year is 2018, but nothing has changed since 1979, 39 years ago. Women’s Lib is still pushing for a Gender-free or Unisex Society, and having ERA ratified as an Amendment to the Constitution is its vehicle for success.
Now that you know the truth about ERA, a sense of outrage and urgency should be present. Of great concern is that 53rd District Rep. David Harris (R) has indicated his willingness to vote to ratify ERA when it comes up for a vote in April. Let him know how you feel. Springfield Office: (217) 782-373; District Office (Mt. Prospect, IL): (224) 764-2440; Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
It is likewise important that you reach out to your Illinois state representative and state senator by phone and email as soon as possible to encourage them to vote NO against ERA. A sense of outrage should be present now that you understand the truth about ERA.
Time is running out. Your Illinois representative and senator need your support and must be reminded that the ERA will harm women, the unborn child, and our society.
[Originally Published at Illinois Review]