It's Back the Equal Rights Ammendment

ERA Filed in Illinois House

For

Ratification

  

 There is currently an attempt to pass the original federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in Illinois. Although ERA ran out of time for ratification in 1978, its' supporters claim that if they can get 3 more states to ratify it, then the 1982 deadline can be retroactively extended, ensuring a binding constitutional amendment. The Illinois House passed it in 2003, but it was blocked in the Illinois Senate. Now - once again - it is in the Illinois House as HJRCA7, and it could come up for a House vote shortly.

Today, with all the federal abuse of constitutional powers and limits taking place, this threat needs to be taken very seriously.

  

ERA is not about women's rights.

It's about creating a genderless society that removes "sex" as a legal characteristic. Its' wording states: "Equality of rights under law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of state. 

                                                            

ERA will remove all ability to make legal distinctions based on gender. A a result, all laws and benefits currently protecting women will be thrown out. Current laws that govern alimony, child support, a woman's ability to claim support from her husband, and exemption from military draft registration will be wiped away. In the 18 states that have passed state Equal Rights Amendments, there has been further evidence of women being harmed by ERA.

ERA will legalize all gay-rights. 

This will include same-sex marriages, under the justification that the government cannot discriminate based on sex. Our ability to define marriage based on gender will be eliminated.

Hawaii's Supreme Court ruled that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples is sex discrimination and unconstitutional under Hawaii's state ERA (Bachr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 1993). The people of Hawaii had to pass a state constitutional amendment to overturn this decision.

 

ERA will further entrench abortion in our society and legally mandate taxpayer funding for elective abortions. The New Mexico Supreme Court recently ruled under their state ERA that since only women undergo abortions, the denial of taxpayer funding is "sex discrimination" (N.M. Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 975 P.2d 841, 1998).

 In addition, the Era would empower the federal courts to determine the meaning of "equality of rights" and "sex." In essence we would be handing the state's legislative power to Congress and the unelected judges of our federal courts.  

ERA will transfer large amounts of power from the state government to the federal government, since it empowers Congress to enforce it.

ERA would empower federal courts to determine the meaning of "equality of rights" and "sex". In essence we will be handing the state's legislative power to Congress and the unelected judges of our federal courts. 

   

The ERA's draconian effect will impact all 50 states with one punch, due to the fact that it is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  

Clearly the ERA is not about women's rights. It is about creating a genderless society that removes "sex" as a legal characteristic - the ramifications of which will negatively impact women, families, society, and the structure of our government.

Women already have claim to equal rights through the 14th Amendment (Section 1) as well as many other laws. In fact, in an analysis of the impact of the 1970's ERA, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was unable to find any changes required in employment laws.