THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT -If women are going into combat, then it's time to amend the Constitution

[kpete]

THU JAN 24, 2013 AT 06:18 AM PST
If women are going into combat, then it's time to amend the Constitution
by 8ackgr0und N015e

Most of the women who will be directly affected by the pending decision to put women in combat are too young to remember the ERA. Many of them may not know what ERA stands for.

It stands for Unfinished Business.

The Equal Rights Amendment, proposed EVERY YEAR for 50 years, was finally passed in Congress in 1972 and sent out to the states for ratification. It failed. Why? I will get to that in a moment. But first let's consider this amendment, originally written in 1923, in detail:

• 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.

• Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

• Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

That's it. Hard to imagine something proposed 90 years ago would be too radical a departure for the hysterical voices from the Right. Actually, that isn't hard to imagine at all. Nevertheless, with this hanging fire for almost a century you may wonder why I bring this up now. After Secretary Clinton's performance yesterday, can anyone doubt that women have broken through the glass ceiling and enjoy equal opportunity to achieve the highest levels of success this country has to offer? In a word: Yes.



MORE:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/24/1181647/-It-s-time-to-amend-the-Constitution

[William769]

1. Agreed.

Same can be said for the LGBT community.

[petronius]

9. It would be nice to see a couple of words added to the end of Section 1: sex, gender,

orientation, identity, ...

And maybe a "...or any other human characteristics that are none of your damn business in the first place."

[William769]

12. ...

[sandyo--ERA]

15. can't, sorry

Can't change a US Constitutional amendment once its filed .

[niyad]

2. absolutely agreed. I could not believe, last night, that some were demanding that women

be required to register for selective service. Until we are recognized as full and equal citizens, they can all go to blazes.

did you see this thread last night:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022249235

[Whisp]

3. bloody friggen right!

You said it. You said what I feel, in shorthand. My knee jerk reaction to this was: oh oh, hang on there, let's think about this and what it really means.

it's fucking bullshit. if a woman can't be safe in her own home or walking to her car with regards to domestic violence and rape, then giving her a gun to go shoot up shit for PNACers solves nothing. Plus she has to consider the rape chances goes way up when in the military.

I can't believe some people are celebrating this like it gives women some footing for equality.

[sandyo--ERA]

19. Again, go ask the commanders in door-to-door combat zones.

Why is it so threatening to testosterone juices that women can learn to do what men do? Men can do everything women can do too, except give birth.

(we're working on that one)

[Whisp]

35. I know what you are saying

and in some ways I totally agree - of course women are just as qualified and able to be in combat than men. That is a given. I'm not arguing that at all.

What I mean is that instead of lessening the number of people to be sent to die for corporations we will now be adding to that number.

When I think 'equality' I think of changes things for the better, for all. Not jumping on the old boys wagon they'd controlled for all time and jumping into stupid wars with them. That's not equality to me at all.

What I would love to see is that boys of 18, babies, are not allowed to enter the military until they are 21. Lets try to work this the other way and reduce the heartache and loss instead of add to it.

[sandyo--ERA]

16. Women could be drafted without an ERA

..Men could, too, upon Act of Congress. PS I fight for males' rights, too, tho sex discrimination is visited upon females more frequently and more unpunished. Think rape, think of our FL wages that average only 72% of a guy's FOR THE SAME JOB, etc etc.

I spearhead (lobby) the ERA bills before the FL legislature (2/3 Republican!) for free for you and all FOR THE PAST 13 YEARS, 18/7. Not for the power and glory--there is none, but because GENDER-EQUAL TREATMENT IS A HUMAN RIGHT. AND it could boost American GDP BY nine Nine NINE percent as it has in some of the other nations that have already passed ERA language. ERA makes sex discrimination A VIOLATION OF THE US CONSTITUTION in many cases.(No, no legislation etc exists that does that--only the Law of the Land would codify justice for both genders. I fight for equal rights for BOTH, equally, as we are both humans, the last time i looked.

BREAKING NEWS IS THAT this year looks like we may actually get ERA bill hearings in Both FL House and Senate. UP or Down vote is overdue after 13 years. The Rs MUST stop throwing us under the bus and Just VOTE, UP or Down. It can happen in March THIS YEAR if you just make TWO PHONE CALLS--HERE ARE THE #S and What to say! How hard is THAT?

Wanna' be part of making history with us? It will take 3.75 minutes and can cost zero:

phone now Now NOW to CALL 2 Florida legislators:

1) Representative Eddy Gonzalez, 305 364-3066

SAY: "Constituents are frustrated having been made to wait THIRTEEN YEARS
for ERA HEARINGS in the Florida HOUSE. Respectfully, WILL Representative
Gonzalez HOLD 2013 HEARINGS on HOUSE BILL 8001? Thank you."

AND
2) Senator Tom Lee, 813 653-7061

SAY: "Constituents have worked 18/7 for THIRTEEN YEARS to see the ERA ratified by Florida legislators. Respectfully, WILL Senator Lee HOLD 2013 HEARINGS on Senate bill 54? Thank you."

(They have never asked where you live. If they do, just say "The ERA bill
IS A FEDERAL BILL AFFECTING ALL AMERICANS, SO WE URGE HEARINGS".)

Will YOU have the guts to make those 2 short phone calls??
Pat yourself on the back when done--you have done Your Civic Duty for ERA is VERY IMPORTANT bill for all Americans and Florida.

See 2PassERA.org when finished, to see our sizzling work for you and what it means to you (click "ERA for Women" or /and "ERA for Men" at page top)

thank you Thank You THANK YOU for this IMPORTANT WORK for yourself and for your family! [e-mail]

[malthaussen]

40. You ever hear the phrase "you're old enough to kill, but not for voting?"

Last time we had conscription, the victims -- ah, subjects -- were not considered citizens, either. Not mature enough either to vote nor drink. However valid your indignation, it doesn't matter 1% -- or to the 1%.

-- Mal

[niyad]

43. yes, I remember that quite well. I realize the one percent doesn't give a damn, but that is not

going to stop me from voicing my beliefs--never has.

and still is beyond belief that people can sign up at 18, but cannot drink legally until 21. that makes no sense at all.

[malthaussen]

44. Ah, sounds like you have the same problem as my mother...

... she cannot understand why the people who make the rules keep making rules that don't make sense. She honestly believes that "they don't care" is too cynical an outlook. But hey, she grew up under Roosevelt.

-- Mal

[niyad]

45. well, did not grow up under either of the roosevelts, but my mind is still somewhat logical--

and most of what I have been seeing for decades in many areas does not make sense. I have been known to ask if being seriously drunk or high would make any of these things make sense.

[malthaussen]

46. No, but a change in perspective might.

If you discard the illusion that politicians work for "the people" and consider most of them as employees of the rich, and consider that for the rich protection of their property is the most sacred duty of the government, then some of the things they pull make sense. If you further recognize that for many of these twits -- even some of the female ones -- women are still a form of property, then again, some things begin to make sense.

After WWII, labor was scarce in the US. When a commodity is scarce, value rises. Basic capitalist theory. The rich were also terrified of the Commies, since they knew enough history to know that if a revolution occurred in the US, they would be the first ones hung on the lampposts. So concessions were grudgingly made, and for a brief moment the welfare of the people -- as "human resources" -- became more important. This "concern" ended when the Boomers came into the labor force. We don't have enough jobs for all the people -- so we don't need all those people. Let 'em die.

BTW, do you think it is a coincidence that, as the pressure on combat troops has become so high, with multiple deployments leading to increased disruption and suicide among the troops, that suddenly women have been "granted" the right to combat roles? The military is experiencing a labor shortage, and while it persists, there will be "concessions" made. I wonder, though, if this is not just a brief window of opportunity, as low-labor military solutions are becoming more popular.

Which is a bit of a ramble off from the question of killing and voting. The bottom line, I think, is that the politicians are really not working for you, so what they do will only accidentally make sense to you.

-- Mal

[niyad]

47. I have never entertained the delusion that politicians work for us, regardless of what the civics

lessons say. and I have never believed that any of the powers-that-be give a damn about the peons. but, even given that, so much of what they do is so clearly nuts, that it truly boggles the mind.

as I keep pointing out to them, if they kill us all off, there will be nobody left to do their scut work, or buy their crappy products and services.

[malthaussen]

48. Yeah, that's the real bafflement.

They used to understand this. I can only conclude that they really don't think they'll be able to kill off all of us (on a worldwide scale), so that there will always be peons to exploit. There are a lot of Chinese and Indians, after all.

As for climate change and possible disaster, they must think either that they'll survive, or it won't happen until they're already dead.

Of course, we can't rule out congenital imbecility due to inbreeding.

-- Mal

[niyad]

49. you nearly owed me a keyboard--I was drinking coffee when I read that last line.

[malthaussen]

50. Glad I could help

[obamanut2012]

4. k&r

[SunSeeker]

5. I can't beleive we STILL don't have the ERA---and it is not even up for discussion in Congress. nt

[sandyo--ERA]

17. Ah, but I just worked w/3 other states to file a new, speedup ERA bill

before the US House and Senate..and am superbusy "in my 'spare' time" lobbying those as well as mentoring the 8 other states as they file their bills---REMEMBER, WE ONLY NNEEEEED 3 MORE STATES TO VOTE YES, and ERA passes directly into the US Constitution.
(2 research studies show that "wherever gender equal treatment is the standard, marital harmony is increased and divorce DE-creased". My own looong marriage is a loving example.

I have told the FL legislature when giving testimony, "You will keep seeing us in your offices and in Tallahassee capitol offices, whether in a wheelchair and on oxygen,for ----WE WILL DO THIS. ABSOLUTELY.

My 300 000 members of Natl ERA Alliance are my echo.

[e-mail]

[SunSeeker]

34. Wow. I had no idea anyone was working on the ERA!

Thank you for your service!

[Demo_Chris]

6. We don't need more combat soldiers, we need less combat

[sandyo--ERA]

18. NO combat, no more Wars is the goal.

Free up women and girls to be treated equally across the board, and War can become a more distant threat every single year. It's not for nothing that military commanders I have spoken to just rave about how servicewomen now caught in combat zones and going door to door, handle it better than the guys. (Oh, yes, they say that!)

[yardwork]

7. Yes.

[longship]

8. But then girls and boys would have to use the same toilets!

I can hear her say it already.

on edit: Oopsy! Almost forgot.

[sandyo--ERA]

20. NOPE. Respect for decency is assured

I may be wrong but I think it's the 10th amendment to US Constitution that assures this.

Besides, we already are accustomed to sharing bathrooms in homes, airplanes, etc., and NOBODY DIED.

This is just one of the Daffy Schlafly-isms, called The Four Dreadeds. It's an empty argument by those who can't stand the idea of American females owning their own lives' trajectories. Some women are in that corner, most men are not; it's the lawmakers who Grrumph at the idea and STILL REFUSE TO HEAR/VOTE UPON the ERA in just 3 more states!

Florida's House legislature is one of those, no surprise there. I and my 300 000 members have been lobbying ERA ratification bills before FL House and Senate FOR THIRTEEN SOLID YEARS, 18/7. It's just NOT funny. We are one of the few major countries to refuse to accept females' birthright to inclusion of protection from sex discrimination in the US Constitution. So MUCH for "exceptionalism".

YOU can help -- ! Breaking News--after our 13 years of For-free for YOU lobbying FL ERA bills, it's possible ERA bills will finally get a hearing, a vote UP or Down. Two legislators will make that decision shortly!If you want to help, phone these 2 FL legislators now. PHONE #s and What to Say are here:



1) Representative Eddy Gonzalez, 305 364-3066

SAY: "Constituents are frustrated having been made to wait THIRTEEN YEARS
for ERA HEARINGS in the Florida HOUSE. Respectfully, WILL Representative
Gonzalez HOLD 2013 HEARINGS on HOUSE BILL 8001? Thank you."

AND
2) Senator Tom Lee, 813 653-7061

SAY: "Constituents have worked 18/7 for THIRTEEN YEARS to see the ERA
ratified by Florida legislators. Respectfully, WILL Senator Lee HOLD 2013
HEARINGS on Senate bill 54? Thank you."

As founder-president of National Equal Rights Amendment Alliance (300 000) I am urging you, PLEASE, to call right now while they have time to consider us women and men's rights to be FREE of sex discrimination!
Thanks, sandy oestreich, Prof. Emerita; nurse practitioner; co-author, internationally distributed pharmacology reference texts, wife of feminist guy and Mom of two, blah, blah

thankyou Thank You THANK YOU!

[Romulox]

28. The 10th Amendment does not protect "respect for decency".

You seem to be making this up as you go along?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[niyad]

36. she did say it already, often

I asked her once if the males and females in her house used separate bathrooms. she did not like the question.

[The Blue Flower]

10. One of the arguments against ERA in the 70s

It was common for the argument against the ERA to be that women would then have to serve in combat. So you're absolutely right.

[sandyo--ERA]

21. NOPE again

Servicewomen have "been in ('forbidden') combat" in the Mideast for a long time. Now they will get combat pay! That's the only difference. In fact, women have been serving in combat and have died since before the Revolutionary War. In WWII, women flew planes with targets that the men refused to; some died when our guys missed the target.

We are just as patriotic, just as capable (more-so, say Commanders), so do not continue to try to keep us without rights to our own lives, thank you.

So, Stand Down, fellas.

[e-mail] www.2PassERA.org
sandy oestreich, Pres/founder, National ERA Alliance; fmr elected official; Prof Emerita, etc etc

[actslikeacarrot]

22. Combat pay is based on location...

...not gender. ANYONE serving in Afghanistan is getting hazardous duty pay and imminent danger pay.

[Coyote_Tan]

42. Correct...

[freshwest]

11. Women in combat was one of the major themes by Schafly to defeat the ERA. Now it's gone.

[Jim Lane]

13. Many instances of gender-discriminatory laws have been struck down under the Equal Protection Clause

Are there specific discriminatory laws still on the books that a ratified ERA would invalidate?

This thread has mentioned the current requirement that men (only) register for Selective Service, so that a draft can be reinstituted quickly. That law might or might not survive the ERA. (In the 1970s, when the ERA was more of a hot issue, there would have been a better argument for preserving the males-only registration requirement, because the idea was to compel registration of people who might be drafted to serve in combat. Today, that defense wouldn't work. My guess is that the law would fall.)

Are there any others?

Bear in mind that the ERA applies only to government action. It won't stop Rupert Murdoch from running sexist headlines in the New York Post. It won't purge online forums of the use of "bitch" to put down women. It won't even require equal pay for equal work in the private sector. That requirement is imposed by federal statutes (and by some state statutes and municipal ordinances). Those protections could be repealed by simple legislative action, whether or not there's an ERA in the Constitution.

Yes, I recognize the argument for its symbolic value. I'm just trying to determine what the practical effects would be.

[sandyo--ERA]

23. NOPE, for the third time

14th Amendment did not strike anything down.

THE 14TH AMENDMENT IS A MEN-ONLY AMENDMENT PASSED in, get this--1868! Stretched once to cover American women, it does not suffice--Even Justice Scalia said that last year!That's why a gender-equal treatment amendment is needed desperately -- to make rampant USA sex discrimination, both genders, A VIOLATION OF THE US CONSTITUTION in many cases!

Please step aside when you are ill=informed, and ask for accurate info; don't make such pronouncements so typical of some men who think they can push us around because "they 'know' everything". Tain't so.

You are welcomed to our www.2PassERA.org for all the answers. Truly. We've been at this for 13 years for you For Free...we KNOW, we LIVE sex discrimination Every Single Day in horrible ways. Wake up, guys, and Stand With us---ERA benefits you, too, as you experience some sex discrimination too, just not as common nor as egregious or life-threatening (think rape).

[Jim Lane]

41. I disagree with your legal analysis.

Your statement that the Fourteenth Amendment is “men-only” (with an implication that it does not invalidate any discrimination against women) is inaccurate. See, for example, the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996). (Links: full text here, summary and explanatory article here.) Virginia Military Institute’s males-only admission policy was subject to review under the Equal Protection Clause because it was a government institution, the government being the State of Virginia. Virginia tried to preserve VMI as males-only by offering a program for women at a different location. I don’t know if the State expressly called this approach “separate but equal” but that was obviously its intent. It failed. The Supreme Court, on a 7-1 vote, struck down the males-only admission policy. VMI enrolled its first female cadets in 1997. It is co-educational to this day.

You write, “Please step aside when you are ill=informed, and ask for accurate info....” Well, uh, that’s what I did. I asked, “Are there specific discriminatory laws still on the books that a ratified ERA would invalidate?” You haven’t cited any.

You referred me to www.2PassERA.org. There I found more than two dozen subpages linked on the home page. Frankly, I wasn’t willing to wade through that much material to try to get a clear answer to a straightforward question. I tried “ERA Explained” as perhaps offering the best chance. All I found was the unsupported assertion that the Fourteenth Amendment “is actually a Male-Only amendment,” which, as I explained above, is not accurate.

It’s true that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and specifically its Equal Protection Clause, has changed over the years. “Separate but equal” facilities for blacks were upheld in 1896, but that decision was overruled in 1954, in the decision that began the long process of school desegregation. Similarly, in 1974, the Supreme Court upheld a Florida statute that granted widows (but not widowers) an annual $500 property tax exemption. Kahn v. Shevin, 416 U.S. 351 (1974). In light of the VMI decision and other developments in the caselaw, I believe that Kahn v. Shevin would be decided differently today.

You also noted Justice Scalia’s restrictive view of the Equal Protection Clause. Scalia was the lone dissenter in the VMI decision. His view does not represent the current state of the law.

I support equality for women. That cause is ill served, however, by the bad-mouthing of the Fourteenth Amendment. Progressives shouldn’t go around telling people that Scalia is right on this subject. He isn’t.

[sandyo--ERA]

25. 2PassERA.org, "ERA for women", "ERA for men", etc etc

Go to our site, please, Jim, so that you are fully informed.

Again, women can be drafted any old time now, as can men.

On the face of it, you are right on ERA vis a vis us women getting equal wages for the same work, same creds, etc. That's why when the Republicans face the Paycheck Fairness Act every year, they fall into line with Corporations who refuse to pay us equal wages and resoundingly vote NO NO NO. Here in FL, women average only 72% of a guys work for same job etc. THAT puts 1 out of 7 elderly women in poverty that YOU and all of us pay for in the form of Taxes for Medicaid, food stamps, public assistance etc!

Doesn't it make you mad that YOU are subsidizing stubborn corporate greed, if nothing else? We women are furious over this holdup of passing ERA after 90 years, this year. "All nations created since WWII have ALREADY adopted ERA language". Ironically, OUR SERVICEWOMEN and Men were responsible for instituting that overseas. What are We, tho, "chopped liver"???

Ratify the ERA in Florida, then there's only 2 TwO TWO more states needed to vote YES!

Please please call these 2 legislators to urge them to HOLD HEARINGS on House 8001 and Senate 54 -- it's a First in my 13 struggling years for both genders. Please PLEASE, IT'S JUST 2 SHORT CALLS and we've given you the #s and what to say (Help your daughter, wife, sister, mom, and YOURSELF):

CALL THE 2 FLORIDA LEGISLATORS NOW, TIMING IS PERFECT--BE COURTEOUS (WE NEED THEIR VOTES) THANKS, [e-mail]

1) Representative Eddy Gonzalez, 305 364-3066

SAY: "Constituents are frustrated having been made to wait THIRTEEN YEARS
for ERA HEARINGS in the Florida HOUSE. Respectfully, WILL Representative
Gonzalez HOLD 2013 HEARINGS on HOUSE BILL 8001? Thank you."

AND
2) Senator Tom Lee, 813 653-7061

SAY: "Constituents have worked 18/7 for THIRTEEN YEARS to see the ERA
ratified by Florida legislators. Respectfully, WILL Senator Lee HOLD 2013
HEARINGS on Senate bill 54? Thank you."

[Lady Freedom Returns]

14. K&R n/t

[Starry Messenger]

24. K&R

[sandyo--ERA]

26. Whaaaaat ?

[randome]

30. K&R = "Kicked & Recommended".

Welcome to DU.

[sandyo--ERA]

32. Yaaaaaay! BE a Hero and urge ERA hearings in FL legislature

1) Representative Eddy Gonzalez, 305 364-3066

SAY: "Constituents are frustrated having been made to wait THIRTEEN YEARS
for ERA HEARINGS in the Florida HOUSE. Respectfully, WILL Representative
Gonzalez HOLD 2013 HEARINGS on HOUSE BILL 8001? Thank you."

AND
2) Senator Tom Lee, 813 653-7061

SAY: "Constituents have worked 18/7 for THIRTEEN YEARS to see the ERA
ratified by Florida legislators. Respectfully, WILL Senator Lee HOLD 2013
HEARINGS on Senate bill 54? Thank you."

[randome]

37. Okay. I will.

[randome]

27. Oh, come on. Be reasonable.

Wait a minute. You are. But reason won't help. You're forgetting one thing: ERA will not pass without Conservative support. And they neither support women in combat nor the ERA in principle.

[sandyo--ERA]

31. We've heard those negatives FOR THIRTEEN YEARS but they are useless

Just go to 2PassERA.org to see our successes with these GOP troglodytes! THere's a HUGE opportunity right now to gain ratification by a vote in the FL legislature in just 2 months from now--only 2 states to go after that!

Negatives are futile. We forge on. I've even had a MALE REPUBLICAN Sponsor/file my ERA bill. 47 co-sponsor most years! It's the largest string of co-sponsors EVER for a bill that has yet to get heard BOTH FLORIDA HOUSES!

So, quitcher bitchin' and Pitch IN. Call these 2 #s and tell these Major Influential legislators you want the ERA bills H8001 and S 54 to get hearings UP or DoWN. We women are furious at their legislative War on Women. I spoke at the US Capitol, DC , on this last August. Thousands support what I'm saying.

Shame on America for not codifying our birthrights in the Nation's contract with its (male) people like all nations have since WWII! WITHOUT AN ERA IN THE US CONSTITUTION, the Rs are free to continue to throw male and female UNDER THE BUS. WE ARE FIGHTING FOR BOTH GENDERS.

call and say:



1) Representative Eddy Gonzalez, 305 364-3066

SAY: "Constituents are frustrated having been made to wait THIRTEEN YEARS
for ERA HEARINGS in the Florida HOUSE. Respectfully, WILL Representative
Gonzalez HOLD 2013 HEARINGS on HOUSE BILL 8001? Thank you."

AND
2) Senator Tom Lee, 813 653-7061

SAY: "Constituents have worked 18/7 for THIRTEEN YEARS to see the ERA
ratified by Florida legislators. Respectfully, WILL Senator Lee HOLD 2013
HEARINGS on Senate bill 54? Thank you."

You will feel good about yourself once you do this VERY IMPORTANT ACTION for liberty in the USA starting with Florida--we JUST NEED THREE STATES TO SAY YES TO ERA. Will YOU help now--it's time-critical. thank YOU! [e-mail] www.2passERA.org to see how hard and long we fight FOR YOU For Free because it's the Right Thing to do.

[sandyo--ERA]

29. please just pick up the phone for ERA--takes 2.5 minutes and it's IMPORTANT

THE FOLLOWING ARE NICE GUYS, be courteous. They just need badly to hear from YOU from all over the nation (YOU are stakeholders no matter where you live). THEY decide whether ERA bills will be heard in Both houses of the Florida legislature this March 2013! It's a first in THIRTEEN YEARS of my struggles with 300 000 members Natl ERA Alliance. Please? PLEASE CALL, using #s and what to say below:

1) Representative Eddy Gonzalez, 305 364-3066

SAY: "Constituents are frustrated having been made to wait THIRTEEN YEARS
for ERA HEARINGS in the Florida HOUSE. Respectfully, WILL Representative
Gonzalez HOLD 2013 HEARINGS on HOUSE BILL 8001? Thank you."

AND
2) Senator Tom Lee, 813 653-7061

SAY: "Constituents have worked 18/7 for THIRTEEN YEARS to see the ERA
ratified by Florida legislators. Respectfully, WILL Senator Lee HOLD 2013
HEARINGS on Senate bill 54? Thank you."

[sandyo--ERA]

33. Help Help us 2PassERA.org

1) Representative Eddy Gonzalez, 305 364-3066

SAY: "Constituents are frustrated having been made to wait THIRTEEN YEARS
for ERA HEARINGS in the Florida HOUSE. Respectfully, WILL Representative
Gonzalez HOLD 2013 HEARINGS on HOUSE BILL 8001? Thank you."

AND
2) Senator Tom Lee, 813 653-7061

SAY: "Constituents have worked 18/7 for THIRTEEN YEARS to see the ERA
ratified by Florida legislators. Respectfully, WILL Senator Lee HOLD 2013
HEARINGS on Senate bill 54? Thank you."

[Orrex]

38. What a fantastic idea!

k/r

[malthaussen]

39. I believe if ERA was sent to the states now, it would do worse

... than it did in the '70s. 45% of women voted for Mitt Romney. What does that tell you?

-- Mal

[MADem]

51. I've been beating this drum for a few decades, now.

I might even have a button like that stashed away in a shoebox, somewhere...