Women's Rights & Issues
Related: About this forumThe Hobby Lobby shock: it's high time for an equal rights amendment
Note: I have cross-posted this thread from GD, as there is some very good information regarding the legal issues surrounding the push to resurrect the ERA. (Thanks to contributor Jim Lane for some legal perspective.)What I'm going to provide here is the OP only with a link to the thread if you wish to read/contribute more.
Link to thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5225878
The Hobby Lobby shock: it's high time for an equal rights amendment
The supreme court's decision on birth control provisions in favor of religious corporate owners shows the constitution still does not protect women's rights which were overdue in the 1970s
By Liz Holtzman and Jessica Neuwirth
theguardian.com, Friday 11 July 2014
(excerpts)
In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer noted that the price of contraceptives discourages their use by many women. She pointed out that an IUD costs the equivalent of a months pay for women working full time at the minimum wage. According to a range of different studies, women of childbearing age spend between 40% and 69% more for out-of-pocket health costs than men of the same age. In truth, the Hobby Lobby decision will cause much more damage to women 51% of the population than a contrary result would have caused to religious freedom. The supreme court could not have reached its decision if we had had an equal rights amendment in the US constitution. Depriving women of coverage for health services they need is sex discrimination, plain and simple. Also, the religious protections the court relied on were statutory, and a statute cannot override a constitutional provision. An equal rights amendment would have forced the court to consider thoroughly the harm to women of depriving them of contraception, and to recognize womens fundamental right to freedom from sex discrimination. Unsurprisingly, the term sex discrimination appears nowhere in the courts decision.
Although the constitution should be read to protect women against discrimination women, after all, are persons entitled to equal protection under the 14th Amendment the standard for protection against sex discrimination is not as stringent as it should be. And for some members of the court, women dont seem to count as constitutional persons, even though corporations do. Justice Scalia, for example, has said: Certainly the constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't....
...Although the 1972 effort to adopt the equal rights amendment failed, US Representative Carolyn Maloney has introduced a new equal rights amendment that would finally add the word women into the constitution. And Senator Ben Cardin and Representative Jackie Speier have introduced legislation to resuscitate the 1972 proposal.
Those who think we dont need the new amendment may want to think again in light of the Hobby Lobby and the Wheaton College decisions. For those who think we cant get the equal rights amendment, ask why not. Its high time for it simple justice, long overdue....
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/jul/11/hobby-lobby-birth-control-contraception-supreme-court-sexism-constitution
Squinch
(50,774 posts)Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)This came up before I could vote.....How in the hell did it not end up on any ballot I've ever seen?
Push It through
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Which is why I thought it was important to cross post this thread (it's really difficult at times to sustain threads on a busy forum like GD). If you scroll down the discussion of the original thread, you'll find where Jim Lane and I were discussing the legal hurdles involved.
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)How many left?
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)However, ratification is needed from only 3 of those states. It's called the "three state strategy" and I believe - if memory serves me - the states being focused on right now are Illinois, Oregon and Missouri. (If I'm in error about this, I hope someone will jump in and correct me.)
Here's the site that can provide you with the most thorough information about the ERA and the current efforts towards its ratification:
http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/index.htm
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)I'm right next door (Wi). I'll yell at them from across the fence.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)My initial response contained more swear words.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)What confused me was the recent Oregon Equal Rights Amendment which will be put to the vote this November.
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/06/oregon_equal_rights_amendment_2.html