Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

theHandpuppet

(19,964 posts)
Mon Jul 14, 2014, 09:51 PM Jul 2014

The 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 month’s 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 women’s fundamental right to freedom from sex discrimination. Unsurprisingly, the term “sex discrimination” appears nowhere in the court’s 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 don’t 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 don’t 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 can’t get the equal rights amendment, ask why not. It’s 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
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Hobby Lobby shock: it's high time for an equal rights amendment (Original Post) theHandpuppet Jul 2014 OP
It IS good information. Thank you. Squinch Jul 2014 #1
Should have happened 41 years ago Half-Century Man Jul 2014 #2
The legalities are a bit complicated theHandpuppet Jul 2014 #3
How many have ratified the ERA? Half-Century Man Jul 2014 #4
15 states failed to ratify theHandpuppet Jul 2014 #5
I would have thought Illinios had already Half-Century Man Jul 2014 #6
Surprising, isn't it? theHandpuppet Jul 2014 #7
We can go with "surprising" I guess Half-Century Man Jul 2014 #8
By the way, I was in error, at least about Oregon. theHandpuppet Jul 2014 #9

Half-Century Man

(5,279 posts)
2. Should have happened 41 years ago
Mon Jul 14, 2014, 10:06 PM
Jul 2014

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)
3. The legalities are a bit complicated
Mon Jul 14, 2014, 10:14 PM
Jul 2014

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.

theHandpuppet

(19,964 posts)
5. 15 states failed to ratify
Mon Jul 14, 2014, 10:49 PM
Jul 2014

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)
6. I would have thought Illinios had already
Mon Jul 14, 2014, 10:51 PM
Jul 2014

I'm right next door (Wi). I'll yell at them from across the fence.

Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»Women's Rights & Issues»The Hobby Lobby shock: it...