The Equal Rights Amendment Is a Fraud Using Women as the Prop

Townhall | 2/10/2020 | Staff
smilingbearsmilingbear (Posted by) Level 4
Click For Photo: https://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/s1280x720/2014/222/241682af-35f7-4557-8f4d-07a5e3444b47.jpg

Editor's note: This column was co-authored by Tabitha Walter.

The House Judiciary Committee recently marked up H.J.Res.79, and will soon get a floor vote. This joint resolution seeks to remove the congressional deadline for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. When Congress originally passed the ERA, they put a deadline in place for states to ratify it. The ERA failed to win ratification in enough states before the deadline passed and is thus legally dead, but this stale effort is back to enshrine abortion-on-demand at the expense of hard-won protections for women.

ERA - Abortions - States - Abortions - Months

The ERA would not only create a right to on-demand abortions in all 50 states, but it would allow for unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortions through all nine months of pregnancy. Abortion activist group NARAL Pro-Choice America states, “With its ratification, the ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion by clarifying that the sexes have equal rights, which would require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws because they violate both the constitutional right to privacy and sexual equality.”

We already see this at the state level. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has encouraged lawyers to use state ERAs to strike down restrictions on abortion such as parental consent laws. They have also filed briefs in Hawaii, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut arguing that since an abortion procedure is only performed on women, a state’s denial of taxpayer-funded abortion should be considered “sex discrimination” under their state ERA. Pro-abortion groups have won cases in New Mexico (N.M. Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson) and Connecticut (Doe v. Maher) in which the state ERAs upheld this notion.

Groups - Compromise - Language - Abortion - ERA

Pro-life groups have offered compromise language that is abortion neutral. But ERA advocates have rejected that language in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and even Congress, adding weight to the assertion that proponents are set on using the ERA to...
(Excerpt) Read more at: Townhall
Wake Up To Breaking News!
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Welcome to Long Room!

Where The World Finds Its News!