When Being Last Can Do the Nation Some Real Good
Andy Brack
Here’s a way that being last, South Carolina lawmakers could do something really good. Pass the Equal Rights Amendment. Only one more state legislature has to approve it for it to become part of our nation’s basic protections.
You might have forgotten about the amendment, first approved by Congress in 1972, following the rise of the Women’s Movement in the 1960’s. After approval, the amendment went to the states for ratification. Thirty-eight states are needed for ratification.
Right out of the gate, states forged ahead with Hawaii approving on the same day as the final congressional vote. In 1972, 28 states of the 38 needed to ratify approved the amendment. It looked like it was on its way.
But when conservative organizer Phyllis Schlafly started a “Stop ERA” movement that year, things slowed down. Schlafly argued that the ERA, rather than guarantee equal protection for women under law, would create problems for them receiving Social Security, alimony and other benefits. While those arguments were batted down over time, they took the steam out of the ratification push.
By 1979 when a congressionally-imposed deadline approached, three states were needed for final approval. Legal wrangling over the deadline ensued with the judicial branch essentially leaving it to congress whether to adhere to a deadline, or ignore it. By the dawn of the 21st century, the ERA was mostly a distant memory.
Then came the “Me Too” Movement, pink knitted hats and women’s marches on government institutions after the 2016 presidential election on March 22, 2017, the 45th anniversary of congressional approval. The Nevada legislature approved the amendment, followed by Illinois a year later. Nevada lawmakers moved forward after being counseled “if three more states sent their ratification to the appropriate federal official, it would then be up to congress to determine whether a sufficient number of states have ratified the Equal Rights Amendment.
State Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg, hopes the final state to ratify the ERA is South Carolina. She and State Rep. Leon Stavrinakis, D-Charleston, separately pre-filed ratification bills in December. Both measures have bipartisan support, most critically of House Judiciary Committee Chair Peter McCoy, R-Charleston. Cobb-Hunter said while there have been advances for women since 1972 throughout society, the ERA is needed “because first and foremost, it’s the right thing to do. Women deserve equal protection under the law. We (in South Carolina) are known for so many negative things, it would be neat if we were known for something that guarantees rights, given our sordid Civil Rights history.”
She added that federal protection for equal rights would have protected women across state lines because state laws aren’t always similar. Constitutional protection would provide an avenue to ensure fair treatment.
State Rep. Nancy Mace, R-Berkeley, isn’t convinced the ERA is needed, citing some of the same arguments Schlafly used five years before Mace was born.
“I believe women already have equal rights as protected under the 14th amendment,” Mace said. “This legislation also doesn’t take into consideration some of the collateral damage it might have.” She listed concerns about Social Security benefits, alimony, child support, for example.
Not true, said Jennet Robinson, Alterman, Chair of the City of Charleston’s Commission on Women. Earlier this month she helped to push through a pro-ERA resolution approved unanimously by Charleston City Council.
“Wives and widows already receive Social Security,” she said. “Child support is based on ‘best interests of the child.’ Alimony is based on the earnings of both spouses. Many women currently pay alimony to the ex-husbands.”
Alterman told council members it is time for the ERA to be approved.
“We believe that women deserve full and equal rights in the U.S. Constitution,” she said. “The only right guaranteed for women in the Constitution is the right to vote. And she reminded council members of the words of conservative jurist Antonin Scalia in 2011. “Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t.”
Let’s expand legal protections for women. And let’s encourage lawmakers to have the Palmetto state become the 38th state to approve the measure and push it over the goal line.
HELPFUL RESEARCH
The constitution says a citizen may not be discriminated against because of RELIGION.
FIRST AMENDMENT: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” (1791)
The Constitution says a citizen may not be discriminated against because of RACE.
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (1868)
The Constitution gives women the RIGHT TO VOTE.
NINETEENTH AMENDMENT: “The right of citizens of the united States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” (1919) NOTICE THIS AMENDMENT IS ONLY ABOUT VOTING RIGHTS.
HELPFUL WEBSITE
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a26515216/equal-rights-amendment-2019
Andy Brack
Here’s a way that being last, South Carolina lawmakers could do something really good. Pass the Equal Rights Amendment. Only one more state legislature has to approve it for it to become part of our nation’s basic protections.
You might have forgotten about the amendment, first approved by Congress in 1972, following the rise of the Women’s Movement in the 1960’s. After approval, the amendment went to the states for ratification. Thirty-eight states are needed for ratification.
Right out of the gate, states forged ahead with Hawaii approving on the same day as the final congressional vote. In 1972, 28 states of the 38 needed to ratify approved the amendment. It looked like it was on its way.
But when conservative organizer Phyllis Schlafly started a “Stop ERA” movement that year, things slowed down. Schlafly argued that the ERA, rather than guarantee equal protection for women under law, would create problems for them receiving Social Security, alimony and other benefits. While those arguments were batted down over time, they took the steam out of the ratification push.
By 1979 when a congressionally-imposed deadline approached, three states were needed for final approval. Legal wrangling over the deadline ensued with the judicial branch essentially leaving it to congress whether to adhere to a deadline, or ignore it. By the dawn of the 21st century, the ERA was mostly a distant memory.
Then came the “Me Too” Movement, pink knitted hats and women’s marches on government institutions after the 2016 presidential election on March 22, 2017, the 45th anniversary of congressional approval. The Nevada legislature approved the amendment, followed by Illinois a year later. Nevada lawmakers moved forward after being counseled “if three more states sent their ratification to the appropriate federal official, it would then be up to congress to determine whether a sufficient number of states have ratified the Equal Rights Amendment.
State Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg, hopes the final state to ratify the ERA is South Carolina. She and State Rep. Leon Stavrinakis, D-Charleston, separately pre-filed ratification bills in December. Both measures have bipartisan support, most critically of House Judiciary Committee Chair Peter McCoy, R-Charleston. Cobb-Hunter said while there have been advances for women since 1972 throughout society, the ERA is needed “because first and foremost, it’s the right thing to do. Women deserve equal protection under the law. We (in South Carolina) are known for so many negative things, it would be neat if we were known for something that guarantees rights, given our sordid Civil Rights history.”
She added that federal protection for equal rights would have protected women across state lines because state laws aren’t always similar. Constitutional protection would provide an avenue to ensure fair treatment.
State Rep. Nancy Mace, R-Berkeley, isn’t convinced the ERA is needed, citing some of the same arguments Schlafly used five years before Mace was born.
“I believe women already have equal rights as protected under the 14th amendment,” Mace said. “This legislation also doesn’t take into consideration some of the collateral damage it might have.” She listed concerns about Social Security benefits, alimony, child support, for example.
Not true, said Jennet Robinson, Alterman, Chair of the City of Charleston’s Commission on Women. Earlier this month she helped to push through a pro-ERA resolution approved unanimously by Charleston City Council.
“Wives and widows already receive Social Security,” she said. “Child support is based on ‘best interests of the child.’ Alimony is based on the earnings of both spouses. Many women currently pay alimony to the ex-husbands.”
Alterman told council members it is time for the ERA to be approved.
“We believe that women deserve full and equal rights in the U.S. Constitution,” she said. “The only right guaranteed for women in the Constitution is the right to vote. And she reminded council members of the words of conservative jurist Antonin Scalia in 2011. “Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t.”
Let’s expand legal protections for women. And let’s encourage lawmakers to have the Palmetto state become the 38th state to approve the measure and push it over the goal line.
HELPFUL RESEARCH
The constitution says a citizen may not be discriminated against because of RELIGION.
FIRST AMENDMENT: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” (1791)
The Constitution says a citizen may not be discriminated against because of RACE.
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (1868)
The Constitution gives women the RIGHT TO VOTE.
NINETEENTH AMENDMENT: “The right of citizens of the united States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” (1919) NOTICE THIS AMENDMENT IS ONLY ABOUT VOTING RIGHTS.
HELPFUL WEBSITE
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a26515216/equal-rights-amendment-2019
Sample letter to the Messenger
“You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby”
Have the women of the United States really come a long way? In some ways we have, in one very important way, we have not.
If you are under the impression that men and women in the United States have equal rights, you would be among the 80% of the population who make this assumption. You would be wrong.
If you are old enough to have felt legal discrimination because of being female, you know how ugly and unfair that feels. If you are the granddaughters or great-granddaughters of women who in 1972 thought the Equal Rights Amendment was a “no Brainer” to become the 28th amendment to the Constitution, you need to ask them if in that time they could get a credit card in their own name, get a loan without a father or husband co-signing it, be considered for any job they were qualified for, just to name a few, and how wrong they were that the so called ERA amendment would be ratified with no delays.
Well those “delays” have gone on now for forty-seven years, and it is time to add the words, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex” to our constitution.”
The ERA amendment was approved by congress in 1972, next being sent to the fifty states where thirty-eight were needed for ratification per the constitutional process. Twenty-eight states did so almost immediately before a “Stop the ERA” movement was launched slowing the movement down.
Considerably, in 1979, when the arguable deadline for ratification was approaching, three more states were needed for passage.
As of today, only one more state is necessary to reach the 38 needed for ratification. As it turns out, the judicial branch decided the deadline was never actually set and would leave it up to congress. Surely, the 2019 congress would overwhelmingly support a proposed amendment that was passed by congress in 1972.
South Carolina, a state that chose not to ratify the ERA in the 1970’s now has the chance to be the history making thirty-eighth state to correct an outrageous omission in our “blueprint” of government. A bill has already been introduced into South Carolina legislature appearing to have wide bi-partisan (There’s a term we haven’t heard for awhile.”) support.
I am asking you to to first read the February 23, 2019, article in the Greenwood Index-Journal written by Andy Brack (Editor and publisher of the Statehouse Report) and then contact our state legislators urging them to vote FOR the bill which would allow our great state to cast the final vote to ratify the proposed 28th amendment.
“You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby”
Have the women of the United States really come a long way? In some ways we have, in one very important way, we have not.
If you are under the impression that men and women in the United States have equal rights, you would be among the 80% of the population who make this assumption. You would be wrong.
If you are old enough to have felt legal discrimination because of being female, you know how ugly and unfair that feels. If you are the granddaughters or great-granddaughters of women who in 1972 thought the Equal Rights Amendment was a “no Brainer” to become the 28th amendment to the Constitution, you need to ask them if in that time they could get a credit card in their own name, get a loan without a father or husband co-signing it, be considered for any job they were qualified for, just to name a few, and how wrong they were that the so called ERA amendment would be ratified with no delays.
Well those “delays” have gone on now for forty-seven years, and it is time to add the words, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex” to our constitution.”
The ERA amendment was approved by congress in 1972, next being sent to the fifty states where thirty-eight were needed for ratification per the constitutional process. Twenty-eight states did so almost immediately before a “Stop the ERA” movement was launched slowing the movement down.
Considerably, in 1979, when the arguable deadline for ratification was approaching, three more states were needed for passage.
As of today, only one more state is necessary to reach the 38 needed for ratification. As it turns out, the judicial branch decided the deadline was never actually set and would leave it up to congress. Surely, the 2019 congress would overwhelmingly support a proposed amendment that was passed by congress in 1972.
South Carolina, a state that chose not to ratify the ERA in the 1970’s now has the chance to be the history making thirty-eighth state to correct an outrageous omission in our “blueprint” of government. A bill has already been introduced into South Carolina legislature appearing to have wide bi-partisan (There’s a term we haven’t heard for awhile.”) support.
I am asking you to to first read the February 23, 2019, article in the Greenwood Index-Journal written by Andy Brack (Editor and publisher of the Statehouse Report) and then contact our state legislators urging them to vote FOR the bill which would allow our great state to cast the final vote to ratify the proposed 28th amendment.
