77 Comments - Steve - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:11 pm: I voted no. No one can deny “equal protection under the law” is important. It’s already in the U.S. Constitution. The ERA can’t make it, it’s too late. So why waste time? Unless there’s a way to start the whole process over for its’ advocates: in Washington D.C. - OldSmoky2 - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:11 pm: Yes, absolutely. This should be a bipartisan no-brainer. Even Dwight Eisenhower supported passing it in the 1950s. - VanillaMan - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:13 pm: As soon as we find our disco albums, nylon shirts and platform shoes. Nothing beats those 70s! Jimmy Carter! Dyn-O-Mite! - Give Me A Break - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:14 pm: VMan, get in the game, albums are out, 8 Track is the way to go. - VanillaMan - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:15 pm: If it passes, force supporters into Chevy Vegas for the rest of their lives. - VanillaMan - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:16 pm: Its the new 1975 AMC ERA - the new wide constitutional amendment! - Jimmy - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:16 pm: Republicans should embrace this opportunity because it will very likely allow for lawsuits, laws and referendum requiring gender equity in award of public business and in school admissions (see State of Michigan next door). - Bill White - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:16 pm: A fascinating question . . . Absolutely yes, the IL General Assembly should pass this and hand the question back to the US Congress: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/strategy.htm#Legal_analysis == A 1939 Supreme Court decision (Coleman v. Miller) reaffirmed the power of Congress to fix a reasonable time period for ratification but also determined that Congress has the power to promulgate an amendment after the final state constituting a three-fourths majority ratifies. In Coleman, the Court held that Congress, upon receiving notification of ratification by three-fourths of the states, may determine whether the amendment is valid because it has been ratified in a reasonable period of time, or whether “the amendment has lost its vitality through lapse of time.” The Court called the timeliness decision a “political question” and said that Congress is uniquely equipped to make that decision because of its “full knowledge … of the political, social and economic conditions which have prevailed during the period since the submission of the amendment.” == - Steve - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:17 pm: Does anyone really doubt with budget and public pensions issues in front of the Illinois legislature that they have their plate full? - VanillaMan - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:18 pm: I can see the ads supporting it now… a sunny hill full of young people wearing groovy clothes and holding hands, “I want to teach the world to sing - in perfect harmony” “I’d like to pass the ERA - for symbolic poetry!” - Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:18 pm: A mom was just given the boot from the National Restaurant Association show for bringing her breastfeeding infant. Ironically, she was there as a small business owner to exhibit her company. In defense of the association, an attorney argued that banning breastfeeding infants from the show is not the same as banning breastfeeding mothers. Um. Whatever. This is not the first time that breastfeeding moms have had problems at McCormick Place, but this one is in the Tribune and will likely be 9 o’clock news. That’s how public facilities behave, imagine what the private ones are like. So yeah, go Steans. - Rich Miller - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:20 pm: VMan, you’re getting close to making the case that this should pass. Just sayin… - Grandson of Man - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:21 pm: I voted yes because I believe in equal rights for women. Pay for women still lags behind that of men. We should enshrine in national law the protections that have been missing for women throughout our history. “It was a very big deal here. Before my time, but stories still abound.” I have several Mike Royko books and was a semi-regular reader of his column. One of his great columns was on the failure of ERA to pass many years ago. He said the ERA lobbyists were too well-intentioned and didn’t know how to play politics in Illinois. Royko said they should forget about the charts and leaflets and throw shoeboxes of cash through hotel room transoms of legislators (something like that). He said legislators could have been bought cheaper than the cost of good-intentioned campaigns. - Bill White - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:23 pm: Dear VMan . . . This is from April 2014: == New Hampshire state Rep. Will Infantine (R) explained that the pay gap between men and women stems from the fact that men work harder, take riskier jobs and are “more motivated by money” == http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/24/will-infantine-paycheck-fairness-bill_n_5206350.html - VanillaMan - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:23 pm: There are a lot of dead constitutional amendments out there still “viable” if you believe the ERA can ignore the constitutional deadline. There is a reason for a deadline for these things. It wasn’t just to pick on the ERA. If you want to open that can of worms, be prepared for a whole new slew of new old constitutional amendments in purgatory limbo. - cover - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:32 pm: = A mom was just given the boot from the National Restaurant Association show for bringing her breastfeeding infant. = Not sure how that relates to the ERA, since men don’t breastfeed. For now, anyway… but who knows what future biotech might accomplish. To the post, I voted no. Since “equal protection” is already guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, I don’t see what the ERA would add to the Constitution that isn’t already there. - Ahoy! - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:32 pm: Voted no even though I would most likely support the ERA if given the opportunity actually pass. (I only say most likely because I don’t know all the details of the original amendment). - Bill White - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:35 pm: == If you want to open that can of worms, be prepared for a whole new slew of new old constitutional amendments in purgatory limbo. == Anyone have a list? - 47th Ward - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:35 pm: Yes, absolutely yes. Not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because these social issue distractions are few and far between this year. We need to recycle a few so Quinn has something to bludgeon the GOP with until November. C’mon people. Try to keep up. If the ILGOPs were smart, they’d jump on board and pass this with little debate, to take it off the board. But I suspect they’ll choke on this like they do every time somebody mentions Obama. At least they’re predictable. - Bill White - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:41 pm: This appears to be the list of amendments ratified by Congress but never enacted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unratified_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution I like the first one . . . One member of the US Congress for every 50,000 people or 7,000 current members of the US Congress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Bill_of_Rights - Aldyth - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:41 pm: I voted yes. I worked for it when I was in college, lo those many years ago. I would work for it today. Equal protection under the law? We don’t have it and it’s way overdue. - Rich Miller - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:43 pm: ===If you want to open that can of worms, be prepared for a whole new slew of new old constitutional amendments in purgatory limbo. === VMan, there are only six, including this one… The Corwin Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution passed by the 36th Congress on March 2, 1861 and submitted to the state legislatures for ratification.[1] Senator William H. Seward of New York introduced the amendment in the Senate and Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio introduced it in the House of Representatives. It was one of several measures considered by Congress in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to attract the seceding states back into the Union and to entice border slave states to stay.[2] Technically still pending before the states, it would, if ratified, shield “domestic institutions” of the states (which in 1861 included slavery) from the constitutional amendment process and from abolition or interference by Congress - South of I-80 - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:48 pm: I was running around the Capitol during that time and it was insane, people chained to this statue or that door or something. Unbelievable floor debates, that people still talk about! Reading these comments brought back those memories and also tells me that, we will be in for a repeat if this does come about. - Oswego Willy - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:49 pm: If Heather “Vote Countula” Steans is doing the head count, remind her Sen. Schoenberg is not going to be voting and add up her senators again. To the Question; If the GA voted for it to Pass, I would be good with that, and if Slytherin Republicans in the 21st Century world, fall back to 1980’s talking points to rationalize a vote of “No”, then my passive “Yes ” becomes a solid “Yes “. It’s a passive “Yes”. If the water is carried to get it to an actual vote, then sure, but that water can be carried by those who can count with “thunder” as a sound effect. - Stones - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:49 pm: Yes, if for no other reason than the symbolism. This discussion brings me back to years gone by. I recall several female supporters of the ERA (along with Dick Gregory) camping out in the capitol rotunda and having a hunger strike to support their cause. Pretty exciting stuff back in the day. - Nonplussed - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:50 pm: Bill White: The one you like is still in play. Just like what became the 27th Amendment (pay raises have to wait until the next Congress to take effect–ratified in 1992), that amendment had no time limit (Unlike the ERA). - Walker - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:53 pm: It’s still the right thing to do, and still needed. - Precinct Captain - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:55 pm: Yes, it’s never wrong to fight bigotry and discrimination. However, even with an amendment, not having the social will to fight discrimination matters more (see 15th Amendment and it’s near century of utter worthlessness). - Amalia - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 2:57 pm: yes because women belong in the U.S. Constitution. clarity. - Cheswick - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 3:04 pm: I voted yes because a vote in favor of the ERA is a vote against the backward thinking, anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly and her ilk. - VanillaMan - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 3:06 pm: She’s disingenuous she knows there is an attempt to pass the ERA decades after it failed and this is not a symbolic vote - Bourbonrich - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 3:09 pm: I voted yes and would like it to be passed but given the recent trend for actually giving everyone the right to marry, perhaps the Constitution does not need to be amended. - plutocrat03 - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 3:10 pm: Reread section 1 of the 14th amendment and don’t see anything there that would allow gender based discrimination. Seems to me that adding the ERA amendment would do nothing to add to the rights of any individual. At best a new vote on the ERA seems either symbolic or is a venting of frustration about having lost the vote all those years ago. A waste of time. - VanillaMan - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 3:17 pm: The reason for a constitutional amendment deadline is so that states can vote for or against the amendment with in the same timeframe if if a state wishes to pass a constitutional amendment after it’s failed date then all states should have the right to revoke. - Commander Norton - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 3:17 pm: There is no “constitutional deadline.” The 27th Amendment became part of the Constitution 202 years after it was first proposed. - A guy... - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 3:21 pm: This stuff has all been accomplished another way; with well written and comprehensive laws beyond this one paragraph movement. Holding 35 states to a position they may have taken 40 years ago seems a little out there to me. What a maniacal legal mess this could start. I seem to remember there were even repeals pending at one point in time. I’d google it, but I don’t care enough. We’ve moved beyond this and legislated accordingly. It’s a waste of time now when so much else is so important and affects people’s lives in a much greater way. You know, like Pension Reform, Budgets, Tax policy… - Responsa - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 3:25 pm: No. Using energy and legislative time for a purely symbolic and meaningless and unnecessary vote when the state is imploding is just nuts. It’s not even politically smart. Happily, society’s marched on since the 70’s, and women in this country in particular are doing exceptionally well at university and in business and in the professions–strides to a degree that seemed nearly impossible 45 years ago–and it happened without a Constitutional amendment even! - dupage dan - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 3:44 pm: ===I voted yes because a vote in favor of the ERA is a vote against the backward thinking, anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly and her ilk=== Wow, Schlafly would be tickled pink that you thought she was worth the effort. - Darienite - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 3:45 pm: Voted ‘no’, given the fact she is introducing this 6 months before the general election and at the end of the spring session. Let’s see if it is brought up again in the fall veto session. - Precinct Captain - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 4:18 pm: ==Reread section 1 of the 14th amendment and don’t see anything there that would allow gender based discrimination.== A Scalia-esque “textual analysis” and any look at “Framer’s ideology” wouldn’t say that. - Wensicia - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 4:22 pm: I vote yes. Women’s issues are still front and center, and inequality still exists. It’s good politics. - Jacob S - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 4:25 pm: Abortion — Shame on the state senator for referring to Abortion regarding the amendment. She is lucky that she was given the chance to live and to be so obsessed with Abortion is wrong. It can be argued that abortion goes against women besides the babies that will never be born. Susan B Anthony was against Abortion as were the other original suffragettes. This is why I left the Democratic Party. - not a guy - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 4:29 pm: Steans’ motives notwithstanding, it should have been and still should be passed by this benighted state at some point. - Anonymous - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 4:31 pm: The 14th amendment was adoped in 1868. Women could not vote in federal elections until 1920. Therefore I voted yes. - Amuzing Myself - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 4:36 pm: This is not needed. Women already have equal rights under the law in this country and in this state. More unnecessary legislation designed to gin up favor for or opposition against candidates in an election year. It’s pretty standard procedure in Illinois anymore, but no less disgusting. How about fixing the budget - for real. This kind of stuff makes it easy to see why other states see our government as the laughingstock of the US. - Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 4:40 pm: A constitutional amendment is primarily needed to fix a defect of national importance that other laws can’t fix under the current constitution. I am open to it, if it can be shown the defect exists. Symbology or other trivia should not be the reason, this being the US Constitution; either this amendment is needed to fix something that is real, or it isn’t. Make your case. - 47th Ward - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 4:41 pm: ===Susan B Anthony was against Abortion as were the other original suffragettes.=== I’m not sure what that assertion has to do with anything Jacob, but Susan B. Anthony died about 15 years before the 19th Amendment was ratified. In her era, women were much more likely to die giving birth than they are today. Also, voting rights are not the same as equal rights. - Lilly - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 4:53 pm: It is not too late! We do need the ERA. I am 40 years old and at three different workplaces I have been given lesser pay than my male counterparts. I have overheard conversations at my former office in the Chicago Board of Trade where decisions were made to pass over competent women because they were concerned they might want to have children and that that could interfere with job performance. I was told by one employer in the Chicago suburbs that because I refused to cry in front of fellow employees after being publicly berated, that I was creating a “subversive environment;” something my male counterparts were never subjected to - it happened to them in private. At a local hospital in the Chicago suburbs, after the acting administrator (a woman) gave a presentation to board members and opened the floor for questions, the chair asked her, “What color underpants are you wearing?” She was also “acting administrator” because the chair refused to “allow a woman to run my hospital,” even though she already was, but for a lot less pay. These are but a few examples of my own experiences. Anyone who says we don’t NEED the ERA, is someone who likely doesn’t view women as equals and likely does not believe in equal pay for equal work. This is a human rights issue, and it is an economic issue. How many families and children suffer in this country due to the discrimination the women in that family face - the lost pay, the lost time, the lost sense of security. - Marti Sladek - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 4:56 pm: The ONLY right women have in US Constitution is voting-this is from Justice Scalia, who says 14th does not currently apply to women! We need real equality to protect men and women from discrimination. Every national Constitution since WWII has gender equity; so does the Illinois 1970 one! We need it. It is past time. - Lilly - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 4:57 pm: Also, just some basic information for those who believe it is unnecessary… 40% of wage disparity is tied directly to gender discrimination. Compared to every dollar a man makes, White women make $.77, African America women make $.65, and Hispanic women make $.55 In September 2010 Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in a conversation with a reporter about the Wal-mart sex discrimination case, expressed his opinion that the Constitution does not protect against sex discrimination. A 2001 study by the ERA Campaign Network in Princeton found that 96% of adults believed that male and female citizens should obtain equal rights; 88% believed that Congress should make it obvious that male and female are equal in the U.S. Constitution, and 72% believed that the Constitution already states that men and women are equal. An April 2012 poll for Daily Kos and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) found that 91% of Americans believe that men and women should have equal rights affirmed by the Constitution. A 2001 Opinion Research Corporation poll showed that 96% of U.S. adults believed male and female citizens should have equal rights, and 88% said the Constitution should guarantee equal rights, but 72% of the respondents mistakenly assumed that the Constitution already includes such a guarantee. - Surge voter - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 4:57 pm: Of course yes. Equality under the law should not be debatable. If an angry guy like Oswego Williy is for it….kinda. - Anon - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 4:59 pm: - Amuzing Myself @ 4:36 pm: “Women already have equal rights under the law in this country and in this state.” And what are those laws that give women equal rights in this country and state? - Capitol View - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 5:08 pm: it is the right thing to do, and it will label the Tea Party neanderthals prior to the next election who will vote against it. Good voter information action. - Brendan - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 5:09 pm: I voted “no” because, as Steans herself admits, it is (only) symbolic. I don’t believe in wasting time on political grandstanding when there are pressing and urgent fiscal issues affecting the state. She’s just trying to pad her resume and appeal to the EMILY’s List crowd for when she tries to seek higher office. - wordslinger - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 5:11 pm: –She’s disingenuous she knows there is an attempt to pass the ERA decades after it failed and this is not a symbolic vote– I wonder what any of that means. Yes. If some Republicans don’t know a trick bag when they see one, they get what they deserve. - 47th Ward - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 5:13 pm: ===they get what they deserve=== Good and hard too. - Marti Sladek - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 5:24 pm: It is NOT only symbolic. It would change the standard of scrutiny by the Courts when confronted with discrimination based on gender. It would make more laws that discriminate by gender unconstitutional. it would prevent rollback of existing statutory protections. - VanillaMan - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 5:34 pm: If a state can change its mind 40 years later and support it, could the other states do the same and vote it down after they passed it 40 years ago? And the whole time we are debating it, we can hear a chorus of Democrats claim that their political opposition is waging a war on women? Utter garbage politics. - wordslinger - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 5:38 pm: –If a state can change its mind 40 years later and support it, could the other states do the same and vote it down after they passed it 40 years ago?– Sure. Why not? There’s no time limit on stupid. - Wensicia - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 5:49 pm: ==If a state can change its mind 40 years later and support it, could the other states do the same and vote it down after they passed it 40 years ago?== Sure, why not? And while they’re at it they could repeal a woman’s right to vote (19th Amendment), as restricting the vote is so popular with the far right. Garbage indeed! - Paramedic - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 6:35 pm: Absolutely yes! Anyone saying women have equal protection under the law is woefully ignorant of the reality of women’s lives. Equal rights are not special rights. While #NotAllMen take advantage of women’s lesser protected status in all domains, virtually all women and girls have been taken advantage of by men. Our nation cannot call itself great so long as one gender continues to be treated with less than full equality. #CEDAW #VAW - countyline - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 6:37 pm: -as restricting the vote is so popular with the far right- Are you referring to voter ID ? The same people griping about this are the same ones that have no problem showing an ID for everything else in life (booze, smokes, any bank business, etc). - Desiree Jordan - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 6:50 pm: YES! - Jacob S - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 7:18 pm: 47th Ward The State Senator brought up abortion. I agree with you that ERA has nothing to do with Abortion, however you should let the state Senator know that not me. Besides, Susan B Anthony was against abortion. This has nothing to do with women dying in childbirth. You are correct that less happens today which actually shows less “need” for abortions. - Precinct Captain - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 7:23 pm: ==Susan B Anthony was against Abortion as were the other original suffragettes.== Fact free living is bad for you. http://womensenews.org/story/abortion/061006/susan-b-anthonys-abortion-position-spurs-scuffle#.U3qgB_ldWSo - Jacob S - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 7:25 pm: 47th Ward It doesn’t matter when Susan B Anthony died. She was a suffragette. Also, she was one of the most famous ones. - Precinct Captain - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 7:27 pm: ==any bank business== When is the last time you went to a bank? Seriously, the last time I showed a DL or state ID at the bank was last time I made a checking account. Anyone who could get ahold of my secret code could do my banking for years and get away with it. - Precinct Captain - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 7:35 pm: ==It doesn’t matter when Susan B Anthony died. She was a suffragette. Also, she was one of the most famous ones.== She was also a coward and a racist. - Jacob S - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 9:17 pm: Precinct Caption You are wrong. Susan B Anthony was far from a coward and she was not a racist. She also was against Abortion. The true fasts are bad for you. You can’t handle the truth. - Jacob S - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 9:23 pm: Precinct Captain Susan B Anthony worked against slavery. This was not cowardly in the 1840’s. She worked for women’s rights and was arrested for voting before women could vote. This is not cowardly. The 19th amendment is named after her. She upset a lot of powerful leaders of the 1800s. This is not cowardly. - Jacob S - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 9:34 pm: The Susan B Anthony museum has more than 80 issues of Anthony’s newspaper, The Revolution, which makes more than 100 references to abortion and Winn ( the museum director) said each of the references is in direct opposition to abortion. She also points out that the newspaper did not accept advertising for abortion. There are many quotes by Susan B Anthony in direct opposition to Abortion. - Rye - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 10:45 pm: I agree with Alice Paul who authored the Equal Rights Amendment(ERA) on December 10, 1923. Professor Paul stated many times before her death in 1977, “There is nothing complicated about equality.” One must still ask today, over 90 years ago, what is so complicated about ordinary equality for women, as well as the equality men have experienced in our Constitution? As we all know, women do not have the same economic, social, and political equalities that men have in the United States Constitution. Hey, this is 2014, which is almost a century since Alice Paul authored the ERA! Additionally, a treaty for the rights of women, officially known as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), was adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 18, 1979, and signed by former President Carter during 1980. Although the U.S. helped to draft this effective moral treaty, 186 countries signed and ENFORCED it by September 3, 198l. The United States and seven (7) other countries did not. Alongside the U.S. refusing to sign are Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Nauru, Palau and Tonga. How can we call the U.S. a humane country when it is now refusing to follow the three stage stragey to ratifiy the ERA. Since 35 states have ratified and we only need three more, totalling 38, what is the problem with Illionis ratifying the ERA? Are women to be subjected to inequality eternally? - steve schnorf - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 11:21 pm: Us ratifying the Amendment means nothing for anyone (except ourselves) unless 2 other states ratify, and no one unratifies. I have nothing against symbolism, but that would appear to me to be all this is at this time. - Lilly - Monday, May 19, 14 @ 11:53 pm: There is no legal precedent for “unratifying” it. That has never been done. Ratifying a potential constitutional amendment is kind like loosing your virginity. Once it’s done; it’s done. Any by the way, I find it interesting how many in the comments act as though women having constitutional equality is regarded as politically correct, ginning up support, a trick bag for Republicans. It’s called human rights people, so please stop demeaning my right to be equal under the United States Constitution, just as it has been for the entire history of this country. If it really is no big deal, than ratify it already. The Nevada state legislature plans to make the plunge next. They are considering making it the first bill they introduce in their new session. Get it done already Illinois! - Clevelander - Tuesday, May 20, 14 @ 9:45 pm: Voted no. Thought of just two words: military draft. I din;t want my daughters/granddaughters conscripted into military service to fight foreign men overseas. - Zyndell - Wednesday, May 21, 14 @ 1:00 pm: The ERA needs to be passed. IL has shown a staggering inability to handle respect and lacks common sense. Needed medical facilities have been closed. Access to reasonable, competent treatment is almost nonexistent in my area. Do to stupidity, I learned very quickly about ethnic prejudice in middle school. By high school, a response to a lawsuit resulted in all students having a gender and an ethnicity in the computer. I was denied class changes because of my gender and ethnicity and how it would unbalance a classroom. Money is misspent making a workable intersection dangerous for the PR. That is the Illinois I have lived most of my life in. The least it could do is support women’s rights. - Karline - Monday, May 26, 14 @ 1:11 pm: RE: 14th Amendment - This amendment has been consistently used to deny rights to women - the right to vote, to serve on juries etc. etc. It does not provide protection to women, unfortunately. ERA only applies to laws which deal with men and women differently. Abortion laws do not apply to men. Because of that ERA does not protect (or forbid) abortion rights. That’s a separate issue. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.