ERA debate focuses on abortion rights
Tuesday, May 8, 2018 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Tribune...
Abortion, military service and racial inequality could remain at the center of debate over whether Illinois lawmakers should ratify the decades-old Equal Rights Amendment in the coming weeks.
Those issues were on display at a four-hour Illinois House committee hearing in Chicago on Monday, more than 35 years after the 1982 deadline for states to pass the constitutional amendment designed to protect citizens against sex-based discrimination. […]
Anti-abortion activists were the most vocal in Monday’s hearing. They view the Equal Rights Amendment as a vehicle for putting abortion protections into the U.S. Constitution. […]
Lang needs 71 votes to get the amendment approved by the House, meaning he’ll need both Democrats and Republicans to back it. While Lang has noted conservative opposition, some Democrats don’t like it either. So the issue may be more complicated than traditional partisan differences.
* From Sen. Heather Steans (D-Chicago)…
Isn’t this all about changing the law on abortion?
No. The right to abortion is already protected under the U.S. Constitution. Whether the ERA has an additional impact on state laws relating to abortion is something that courts will have to resolve, based on the goal that the state is attempting to achieve through the law and whether the law is narrowly tailored (and the least restrictive means) of achieving that goal. Within Illinois, ratifying the ERA will not lead to a significant change in the status of state laws that might touch on abortion, given that the Illinois Constitution already prohibits sex discrimination by the state government.
Reproductive Rights:
The repeated claim of opponents that the ERA would require government to allow “abortion on demand” is a clear misrepresentation of existing laws and court decisions at both federal and state levels.
In federal courts, including the Supreme Court, a number of restrictive laws dealing with contraception and abortion have been invalidated since the mid–20th century based on application of the constitutional principles of the right of privacy and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The principles of equal protection or equal rights have so far not been applied to such cases at the federal level.
State equal rights amendments have been cited in a few state court decisions (e.g., in Connecticut and New Mexico) regarding a very specific issue – whether a state that provides funding to low-income Medicaid-eligible women for childbirth expenses should also be required to fund medically necessary abortions for women in that government program. Those courts ruled that the state must fund both pregnancy-related procedures if it funds either, in order to prevent the government from using fiscal pressure to exert a chilling influence on a woman’s exercise of her constitutional right to make medical decisions about her pregnancy. The New Jersey Supreme Court issued a similar decision based on the right of privacy and equal protection, with no reference to its state constitution’s equal rights guarantee.
The presence or absence of a state ERA or equal protection guarantee does not necessarily correlate with a state’s legal climate for reproductive rights. For example, despite Pennsylvania’s state ERA, the state Supreme Court decided that restrictions on Medicaid funding of abortions were constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court in separate litigation (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992) upheld Pennsylvania’s restrictions on the abortion procedure under the federal due process clause.
State court decisions on reproductive rights are not conclusive evidence of how federal courts would decide such cases. For example, while some state courts have required Medicaid funding of medically necessary abortions, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the federal “Hyde Amendment,” which has for decades prohibited the federal government from funding most or all Medicaid abortions, even many that are medically necessary.
More issues with the ERA are discussed here.
- Last Bull Moose - Tuesday, May 8, 18 @ 11:21 am:
Another diversion. This amendment is dead. The window has closed and the nation moved on.
Spend this time and effort on today’s problems. The state has a few.
- cover - Tuesday, May 8, 18 @ 11:43 am:
It still bugs me that the anti-abortion crowd, who typically profess strong religious beliefs, continually “bear false witness” with their fear-mongering tactics.
- Informed Mom - Tuesday, May 8, 18 @ 11:45 am:
Correction: One-half of the nation moved on.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, May 8, 18 @ 12:00 pm:
As I’ve said before - don’t fight this battle. Let science and the Millenials undermine it. Changes will happen in the future. This is the Boomer’s Last Stand. Let them have it for now. Time is not on their side.
- Zoe Nicholson - Tuesday, May 8, 18 @ 12:03 pm:
The issues of abortion and military service are settled law. There is need to muddy the waters on this legislation. As the author, Alice Paul, intended and was candid about - this is a single and simple 24 word amendment says the U.S. Constitution will explicitly include women. It does not now, nor has it ever. Members of the Supreme Court have been very clear on this.
Honestly, no one knows the specific application of these words. Miss Paul was honest about that. I am too. However it will not put girls in foxholes or require neutral bathrooms, as Ms Schlafly and the opponents have shouted for many years. It is much more simple, just and pure. Abigail Adams said it best, “John, remember the women.”
I was in the balcony with the “red rose” people voted it down in 1982. Surely, we have grown up since then to see that most developed countries include women in their constitutions and it is past time we join in the sanity of recognizing EQUAL MEANS EQUAL.
If you go back and read what this was all about in 1982, as it is today, it is about the cheap labor of women. It is about second-class citizenship. And we all know that is fundamentally unethical. We need to be better, wiser and bring all Americans into EQUALITY.
- Amalia - Tuesday, May 8, 18 @ 12:40 pm:
we already have legal abortion (for now) and women in the seals and flying planes into combat. what we don’t have is women in the constitution. and while this affects less and less due to legislation and court cases, it is just plain wrong. I am not less than because I am a woman. I am equal. but not if legislators leave me behind.
- Whatever - Tuesday, May 8, 18 @ 1:33 pm:
== what we don’t have is women in the constitution ==
We don’t have “man” or “men” in the constitution, either. There are a couple of “he’s,” but the vast majority of the times the document talks about a human being, it says “person.” Which, as the Citizens United court will tell you, is a very inclusive term.
That said, I would much prefer the equal rights amendment do be in the constitution, but also believe the judges will decide what they want regardless.
- Jane A - Tuesday, May 8, 18 @ 1:42 pm:
Zoe and Amalia,
What you said.
It continues to puzzle me why there would be so many objections to the explicit inclusion of women in the constitution. Why are opponents so afraid and what are they afraid of?
- Chris Iverson - Tuesday, May 8, 18 @ 2:15 pm:
The next time there is a draft (sadly, there will be a next time eventually) would the ERA require women to serve on the front lines in combat roles? I think it would. As a society, do we want to put young women in combat roles if we can instead only put young men in those roles? If we ever get to a place where we have no choice but to put both in combat, we will have to do it. But, if we can choose men instead of women to fight, would we rather have that? What is public opinion polling on that question?
- Chris Iverson - Tuesday, May 8, 18 @ 2:17 pm:
The ERA seems designed to put gender distinctions as the same as racial distinctions. In other words, just as it would be illegal to have a locker room that is for “whites only” would the ERA make it illegal to have a locker room for “women only”? What is the polling on requiring workout places to combine mens and womens locker rooms?
- Education First - Tuesday, May 8, 18 @ 2:18 pm:
It’s 2018 and women are still not a part of the US Constitution. Phyllis Schafly is dead as are the objections she ranted about all those years ago. Opponents of the ERA seem to be focusing on everything BUT the purpose of the ammendment.
I was embarassed to be from Illinois when we were unable to pass the ERA in the 70’s. We must (and we will) pass it this time!
- Chris Iverson - Tuesday, May 8, 18 @ 2:23 pm:
If the response from pro-ERA people is that “the courts will decide these questions” then we are not really voting for or against “equal rights” - we are voting for or against “the unknown.” I think it’s irresponsible to vote something into law for which we don’t know the real work result.
On the other hand, if pro-ERA people say “it will make no different in the law” then add language to the ERA that it cannot be used to make a legal/judicial decision that wouldn’t have been made if the ERA hadn’t been added to the Constitution. Say something in the amendment to clearly convey that this a symbolic amendment with no legal force because no legal force is necessary since equal rights already exist and we intend absolutely no legal change from this amendment.
- anon2 - Tuesday, May 8, 18 @ 2:33 pm:
=== The issues of abortion and military service are settled law. ===
Are 18-year-old women required to register for the draft?
- Amalia - Tuesday, May 8, 18 @ 2:53 pm:
why would we not draft women? when we draft people we find the best role for them in the military, not just on the front lines combat, which is becoming a smaller role. some guys are absolutely NOT suited for combat, and yet all men are eligible for the draft. Let’s call the ERA the Equal Responsibilities Amendment and maybe then I can get my rights.
- Zoe Nicholson - Tuesday, May 8, 18 @ 3:41 pm:
anon-2
As we testified in 1982 and 2018, the draft is entirely up to congress. They can draft whomever they want; use any perimeters. The ERA has nothing to do with that. nothing.
- Sam Cahnman - Tuesday, May 8, 18 @ 3:43 pm:
The extra ordinary 3/5 vote required in the IL House & Senate to ratify amendments to the US Constitution is imposed by Art. XIV, Sec. 4 of the IL Constitution. The US Constitution does not require this. So, amending the 3/5 requirement out of the IL Constitution and changing to a simple majority requirement could pave the way for ratification of the ERA. Of course, as Rich has pointed out, now that can’t be done until 2020.
- Chris Iverson - Wednesday, May 9, 18 @ 9:14 am:
Zoe - Can Congress only draft people of a certain race? If not, then the ERA, by treating gender distinctions similar to racial distinctions, would prohibit Congress from drafting men only.
- Chris Iverson - Wednesday, May 9, 18 @ 9:17 am:
Amalia - If it can be shown that white people were not put on the front lines after being drafted along side minorities, that would be illegal discrimination. If the ERA treats gender similar to race, then if women are not put on the front lines, wouldn’t it also be gender discrimination? Note - We’re not talking about being drafted only, but about who is in combat. If we want to put women on the front lines when there is a draft, then pro-ERA people should be honest enough to say that’s what this amendment will do instead of just repeating “equality” when this bill actually eliminates gender distinctions. There’s a difference between equality and eliminating distinctions. It’s misleading the people of Illinois to act as though they’re the same.