Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* Fran Eaton and others have been following the legislative maneuvering surrounding the proposed Equal Rights Amendment over at Illinois Review and elsewhere, and she makes the ERA itselt the topic of her SouthtownStar column this week…

If the ERA passed in Illinois, a couple more states would follow suit, and it would return to the federal level for adoption. With its adoption, the word “sexes” for the first time would be included in the U.S. Constitution’s language. The ERA’s aim is to promote special protections based on sex. That would demand that all abortions - because only women have abortions - be constitutionally protected and paid for by tax dollars. States that already have adopted the ERA have been forced to adopt those policies.

Pro-traditional family activists are very concerned that with the ERA, states will be forced to issue marriage licenses to any two persons who request them because the ERA eliminates discrimination based on sex.

But Madigan may not be aware that stay-at-home moms and widows will be affected by the passage of the ERA. Women who have chosen a career of taking care of their families instead of a career outside the home no longer will be able to tap into their husband’s Social Security reserves upon his retirement or death.

Because sex no longer will be a factor, provisions within Social Security set aside for women who haven’t paid into the system will be discontinued. This is the opinion of none else than U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

But not only will the ERA’s passage stir the hackles of little old ladies and helpless widows, 18-year-old college women may be up in arms.

No longer will military registration be required of just males, it also will be required of females - again, no discrimination based on sex. While more and more young women are choosing the military as a career option, if the draft were to be enacted in a stepped-up defense in the war on terror, our 18-year-old women would be forced into service along with our 18-year-old men.

* Here’s the language of the proposed amendment…

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

* Question: Should Illinois pass the ERA? Why or why not?

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 10:50 am

Comments

I don’t really think passing this amendment would be anything more than window dressing at this point, would it? Have there been recent cases that would be overturned had this been passed back in the 80’s?

Comment by tubbfan Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 11:01 am
Fran’s rant is very tiresome. Perhaps she could toss her head … opps hat in the ring for replacing Howdy Dowdy Gorman. The GOPs need a real tinfoil helmet trooper leading it in November.

Comment by Sock Puppet Express Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 11:05 am
They need to stop using the word sex, and use the word Gender. Sex can refer to either the act of copulation or gender. Gender applies to gender. Technically it reads as protecting the individuals right to select the missionary position. Pet peeve of mine, sorry for the rant.

Is the Social Security stuff accurate? I have seen provisions which allow somone to draw less pension if they want it to continue to a spouse after they die, which applies to men and women. If there is some special provision which pays only women, who never pay in, thata sould go IMHO> However if it would pay a stay at home dad as well, its a moot point. If a spouse is just drawing on the pay inof the other spouse I dont see a problem.

Comment by Ghost Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 11:07 am
Also, could we be brought up to date on the proposal to move the state capitol from Kaskaskia?

Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 11:08 am
Even if the Land of Lincoln belatedly ratified the ERA, it would be a long way from becoming part of the Constitution. That’s because two ratification deadlines have long since expired, and several states rescinded their earlier ratification. So there would likely be a Supreme Court challenge even if a couple of other latecoming states followed Lang’s lead. The Supreme Court said in the 20th century that deadlines are necessary. Would Congress simply pass a third deadline, making the requirement meaningless?

Comment by Fight for Justice Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 11:14 am
I’ve never understood how ERA improved on the 14th Amendment after passage of the 19th Amendment.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 11:20 am
The ERA has always been a bad idea. The U.S. really needs to get away from identity (all types; gender, racial, ethnic, sexual orientation, religious, age, etc.) and just deal with people.

Look at what Title IX has done to schools.

Of course, any “proportionality” rule just doesn’t work. People from different groups may not have the same interests and talents.

If proportionality were enforced in all businesses, an NBA team on the floor would have 2.5 women, .5 black, (A black woman would solve the problem of half a woman, and half a black person) and the other two would be men, one perhaps Tiger Woods…

Comment by kimsch Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 11:29 am
And what has Title IX done to sports?

Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 11:34 am
No, for the simple fact that amending the Constitution ought not to be a “back door” thing.

Passage the way it’s being proposed would severely de-legitimize the process.

Want a Federal ERA? Start it all over again…

Comment by Pat collins Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 11:35 am
Ghost,

My relatively recent experience with college professors tought me that gender was a social construct, whereas sex was a physical characteristic. Maybe that’s what’s behind the usage. Hopefully I didn’t mix anything up; I concluded some time ago that I did not want to pontificate on social constructs for a living.

Comment by Greg Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 11:36 am
And what has Title IX done to sports?

Destroy every mens sport other than football and Basketball.

The program that created Mark Spitz and lots of other Olympic Champions? Gone.

Comment by Pat collins Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 11:36 am
===The program that created Mark Spitz and lots of other Olympic Champions? Gone.===

The USA won a whole bunch of Olympic swimming medals at Athens, 2004

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 11:39 am
Yeah, it’s the program that created Mia Hamm, too, and Tennessee women’s basketball, and Rochester’s 2 consecutive state finalist teams.

Title IX is and has been good.

Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 11:51 am
First of all, the Title IX comments are a joke. Big deal. Some schools need to give up swimming or wrestling. The result has been a massive increase in female sports participation. That was the goal, and it worked even better than expected.

Second, Fran’s comments about abortion are her typical uninformed blather. Everything, in Fran’s mind, will lead to increase abortions (other than rule using the Bible as the only source of law). This has nothing to do with funding abortion at all, and her fixation on the topic is creepy at best.

Finally, she considers it a bad thing that women might register for the draft? Female pilots are doing a great job protecting American forces in Afghanistan. The idea that women cannot or should not serve is completely out of touch with the way our military works.

Advancing the bill would not have any real impact, but would send a message that we do continue to move forward towards equality. Speaking as the parent of a daughter, that would be great for women in Illinois. I would love to be able to tell her one day that in Illinois at least, she will be treated equally.

Comment by Skeeter Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 12:01 pm
That horse left the barn a long time ago. How about worrying about the current finacial crisis in the state? As a woman I feel no need for ERA. I am however grateful for Title IX, I never would have had a chance to race for my high school ski team otherwise.

Comment by Leigh Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 12:07 pm
Hmmmm……

Under Fran’s argument, all states would also be required to pay for:

pre-natal care, pregnancies, tubal ligations, ovarian cancer treatment…..

Prostate cancer screenings and treatment, vasectomies, Viagra…..

Pardon me for not taking Fran at her word, but there’s something specious about this whole “The ERA would force states to pay for abortions” argument.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 12:14 pm
Skeeter -

Some schools wouldn’t need to give up swimming or wrestling if their men’s coaches for basketball and football, not to mention their athletic directors, didn’t make more than most Governors.

I’m just saying….

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 12:17 pm
Some of the comments remind me of a discussion that I had to listen way back when: Strom Thurmond’s staffer was trying to convince the aide of a Hawaii Senator that if school integration was required, Hawaiians would have to boat their children from island to island.

I do think the change in terminology would be helpful.

Comment by Anon & amused Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 12:20 pm
Registering for the draft seems a poor reason for young women to be upset about passage of the ERA. The fact is, if the country ever did re-activate the draft, it would have to be for a hugely important reason (like an existential threat to the US) otherwise the whole nation would be up in arms and the evadee rate would be huge.

I also don’t see the leap to the abortion thing. I’ll agree with Skeeter here, the fetish that Fran has on abortion is a little creepy.

I’m not sure how I feel about the ERA. On the one hand, I’ve not felt very discriminated against in my lifetime (born ‘67 long after 19th amendment and an adult after most of the good leg of the 60’s and 70’s). On the other hand, if this is going to be a feel good bill, then I like to feel good about equality.

As for SS, if there is a part of Social Security that applies to housewives but would not apply to househusbands, then that should be ended. I don’t believe there is however. I think there might have at one time, and I believe Ginsberg argued a similar case (might have been pension rules).

Comment by cermak_rd Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 12:20 pm
YDD, good point.

Comment by Ghost Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 12:24 pm
The Equal Rights Amendment isn’t necessary because men and women have equal rights. People have equal rights. There is no law that says only men can do this or only women can do that. Biologically, men and women are different. Women can’t have prostrate problems, but men can’t have uterine fibroids. Men and women are different. That’s a fact of life.

As much as some would like, a law (or constitutional amendment) can not make men and women the same.

Skeeter: You mention that there has been a “massive increase in female sports participation” under Title IX. Isn’t that just compared to participation in men’s sports that have been dramatically decreased under the proportionality rules of Title IX?

Women aren’t as interested in participating in sports as men are. Yes, that’s a generalization, but sometimes generalizations are true. And yes, there are women who do want to participate in sports, and they should be allowed to, and there should be programs in which they can participate, but I don’t think it should be at the expense of other sports and other people’s interests.

If there is enough interest for a women’s team (of whatever sport) then that team should be supported by the school, but a men’s team (in which there is and has been sufficient interest) should not be cut to provide that support.

Comment by kimsch Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 12:37 pm
Thankyou, Pate Philip.

Seriously, what was that rant all about? Making men and women the same? Where does it say that?

Also, females are a lot more interested in sports than you may think, which is why Title IX has been such a boon for their programs.

Also, this is just hooey…

===There is no law that says only men can do this or only women can do that===

Yes, there is. The first that comes to mind is: Combat for women soldiers.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 12:41 pm
My guess is that most, if not all, of you don’t understand that when the ERA movement started, American businesses had two published pay scales. At the large company where I was, men got paid 1.5 women for doing identical jobs.

Comment by Anon & amused Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 12:41 pm
Of course it should be passed. Franny can perform whatever mental gymnastics to give you whatever absurd red herring she wants, but we all know the real reason is to “protect” the so-called “institution” of so-called “marriage”.

Comment by dan l Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 12:48 pm
The ERA should just be done away with, cause it’s been moot for years and the “fix” will just create new “bugs” in the “software”.

Comment by Crimefighter Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 12:54 pm
Women aren’t as interested in participating in sports as men are. Yes, that’s a generalization, but sometimes generalizations are true. And yes, there are women who do want to participate in sports, and they should be allowed to, and there should be programs in which they can participate, but I don’t think it should be at the expense of other sports and other people’s interests.

kimsch,

Let me generalize (because, after all, it’s true sometimes).

You’re white and you believe that Chief Illiniwek should be brought back because it’s “not a big deal” and “You don’t see them going after the Notre Dame mascot”.

Comment by dan l Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 12:59 pm
“Women aren’t as interested in participating in sports as men are.”

From my own experience this is patently false. 80% of the girls in my daughters classes in grade school are invovled in sports, a higher percentage then the boys. The problem is (was), no colleges (and often high schools) were providing athletic programs for women. it was not lack of interest, but lack of availability of fair opportunity based on made up gender biased beliefs systems that portray women as less interested in athletics. The only way athletics for men can decline in school is if they were getting a disproportinate share of funding in the first place.

Comment by Ghost Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 1:17 pm
“Women can’t have prostrate problems . . . .” Well actually they can - they can have as many problems with being required to prostrate themselves as do men - they just can’t have prostate problems.

Comment by Just the Facts Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 1:26 pm
lol

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 1:28 pm
Name me one sport other than wrestling that has been badly impacted by Title IX. Name me one constitutional provision preventing politicians and college administrators from doing something to stem the decline of wrestling.

Comment by Angry Chicagoan Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 1:37 pm
Rich, you mentioned combat for female soldiers… Having been a soldier, I can say that in my opinion, it should not be a sex based qualification, but rather an ability based one, but… Since female PT scores are judged on a vastly different scale than male ones, it would require scrapping the current, or at least the setup I was familiar with in the 90’s system. Interesting idea, but a lot more complicated than it might appear on the surface, as always…

Comment by pchappel Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 1:54 pm
===But Madigan may not be aware that stay-at-home moms and widows will be affected by the passage of the ERA. Women who have chosen a career of taking care of their families instead of a career outside the home no longer will be able to tap into their husband’s Social Security reserves upon his retirement or death.

===Because sex no longer will be a factor, provisions within Social Security set aside for women who haven’t paid into the system will be discontinued. This is the opinion of none else than U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Talk about dense. Fran ought to read the report. Most of the recommendations have been adopted in some form since 1977, but the most basic point of her recommendations was that men should have survivor benefits just as women do–not to do away with benefits for survivors.

It’s truly dishonest to make the claim she does.

Comment by archpundit Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 2:02 pm
I was wondering when somebody was gonna notice that survivor benefits argument.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 2:07 pm
The USA won a whole bunch of Olympic swimming medals at Athens, 2004

But UCLA’s program is dead. The real problem with title ix is the way it is being interpreted.

in the Fall of 2000, the University of Wisconsin sought compliance with Title IX under the proportionality prong.35 Enrollment at the University of Wisconsin was 53% female and 47% male. The athletic participation opportunity ratio was 49.8% female (425 athletes) to 50.2% male (429 athletes).36 The OCR sent a letter to the University of Wisconsin finding a lack of substantial proportionality because 53% of the university was female, but only 49.8% of the athletic participation opportunities were for females. This difference of 3.2% was insufficiently ‘proportional.

An Amendment opens the door WIDE open for this sort of thing.

Comment by Pat collins Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 2:15 pm
I still don’t get why you think that’s such a bad thing. But, whatever, let’s get back to the topic at hand, shall we?

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 2:18 pm
okay I spelled prostate wrong. sorry. I have heard so many horror stories about title IX and the things that were done to equalize everything. I don’t have links now, but I remember a story about an electronic scoreboard on the football field or a concession stand or something that was on the boys field at a high school and wasn’t on a similar girls field. IIRC the parents had actually funded the scoreboard or the concession stand, whichever it was, but because the girls’ parents’ didn’t fund raise for a similar amenity and the school couldn’t afford to provide it for the girls’ the boys’ amenity had to be removed and dismantled wasting all that money raised by parents.

pchappel, you are right. I was a soldier too. A female one with those lower standards. Those would be unlawful with the ERA wouldn’t they? But many (and I include myself in this) women are physically unable to meet the higher standards that are required by the men. And some women can, and some men can’t.

I think that’s my real point. It shouldn’t matter if you are a man or a woman, you should be doing something where your interests, talents, and abilities take you. It shouldn’t be based on any kind of proportion whether it’s gender, race, etc.

Comment by kimsch Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 2:21 pm
Perhaps you should look for a link before posting that kind of a story, kimsch.

==you should be doing something where your interests, talents, and abilities take you===

And if you want to play in sports but the boys get almost all the money (as it was before Title IX), then what?

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 2:24 pm
yea, this is great for mental gymnastics, but in reality so what? The workforce will soon be overstressed to the point where the gender wage issues will be moot.

and.. so what if college athletics goes to the dogs, or the ( whupps, almost messed up rich). In reality it is a mechanism to learn team concepts, physical excellence, competivness, and how stupid it is to be a hoosier.

Comment by The Horse Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 2:26 pm
If we want to discuss the ERA, then I demand that anyone doing so wear their hair in an afro or a Farrah Fawcett do. Then they have to wear a polyester and acetate leisure suit and drive a 1974 Mark IV - the one with the halo vinyl top while listening to Helen Reddy 8-track of “I Am Woman”.

If you can sound relevant to 2008 with that get-up, then we’ll talk. Until then, let the ERA die along with other 1970s wreckage like Jimmy Carter, Watergate, Roe vs. Wade, KC and the Sunshine Band, and Mood Rings.

Or I’ll sick my pet rock on you!

Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 2:30 pm
Does Fran Eaton not know that Illinois has had an Equal Rights provision in our own constitution for nearly 40 years, with none of the resulting horrors that she thinks she knows about?

And does she not know that it’s the high number of women who’ve enlisted that’s kept us from needing a draft?

Comment by been there Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 2:34 pm
OK, VM, but we’ll remember that the next time you go on about Ronald Reagan. lol

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 2:34 pm
been there, good point.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 2:35 pm
Not to get too far off the subject, but why does anyone pay attention to anything Eaton says. Per her website, Illinois should return to “separate but equal; Farrakhan is Sen. Obama’s “hero”; Obama, since he lives in Hyde Park, must support the Weather Underground; and CPAC is against conservatives.

They are wrong on all those issues, and also wrong on the ERA.

What else is new?

Comment by Skeeter Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 2:46 pm
when the ERA movement started, American businesses had two published pay scales. At the large company where I was, men got paid 1.5 women for doing identical jobs.

Given that that had been illegal since 1963, I doubt it.

llinois has had an Equal Rights provision in our own constitution for nearly 40 years, with none of the resulting horrors

But in some states some of those horrors HAVE come to pass. New Mexico DID require abortion funding, and Hawaii had to amend their constitution to avoid a gay marriage ruling.

But my real point is about the “sneaky” way they are trying to pass it. If you think people have a bad opinion of courts now….

Comment by Pat collins Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 2:50 pm
Isn’t IL one of the state’s that has equal rights BY the state, not IN it.

Comment by Anon & not amused Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 2:50 pm
Regardless of Ms. Eaton’s outrageous claims, we don’t need the ERA. As noted above, people are already protected by the Constitution, and separating by sex or gender or whatever you wish to call it, only calls attention to our differences. The Constitution should not create protected classes of citizens; it should protect all equally.

Comment by Fan of the Game Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 2:53 pm
Fan of the game if the Constitution should should protect all equally, then shouldn’t we have a provision prohibiting treating people differently based on Gender? That completly serves the function of equal treatment for all.

As for protected classes of citizens, they all fall into one of the catagories of sex/gender, so it covers every single one….no “special” class is created or treated better then the other.

In fact, the proposals PROHIBITS a classification system that allows certain classes of citizens to be protected at the expense of others. Under your language, the need to prohibit select or elite classes fom receieving preferable treatment, we can use a provision reuiring all sexs to be treated the same.

Comment by Ghost Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 3:05 pm
Pat Collins –

The management at AT&T (for one example) seemed to have missed the significance of the Civil Rights Act. Books have been written about the legal cases that continue. Go through the list of Supreme Court cases on Wikipedia just to get an idea how the fact of something being “illegal” doesn’t seem to make it stop happening.

Comment by Anon Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 3:07 pm
It’s hard to believe that we’re talking about ERA again after a lapse of several decades. My impresssion is that women have been doing relatively well without the ERA amanedment the last couple of decades. I supported it way back when and I’m not against it now - I just don’t get the point of passing a constituional amendment that seems to be symbolic rather than substantive in effect.

Agree with the bloggers who have commented favorably on Title IX.

Insofar as the military service issue, I’m in favor of a universal community service requirement for young people of both genders in exchange for assistence paying for a college education.

Comment by Captain America Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 3:17 pm
It wasn’t the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it was the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

And those cases make the point - Illegal actions are being dealt with in courts of law. No need for anything else.

Comment by Pat Collins Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 3:31 pm
I am always surprised at the number of otherwise good thinkers who just love to meddle in other people’s lives. How can a law that attempts to end discrimination by sex use sex as its criteria for discrimination?
Title IX has devolved into a quota system that PW Botha would love and is a part of the active war on boys that exists in classrooms as well. The effort to “encourage” girls academically seems to be costing boys dearly. They must be doped or dropped.
It is this deep desire to meddle and create what “should be” or at least how life is imagined by the meddlers. They think, “If we pass a law, then they’ll live how we think they should.”
There are many problems in HS and college sports. The NCAA and colleges have their athletes on a collegiate plantation where all the benefits accrue to the school. If you go pro, you lose your education. That’s stupid and the monopoly should be broken.
Of course, the high schools that needed correcting were all government schools. That irony is lost on the proponents of Title IX. Catholic schools that were all girl had no problems filling positions on basketball teams, volleyball teams, etc.
Plus, wrestling is not the only sport harmed. Whole programs no longer exist because academics (& their ilk) don’t understand the statistical distribution of individual liberty. That is the real problem.

Comment by Old School Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 3:47 pm
===Title IX has devolved into a quota system that PW Botha would love===

Let’s see… South Africa denied the overwhelming majority population any real rights. Title IX says if you’re gonna spend tax money on sports, then make it equal.

Yeah, I’m getting that analogy.

===Whole programs no longer exist because academics (& their ilk) don’t understand the statistical distribution of individual liberty. ===

What about the “individual liberty” of female athletes?

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 3:52 pm
This is so hilarious, I just had to post it:

From Iraq’s Interim Constitution:

Article 12.

All Iraqis are equal in their rights without regard to gender, sect, opinion, belief, nationality, religion, or origin, and they are equal before the law. Discrimination against an Iraqi citizen on the basis of his gender, nationality, religion, or origin is prohibited. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the security of his person. No one may be deprived of his life or liberty, except in accordance with legal procedures. All are equal before the courts.

Article 1(b):

Gender-specific language shall apply equally to male and female.

Iraq’s Interim Constitution, WHICH WE WROTE, contains not one or two but THREE equal rights clauses for women.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 3:55 pm
lol. Don’t tell Lou Lang. We’ll never hear the end of it.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 3:57 pm
Rich, make it equal. So if there are more males in a sport reduce it down. That is the substantial message of “make it equal” in practice whether it be in sports, income or any topic a meddler desires. What has happened is the law is now biased against men. It is a quota system, plain and simple. Botha understands quotas, just like he understands discrimination. Title IX is government enforced discrimination, just like SA (now do you “get it”).
Title IX has three standards that must be met: 1. Athletic enrollment must be proportional to academic enrollment (to achieve this schools must focus on sex (instead of ignoring it and de-emphasizing it. Sex becomes the tool)) The problem with this is the natural distribution of human liberty. If fewer girls than the enrolled percentage are athletically inclined then the school must push them into sports or reduce the number of sport opportunities for boys. Strike one for individual liberty.
The next “test” is that a school show a history and continuing practice of adding women’s sports. This is achieved by the follow through to rule 1 and leads to a reduction in men’s sports programs. I mean how can you show the continuing practice of “adding” women’s sports? There are only so many sports out there. Either you fund/find/create new sports or you switch men’s sports to women’s sports. Thereby meeting criteria 2.
The third part says a school should be able to show that the athletic interests and abilities of women on its campus have been fully and effectively accommodated. Yikes, how do you prove that one? So the gate remains open to more and more demands.
As to the individual liberty of female athletes the simpler and more egalitarian solution would have been to pass school vouchers in 1972. Then the sports-denied women could attend the school of their choice (w/fully stocked women’s sports programs). But, that would require individual liberty and undermine the main bastion of the meddlers - government schools.
There’s nothing like one meddling law to need another and another and another ad infinitum (or nauseum), eh Rich?

Comment by Old School Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 4:11 pm
rumor has it that Peter Fitzgerald’s folks were sniffing around the Murray Center in Centralia today.

Comment by saluki Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 4:16 pm
Spare me the apartheid comparisons. It’s over the top, and an insult to America. I don’t see college sports administrators beaten to death in their prison cells like Biko was. Grow up.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 4:17 pm
Back in the 70s I remember my mom showing me a brochure from our (Catholic) church saying that, if ERA passed, there will be no more segregated public bathrooms anymore.

I have been looking forward to the couches and extra toiletries ever since. Bring it on!

Comment by Lefty Lefty Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 4:35 pm
===The problem with this is the natural distribution of human liberty. If fewer girls than the enrolled percentage are athletically inclined then the school must push them into sports or reduce the number of sport opportunities for boys.

Err…what school has had a hard time meeting this–are there problems getting enough female athletes?

The answer is, of course, no. The problem is that men’s sports had much more spent on them and when women were given equal opportunity, schools focused on football and let other men’s sports suffer. Deemphasize football and Title IX is easy .

Comment by archpundit Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 4:37 pm
women with equal qualifications still make 76 cents on the dollar compared to men.

http://www.pay-eq
uity.org/info.html

Nope. no problems here. Move along. Nothing to see.

Comment by jerry 101 Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 4:48 pm
heck, find a pond nearby, and Title IX is easy. ever heard of Crew? That requires a huge team.

Football programs nationwide are way too pampered anyway. I know that when I was at U of I, the team rented out a local hotel before Home Games for the team to stay at. Why? because, they could. They’ll give you other reasons, but at the end of the day, that’s why. They could do it.

Comment by jerry 101 Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 4:51 pm
women with equal qualifications still make 76 cents on the dollar compared to men.

Then why don’t those women sue under EPA or the CR of ‘64?

Because those figures are “well massaged” as we say in industry.

Comment by Pat Collins Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 4:55 pm
Pat,
Have you tried going through the process to sue somebody on those grounds?
Do you think it is simple? Do you think it is cheap?
Do you really believe that a lack of litigation proves your point?

Comment by Skeeter Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 5:04 pm
I still can’t find the link to what I remember about the scoreboard or concession stand, but here is a story about a boys’ soccer team that couldn’t be fielded, even though there was interest, because an equivalent girls’ team couldn’t be found…

From NRO/CBS News 6/20/2007

Students, parents, coaches, fans, and administrators at South Sumter High School in Bushnell, Florida want desperately to add a boy’s soccer team. The athletic talent is available, coaching is available and financing is available. But what stands in the way is Title IX. School boards and administrators are increasingly concerned that if they add a boys’ sport, they have to add an equivalent — or more — girls’ sports.

But ginning up interest in additional girls sports is often difficult. Across Florida high schools, boys are prevented from playing sports like soccer, lacrosse, and volleyball despite the sports’ huge popularity because finding girls to balance out the boys has proved all but impossible.

Federal fiat, it turns out, can provide for the additional sports for girls, but it can’t make them come out and play. When gender bean counters told Martin County high schools that they “didn’t have enough” girls playing junior varsity sports, the county instituted a full-court press to lure more freshman and JV female athletes. But response was so poor that one school had to cancel plans for girls’ varsity soccer, another couldn’t get enough players for JV basketball. At Martin County High School, the athletic director had trouble getting four girls out of a female student body of over 800 to come out for the new bowling team.

The reason high schools are having trouble finding as many girls to play sports as there are boys clamoring to take the field is apparent to anyone who takes the time to look: Girls have more varied extracurricular interests than boys. Girls out-participate boys in every extracurricular activity — band, drama, debate, student government — every one, that is, except for sports. The extracurricular gender gap so favors girls that the Independent Women’s Forum calculated that if the government were suddenly to require the same gender quota for participation in other extracurricular activities that it does in sports, 36 percent of female choir members, 25 percent of female orchestra members, and 33 percent of female debaters would have to be eliminated.

The implication of this is clear: If high schools follow colleges and universities in instituting gender quotas in athletics, boys will be forced to pay the price in limited or eliminated opportunities. Girls are too busy doing other things after school to turn out at the same rate for sports.

Comment by kimsch Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 5:06 pm
Ghost,

My point was that we already have provisions within the Constitution that protects the rights of people. Why do we need another?

Comment by Fan of the Game Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 5:13 pm
===Students, parents, coaches, fans, and administrators at South Sumter High School in Bushnell, Florida want desperately to add a boy’s soccer team. ===

I checked the school’s website and they did field a girls soccer team last fall, after that NRO column was published.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 5:14 pm
Rich,

The Obama nightline story.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vo
te2008/story?id=4339659&page=1

Dillard, E. Jones, and Cronin are all featured in the text

Comment by SouthernILRepub Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 5:33 pm
Thanks. Updated.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 5:53 pm
Question at hand is pass ERA or not in Illinois–so to help sister and fellow bloggers out, here’s FYI
-US Constitutional amendments are ratified by 75% of states after being passed by at least 2/3 vote in both houses. Sometimes there is a time limit for ratification. The last amendment, the Madison Amendment authored by THE JAmes Madison several hundred years ago had no time limit and was ratified and adopted several years ago.

An amendment to the US COnstitution is NOT an amendment to a state Constitution. The so called Illinois ERA uses the 15th amendment equal protection language and does not have the intent of the federal ERA.
Alice Paul the radical quaker who went to prison and was force fed to dramatize the need for women’s right to vote also authored original ERA in 1923 and she got it introduced in every session until it passed in 1972.
Too boring???? How about women were intentionally omitted from the original Constitution which is why the limited 19th amendment was passed granting only the right to vote in 1920. We had to start somewhere! The Equal Pay Act, is only a Congressional Act which can be overturned in a minute by a majority vote.
Of course, that action would highlite the little understood fact that the largest segment of our population has not been included, by intent, in the supreme law of the land. So, in conclusion, ratificatin of the ERA in Illinois, by the unusual but Illinois Constitution required 3/5 (60%) majority would not be a feel-good for feminists action but an opportunity to have the national debate we need about whether women are equal in the eyes of the law. And Illinois should lead that debate.

Comment by FYIGIRL Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 5:58 pm
to sue somebody on those grounds? Do you think it is simple? Do you think it is cheap?
Do you really believe that a lack of litigation

I think that suing for rights under the constitution is not much different that suing for them under Fed and state law.

I also think there is a boat load of officials, Fed and state who will investigate and sue for you.

So, either lack of litigation DOES prove my point, or Lisa Madigan is severely deficient in performing her duties.

Comment by Pat collins Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 7:35 pm
It might shock some folks here, but a school may do a survey to determine the interest in sports opportunity so that if there isn’t a strong demand for women’s sports, there doesn’t have to be parity. However, if there is demand, there needs to be equal opportunities.

The amount of false claims about this issue is rather staggering.

Of course, the current state of the law doesn’t hold that one receives suspect classification base d on gender. The Supreme Court specifically denied that status based on gender because there is such a debate about the ERA.

Comment by archpundit Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 7:51 pm
While I’m surfing the InterTubes, I may as well put out another observation; all the troubles we’ve had with Title IX have happened without any ERA on the books. Aren’t the (relatively small) problems with Title IX more to do with legislation or even incompetent application of the law than they are with the constitution? This all seems to be nitpicking about the numeric outcomes of the law, and I don’t recall anything about the ERA or any other current or proposed part of the US constitution mandating outcomes — simply equal opportunity.

Any mandates on actual outcomes — that’s a matter for legislation or even for administrators and has nothing to do with ERA. Indeed most of the change in gender equity in athletics did not occur with Title IX, but rather with legislation from the late 1980s onward that strengthened civil rights laws.

Comment by Angry Chicagoan Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 8:03 pm
The ERA Amendment does not deserve to be resurrected. The only ones who stand to benefit from this are the usual hustlers and shysters.

Comment by Honest Abe Monday, Feb 25, 08 @ 11:05 pm