Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Manar points finger back at Rauner
Next Post: Sheriff won’t enforce any new laws “that infringe on Second Amendment rights”
Posted in:
* Tribune…
Rauner so far hasn’t directly said whether he supports the amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would guarantee that rights can’t be denied because of a person’s sex. He has said he is a “supporter of equal rights for everyone” and notes that he does not have to sign off for lawmakers to approve it.
But Democratic State Rep. Lou Lang said Wednesday that Rauner should “make public statements firmly and positively about what’s right and wrong.”
“And if he doesn’t believe it’s appropriate to make a public statement or make an effort when we’re on the precipice of history to provide women of America with rights they ought to be due under the U.S. Constitution, I think that would say a lot about him,” Lang said. “I also think it would say a lot about him if he were to do the right thing. If he would decide to make those calls, make those public statements, urge Republican legislators to vote for the Equal Rights Amendment.”
The matter may prove politically tricky for Rauner because opponents contend the amendment is a vehicle for putting abortion protections into the U.S. Constitution.
* SJ-R…
The House needs at least 71 votes to ratify, which means both Democrats and Republicans need to support it. Rep. Steven Andersson, R-Geneva, said he’s working on rallying Republicans to vote for the bill. He said many conservative voters fear the bill would get rid of gendered bathrooms or permanently legalize abortion. […]
Anderson added many of his fellow Republicans support ratification, but they fear the vote being used to unseat them in a future primary. He argued they should think more in the short term to the general election this November. […]
“If we had to on the GOP side, I think we can do it without (Rauner), but I want to do it with him,” said Andersson. “I want to be able to stand there proudly with him when this gets done. I want him to be a part of the celebration. I want his support.
* Meanwhile…
Erika Harold, the Republican candidate for Illinois attorney general, on Wednesday didn’t say if state lawmakers should ratify the proposed federal Equal Rights Amendment, saying she could be called on to deal with the measure as attorney general.
“I’m not going to take a legislative position because as attorney general, I may actually have to weigh in (on) … the application of it as it relates to Illinois law,” Harold said when asked if she would vote for the measure if she had the chance. She was interviewed while at business luncheon in Springfield. […]
“I don’t think they need encouragement from anyone,” Harold said. “I think they just need to do what they think is right.”
* From Sen. Kwame Raoul’s campaign…
How can we trust the Rauner - Harold ticket to stand up for Illinois women if they continue to sit on the sidelines? Time and time again, Kwame has supported efforts to advance women’s rights and he’ll continue that fight as Attorney General.
Raoul participated in the ERA rally this week.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:01 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Manar points finger back at Rauner
Next Post: Sheriff won’t enforce any new laws “that infringe on Second Amendment rights”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Isn’t this whole exercise moot? Didn’t the time to ratify the amendment run out in 1982?
Comment by G'Kar Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:06 am
G’Kar, probably, though some people have made an argument that Congress could pass a law doing away with the time limit, which would make it very relevant.
What I don’t get is how people think this could have anything to do with abortion rights. Ignoring that most abortions are completely legal already, how does women having equal rights to men change anything about that argument? Men don’t have the right to kill babies, so if you believe that fetuses are just babies and have rights as well, then literally nothing changes in that argument based on the ERA.
Comment by Perrid Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:10 am
What does “equal rights for all” have to do with abortion protections? Please explain.
Comment by Mama Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:14 am
It is my understanding that abortions ‘at a few weeks’ are already protected by the U.S. Constitution. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Comment by Mama Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:17 am
““I’m not going to take a legislative position because as attorney general, I may actually have to weigh in (on) … the application of it as it relates to Illinois law,” Harold said”
When did Erika Harold become the IL Attorney General?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:18 am
“How can we trust the Rauner - Harold ticket to stand up for Illinois women if they continue to sit on the sidelines?”
Illinoisans should already know they can’t count on Rauner or Harold.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:23 am
3 states have used their state ERAs to expand taxpayer funding for abortions and overturn abortion restrictions. They argued successfully that withholding access to a medical procedure (abortion) unique to women is a form of sex discrimination.
Comment by Factual Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:36 am
The ERA was originally rejected because of its flawed language. We all agree with equal rights for women. But the ERA is not the vehicle for accomplishing that goal. Its ‘absolute’ language that requires men and women to be treated exactly the same doesn’t allow us to make any distinctions based on biological differences. As a result, it will hurt women instead of helping them. We need to insist that Congress start the process over with better language that will actually benefit women.
Comment by Factual Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:43 am
**I’m not going to take a legislative position because as attorney general, I may actually have to weigh in (on) … the application of it as it relates to Illinois law,”**
So, if Harold wins, the AG‘s office will not take any positions on legislation?
Comment by SaulGoodman Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:47 am
Many believe the deadline can be successfully challenged. But why would Harold want to wreck her campaign and saddle up to the pig-bigot opponents. major unforced error
Comment by Annonin' Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 12:10 pm
“I’m not going to take a legislative position because as attorney general, I may actually have to weigh in (on) … the application of it as it relates to Illinois law”
Refusing to say what you would do if elected is a novel way to run for office.
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 12:11 pm
” Its ‘absolute’ language that requires men and women to be treated exactly the same doesn’t allow us to make any distinctions based on biological differences. As a result, it will hurt women instead of helping them. We need to insist that Congress start the process over with better language that will actually benefit women. ”
I fail to see how the requirement for men and women to be treated exactly the same hurt women instead of helping them???
Comment by Mama Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 12:31 pm
I did the same job as a man and was paid considerably less, and that practice needs to stop.
Please pass the Equal Rights “ERA” bill to make men and women equal. Thank you
Comment by Mama Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 12:34 pm
Please stop trying to make ‘equal rights’ about abortions.
Comment by Mama Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 12:36 pm
Mama, what you describe is already a violation of state and, possibly, federal law.
Comment by anon Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 1:56 pm
One of the nice things about having a legislative office if you get elected Attorney General is that you can weigh in on laws that promote you vision for what Illinois should be.
Comment by SAP Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 2:19 pm
Ms. Harold has no Social Agenda?
I kid, I kid…
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 2:25 pm
What a truly bizarre comment from Erika Harold.
She appears to be unclear on the fact she is running for Attorney General, not Champaign County judge.
Unlike judges, sitting prosecutors and candidates weigh in ALL THE TIME on potential laws that might come before them.
Ask Rep. Williams, who used to lobby the General Assembly for the Attorney General.
Ask Democrats and Republicans who serve on the Judiciary and criminal law committees.
Journalists, are we to believe that the attorney general’s office will no longer be an advocate ror stronger consumer protections, stronger environmental protections, stronger civil rights protections, as it has been for the last 20 years under Lisa Madigan?
That is what I am hearing, and someone really needs to question Harold on that.
Comment by Thomas Paine Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 2:31 pm
If women and men always have to be treated the same, we run into problem areas. Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg says that the ERA would mandate women be included in the military draft in equal numbers as men and placed on front line combat. Prisons would have to be sex segregated. Laws and policies that show preferential treatment for women (pregnancy accommodations and lactation breaks in the workplace) would be overturned for discriminating against men. The California Commission on the ERA advised that “neither benign nor compensatory aid will be allowable under the absolute interpretation of the ERA, since such programs discriminate against men solely on the basis of sex.” We need better language that allows differentiation to be made based on biological differences.
Comment by Factual Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 4:15 pm
The current ERA doesn’t even use “women” in the language. “Equality of rights shall not be abridged or denied on account of sex.” That language doesn’t allow for any exceptions.
Comment by Factual Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 4:34 pm
The hypocrites who call themselves Democrats now after an extended period of 30 years of silence, now are demanding to know how others stand on the issue?
Where was Lang positively stating what was wrong or right concerning this issue the last 30 years?
Perhaps Lang should be speaking out over that stalled out panel of Madigan appointees who are supposed to be investigating abusive treatment of women in the Democratic Party and in the legislature?
I know the man isn’t shy about voicing his opinions but . . . Sheesh already.
Comment by Louis G Atsaves Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 4:57 pm
“Equality of rights shall not be abridged or denied on account of sex.” That language doesn’t allow for any exceptions.”
Why is equal rights not already the law in IL?
Comment by Mama Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 5:21 pm
“Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg says that the ERA would mandate women be included in the military draft in equal numbers as men and placed on front line combat.”
Citation needed. Google searches do not support this assertion.
“Prisons would have to be sex segregated.”
Do you know what those words mean?
“Laws and policies that show preferential treatment for women (pregnancy accommodations and lactation breaks in the workplace) would be overturned for discriminating against men.”
No. All pregnant and lactating Americans would be treated equally regardless of gender. The accommodations are about the individual’s circumstances not whether they’re a gal or not.
“The California Commission on the ERA advised that ‘neither benign nor compensatory aid will be allowable under the absolute interpretation of the ERA, since such programs discriminate against men solely on the basis of sex.’”
Your comment is literally the ONLY result in a Google search for your alleged California Commission quote.
Literally.
https://www.google.com/search?q=”neither+benign+nor+compensatory+aid+will+be+allowable+under+the+absolute+interpretation+of+the+ERA%2C+since+such+programs+discriminate+against+men+solely+on+the+basis+of+sex.”
I’m not sure what you could do to have less credibility.
– MrJM
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 5:36 pm