“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”
I first read those words 40 years ago and believed the message was so simple that it would be added to the Constitution in a few months. How naïve I was.
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was written by Alice Paul in 1921 and first introduced in Congress in 1923 by two Republicans, Senator Charles Curtis and Representative Daniel Anthony Jr., Susan B. Anthony’s nephew. It took 49 years but it finally passed both houses in 1972. Ten years later, in 1982, the amendment was three states short of the 38 states needed for ratification.
Does it really matter if we have an ERA? Unquestionably. For women, full citizenship has not yet been achieved.
Since we attained the right to vote in 1920, issues affecting women have polarized the nation. Decade after decade we are faced with a see-saw battle over issues that define or affect women’s lives: health care, reproductive freedom, contraception, rape, domestic violence, equal pay, paid family leave, childcare, gender balance in office, gay marriage, and lesbian rights. The fight for women’s equality is ongoing.
In September 2010, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated, “the Constitution does not protect against sex discrimination.” For 40 years, case law has implied that the 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination based on sex, but it has not translated to the daily lives of women. With Scalia sitting on the Supreme Court, it is more imperative than ever that women obtain a constitutional guarantee of equal treatment; one written proactively to affirm women’s rights. According to Roberta W. Francis, chair of the National Council of Women’s Organizations’ ERA Task Force, an equal rights amendment would “provide a fundamental legal remedy against sex discrimination and … would clarify the legal status of sex discrimination for the courts.”
Women’s rights are political targets both in Congress and in state legislatures. These attacks seem to escalate during presidential campaigns. Following are a few examples, focused on women’s health and safety, that have occurred this past year:
_Congressman Tod Akin asserts that “legitimate rape” “rarely causes pregnancy.”
_Rush Limbaugh denigrates a young law student, Sandra Fluke, who testified before Congress on the need for access to contraception;
_Komen for the Cure Foundation denies funding to Planned Parenthood’s free breast cancer screening;
_Republicans continue to oppose reauthorization of the federal Violence Against Women Act, objecting to protection for immigrants, Native Americans, and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender ) people.
_Georgia and Louisiana pass bills that criminalize abortion after 20 weeks gestation, with no exception for rape or incest, joining six other states with similar restrictions.
American women remain far behind the rest of the world when it comes to equality. The U.S. Senate has refused to approve the treaty known as CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination on all Forms of Discrimination Against Women.) Adopted in 1979 by the United Nations, CEDAW is the only international instrument that comprehensively addresses women’s rights, politically, culturally, economically, and socially.
Throughout the world, this treaty is used to empower women and enforce their rights. The United States is one of four countries that have not passed the treaty. The others are Iran, Somalia, and Sudan, each known for its violations of international human rights principles.
Is the political climate any better now for the ERA than it was 40 years ago? Filmmaker Kamala Lopez has created a video to educate voters, and especially young people, who are unaware of the need for an ERA. Lopez’s video reveals that three-quarters of Americans believe women have a constitutional guarantee of equality despite the fact they do not. (Lopez will be the keynote speaker on September 22, when The Democratic Women of Santa Barbara County host their annual luncheon, from noon until 2 p.m. on September 22.)
On June 22, 2011, ERA ratification bills were submitted to Congress by lead sponsors Rep. Carolyn Maloney and Sen. Robert Menendez. Previously, in March 2011, Representative Tammy Baldwin submitted a resolution that would remove the ERA deadline and make it part of the Constitution when three more states ratify it. These proposals remain bottled up in committees.
Women continue to be second-class citizens. Since we represent only 17 percent of the members of Congress, we lack the critical mass to impact public policy. American women and men must pass a national ERA as a written guarantee to equal treatment under the law for women.
But how do we get there? For years women have been put on the defensive. Fighting both rhetoric and action, we are diverted to holding our ground, not moving forward. We must organize to pass the ERA. What we need is an American Spring: Use the internet, Facebook and Twitter like activists did in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. Women differ on many issues but we share the belief in equality, the basic tenet of our democracy. Let’s go to the squares, town halls, and legislatures. Let’s make the ERA an issue for the 2012 presidential election.
Susan Rose is a founding member of the Santa Barbara Women's Political Committee. She served two terms on the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, and currently serves on the advisory boards of numerous nonprofit agencies.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace






Previous Month



Comments
'The United States is one of four countries that have not passed the treaty. The others are Iran, Somalia, and Sudan, each known for its violations of international human rights principles.'
Our representatives in government, generally old white men and those they mentored, continue to cling to their guns and religion (faith) as a means of governing. Nice company we keep; Iran, Somalia, and Sudan when it comes to Women's rights.
spacey (anonymous profile)
September 19, 2012 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It doesn't say a lot for the populace in general that this is an issue, equal rights should be assumed- neanderthals make us have codify to ensure.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
September 19, 2012 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
“the Constitution does not protect against sex discrimination.”
I know justice Scalia is an originalist when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, but his opinion flies in the face of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
September 19, 2012 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Our government was designed to be very slow moving on purpose so we don't have fanatics rise to power who can rip us of our freedoms (i.e. Hitler). Women and men are NOT equal and before you start bashing me, just think about it. Women, do you really want the responsibilities men face? And men, do you want what women have to deal with?
Regarding contraceptive....it should be available, yes but free? No. Because I choose to be on the patch, the pill, or whatever does not mean the taxpayers should have to pay for MY birthcontrol. It is not a right, it's a priviledge and a responsibility.
Reproductive freedom...if you mean abortion, I fully disagree that abortion is ok. Now, I'm not saying it should be outlawed and have girls and women go back to homemade attempts at abortion, I'm just saying on a moral level, that person inside you, no matter how far along you are, it is never ok to murder that heartbeat.
Funding to Planned Parenthood should be done at a personal level. No government office should be contributing to a private agency. If people want to donate money, good for them! But my tax dollars should not be going to a place that provides something (abortion) that I completely disagree with.
On the list of things that aren't "fair" for women...health care is a priviledge no matter what your sex is or where you come from. The government and tax payers should not be paying your way. Rape and domestic violence...you no longer have to "prove" you were raped or your husband/boyfriend/whoever assaulted you...police and judges are much more understanding so not sure where you're going with that. Paid family leave, child care...Because you chose to have a child does not mean your employer should have to have the other employees pay more so you can have a leave that lasts months and months. Gender balance in the office...that goes both ways. Seems if you want more women in the office, that creates an inequality in that a man might be best fit but because you cried "not fair!" a woman gets it which is absolutely absurd.
Point is....open your eyes and see that this country is the most amazing country that has ever been in existence, realize you're not a victim and remember that men and women are not the same...we are a perfect balance when with eachother.
Muggy (anonymous profile)
September 19, 2012 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Muggy you will be happy to know that Federal grants to Planned Parenthood go to cancer exams, and other nonabortion related treatments. In addition, Planned Parenthood offers services to men as well.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
September 19, 2012 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ken - It doesn't matter where the funding goes, it's a private deal and federal government should NOT be funding it. I'm aware Planned Parenthood offers service to men as well, I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with my tax dollars be allocated to Planned Parenthood without my consent.
Muggy (anonymous profile)
September 19, 2012 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"No government office should be contributing to a private agency. If people want to donate money, good for them! But my tax dollars should not be going to a place that provides something (abortion) that I completely disagree with. "
-- Muggy
Using that logic, the American Red Cross would never get any Federal funding. Both the Red Cross and Planned Parenthood are non-profit 501(c)3 charitable organizations. Both provide services to the public.
And it's common knowledge that Planned Parenthood does not receive any Federal funding for abortions:
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/plan...
Finally, if every citizen had to agree on how tax dollars were allocated, nothing would ever get done.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
September 19, 2012 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have a problem with my tax dollars being allocated to Halleburton and Blackwater who have killed thousands upon thousands of people.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
September 19, 2012 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"...health care is a priviledge no matter what your sex is ...".
Unless you live in any of the top industrialized nations in the world.
"Because you chose to have a child does not mean your employer should have to have the other employees pay more so you can have a leave that lasts months and months."
Every large company I've ever worked for has some kind of maternity leave benefits. They recognize that many women want to continue their careers after childbirth. And it's a good way for companies to hang on to good talent and stay competitive. A win-win.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
September 19, 2012 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
^^^ ... any of the OTHER top industrialized nations ...
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
September 19, 2012 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yup spacey, women are definitely better off in Sudan, Somalia, and Iran.
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
September 19, 2012 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ken - would you rather tax dollars not spent on keeping us safe?
EastBeach - Health care is a priviledge. Countries who have "free" healthcare are charging incredibly high taxes whether you use the healthcare or not. This is the US...we are so different from other countries and thanks to our founding fathers we have a chance at survival with basic human rights. I work for a decently large company that has maternity leave benefits which is great, but I don't think that shouldn't come at a cost to taxpayers and other employees.
Muggy (anonymous profile)
September 20, 2012 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Halleburton and Blackwater are a bigger threat to our safety and freedoms than Al Qaeda could ever hope to be.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
September 20, 2012 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The government in general is a threat to our safety. We need to protect ourselves from tyranny (one of the reasons we have the 2nd amendment) and stop allowing little things take away our freedom. What we can learn from history is that man never learns from history.
Muggy (anonymous profile)
September 21, 2012 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Republicans continue to oppose reauthorization of the federal Violence Against Women Act, objecting to protection for immigrants, Native Americans, and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender ) people."
Isn't it already against the law to assault and beat people up?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 21, 2012 at 6:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good luck fighting the Mormon Church and the Eagle Forum (aka Phyllis Schafly). They derailed the ERA in 1977 in Houston, and they'll do it again. Both are still alive and active in politics (more so than they were in 1977).
JonnyOneNote (anonymous profile)
September 21, 2012 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Funding to Planned Parenthood should be done at a personal level. No government office should be contributing to a private agency. If people want to donate money, good for them! But my tax dollars should not be going to a place that provides something (abortion) that I completely disagree with."
By that logic we should abolish tax-exempt status and benefits for religious organizations. If people want to donate money to a church, good for them! But I don't see why we can't collect revenue from a place that advocates something (faiths other than my own) that I completely disagree with.
Why is "equality for all" such an incomprehensible concept for some people? Oh that's right, it's the 'mine first' mentality. It's agreeing to share the cake with everyone else, as long as you are first in line & get as big a piece as you want, even if it screws over the next guy.
Hate to break it to ya, but there's no such thing as "my equality first".
Sothep (anonymous profile)
September 21, 2012 at 11:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
American women graduate college at a higher rate and live longer than American men. They have the right and freedom to end a pregnancy without permission from a man.
Tod Akin was denounced by conservative Republican's and asked to end his race.
Rush Limbaugh denigrated the young law student wanting to use public taxpayer funds to buy contraception for her. Ms. Rose knows this and is purposely leaving this context out.
Many women, presumably including Ms. Rose, revel in the power they have to destroy a living human that is growing inside their womb. Many taxpayers do not want their money going to groups that enable the killing of a living Human. Many private groups want to avoid that controversy. Again, the author avoids this.
There is no need for the Violence Against Women's Act as all violence against women (and other people of any ethnic or sexual orientation/background) is already illegal and punishable.
RE: Georgia and Louisiana
It is not the fault of the living Human that is growing inside a rape or incest victim's womb that the mother was raped or abused by family. Yet the solution proposed is to allow the mother kill it.
Other than women not being allowed to perform front line infantry combat (sexual discrimination) or be drafted (also sexual discrimination), there is not a SINGLE legal example of discrimination against women that does not also apply to men (ie: same sex clubs apply to both women and men). Not one example. None.
Pay inequality is 97% explained by women dropping out of the workforce or working fewer hours than male peers to raise their children. If there was a TRUE pay delta then private business would hire only women and save money. They don't and this is why.
willy88 (anonymous profile)
September 24, 2012 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Reminder: This article is coming from a person who while supervisor couldn't comment on the Grand Jury's recommendation that changes be made to the Planning Commission because she said she wasn't informed enough about the issue.
Back to my question: Isn't domestic violence already illegal?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 24, 2012 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)