There is a good reason why the Equal Rights Amendment keeps failing every time it’s pushed forward, and contrary to liberal opinion, it’s not “sexism.”
Still, the radical progressive feminazi arm of the Left tries to resurrect the ERA every few years. It’s why the Squad et al. used to wear all-white to Trump’s State of the Union Addresses. Now, it’s back and worse than ever. On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee hosted a panel of five women to discuss, yet again, the ERA.
The hearing was titled, “How Congress Can Recognize Ratification and Enshrine Equality in Our Constitution.” Unfortunately, the answer is simple: Congress can’t, legally.
The amendment wasn’t ratified by the necessary 38th state until 28 years after the time-limit had expired. But we’re dealing with an administration that tells its low-info voters loans can be cancelled and interracial marriage is in jeopardy, so anything is on the table, I suppose.
The Left claims the ERA would finally end a long overdue battle for women’s equality.
Wrong. The ERA would nullify womanhood. It would legally morph American citizens into vacuous bodies—sex-driven yet sexless— devoid of civilization’s most fundamental social distinction.
Jennifer Braceras, Director of the Independent Women’s Law Center, and Elizabeth Price Foley, Florida International University College of Law professor, held the line against passage of the ERA. Their motives and associations were questioned, and their attendance was not congratulated in the same way as that of their pro-ERA counterparts.
Kathleen Sullivan, appellate attorney and former dean at Stanford Law (where Sam Bankman Fried’s parents have tenure), carried the progressive torch. Though wildly off-base, she’s clearly read the Constitution and could cite history and fact instead of her “experience.”
Illinois Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton was virtually present though muffled by technical problems that included annoying echoes. While we’re passing amendments based on people’s feelings, may we pass one banning Zoom calls during Senate hearings?
Then there was Broadway performer Thursday Williams, a senior at Trinity College who testified on the importance of passing the ERA for herself “as a Black woman.”
Citing very little evidence, Thursday claimed she will surely be discriminated against in her future position at a very prestigious law firm. According to Williams, the odds are “stacked against” her.
Passage of the ERA would constitutionally eliminate all distinctions between the sexes, even the good ones meant to preserve and celebrate women’s success. Jennifer Braceras explained the surety that this 28th Amendment would force professional, collegiate, and even high school women’s sports teams to accept males. It has already occurred in Massachusetts, where a statewide ERA has been passed.
Williams confidently responded with a sentiment echoed by Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois: Women aren’t worried about men on their sports teams.
How confidently they scoffed at the suggestion! How quickly they deduced how all women think!
I doubt either bothered to check with collegiate swimmer Riley Gaines, subjected to the image of Will “Lia” Thomas’ male genitalia in the Penn women’s locker room, or Emma Weyant, who watched officials hand her NCAA gold medal to the same transgender swimmer.
Would Williams care if a “female-presenting” man took her next Broadway role?
I suppose the only time Democrats care about women’s athletic careers is when Megan Rapinoe is whining about her (six-figure) salary.
If you want to talk the common good for women—that is, “women” as they have been defined forever in all cultures until the last few months —let’s talk what’s best for women.
Gender-based discrimination is a good thing. It keeps women safe from subjection to a military draft, separated from incarcerated men in prison, and appropriately situated on a social pedestal when elected officials consider legislation related to maternity.
The ERA would reduce men and women to androgynous beings. This matches the Left’s goal: equate gender to race.
Note that, under the law, people should be treated as race-void beings. Simple logic shows race alone does not render a man ineligible for the draft. It does not disqualify a convict for a certain prison. It does not warranty more maternity leave for some women over others.
Also note that the Marxist arm of the Democrat Party has been pushing to change this landscape through affirmative action and reparations, which would set racial equality and relations back, but I digress.
Under current labor law, women are already often treated as sexless beings. Feminist Wave 1 asked for this; they got it in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Still, the sneaky move to equate gender to race arose in the recently passed “Respect for Marriage” Act. Democrats were able to convince many into believing the Supreme Court, led by Scary Villain Justice Clarence Thomas, was coming to do away with interracial marriage.
They assumed—likely correctly—that the Democrats they were trying to frighten have never read anything on constitutional law that, and they weren’t going to do a quick Google search and take a gander at Ginni Thomas, the Justice’s wife.
As a nation, if we want to keep women out of harm’s way, we must consent to the fundamental differences between biological sexes. But according to Kathleen Sullivan, “How that gets worked out when there are real differences between men and women is a question for the future.”
So let me get this straight. The Left’s argument is, pass the amendment, and figure it out later? What could possibly go wrong?
Still, Sullivan’s most surprising statement was her assurance that present and future maternity legislation would not be impacted by the constitutional change. Because “only women can get pregnant.”
I’m certainly glad Sullivan still thinks so. Planned Parenthood “doctors” claim otherwise. So has Calvin Klein as well as Apple’s Emoji keyboard. And as we know, politics is downstream of culture, and this culture of ours is slowly shifting to the men-can-undergo-gestation side.
The low-info social justice warriors think the ERA is merely a cutesy Girl Power addition to the Constitution. In reality, it would subtract benefits from real women. For example, a mother would no longer be granted the upper hand in a child custody battle. She will be reduced, legally, to Parent 1.
I’d be remiss if I failed to mention that the ERA’s passage would also redo what was undone by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Judges would be required to strike down any pro-life law for the sake of “equality.” The probability any given unborn female survives her development in utero would decrease. Look at what has happened in China since its disastrous “one-child” policy was mandated.
Big Abortion and its bought-out cronies in Congress know exactly what the enactment of the ERA would mean.
This Women’s History Month, for the sake of women past, present, and pre-born, please put an end to the ERA once and for all.