Whatever happened to the ERA?

[Connonym]

and why the hell were we not successfully able to get that to pass?

[enigmatic]

1. I think the DH and a jucied baseball inflated it

I kid, I kid :D

[terrya]

2. Well, the first go-around, you can thank that bitch Phyllis Schafly.

Illinois did NOT pass the ERA in the 70's. Very sorry to say. And that is largely because of Phyllis Schafly.

Sorry for using the "b" word...no, in her case, I'm not.

[Connonym]

3. oh hell, I'd use the C word on her

and I almost NEVER think anyone deserves that

[LynneSin]

5. I'm offended that you used the bitch word like that

It's offensive to all us bitches in the world to be compared to a CUNTSLUT like Phyllis Schafly

[terrya]

6. Sorry.

That comparison was incredibly offensive to bitches. My bad.

[asthmaticeog]

11. That's totally inappropriate.

She's far too much of a prude to be called a CUNTSLUT. A more fitting epithet, one that reflects the reality of the woman, would be CUNTBAG, for example, or perhaps CUNTARD.

[kay1864]

4. IIRC it could still get passed

If two more states ratified it. I don't think prior states can "un-ratify", and no statute of limitations.

[kay1864]

7. Wikipedia is my friend

Three State Strategy

Some ERA supporters argue that the earlier 35 state ratifications are still valid and therefore only three more would amend the ERA to the Constitution, without Congress resubmitting it to state lawmakers. This idea is called the "three-state strategy".

The three-state strategy was publicly unveiled at a press conference held in Washington, D.C., in December, 1993. According to an Associated Press report, "a coalition of women's groups," operating under the name "ERA Summit," planned "to ask Congress to nullify 1982 deadline for ratification."<8> Early the following year, Congressman Robert E. Andrews (D-NJ) introduced a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives to require that "when the legislatures of an additional 3 States ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, the House of Representatives shall take any legislative action necessary to verify the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment as a part of the Constitution."<9> No action was taken on the resolution, which has also been introduced in subsequent congresses.

An article published in the William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law in 1997<10> explains a legal rationale for the "three-state strategy."

[Connonym]

9. that's good to know, I'm going to have to see which states still need to ratify it

I don't think it should be our top priority -- we have to battle war and get rid of fascism first but I would like to see the amendment become a reality. It'd be even better if it could include gender and sexuality.

[terrya]

10. Illinois will pass it today.

We have a Democratic Governor and solid Democratic majorities in the General Assembly. And what's her name doesn't have the influences in state government like she once had.

[ThomCat]

8. Too many assholes insisted that it wasn't necessary

because women already have equal rights.
x(

And too many people today would still agree with them.

[MissB]

12. A book I was reading last week claimed that the Mormon Church

did a lot to mobilize against it.

[MissB]

13. Here is a link discussing their involvement:

http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/multi-page/documents/04538494.asp

Then the Mormons got involved. In October 1976, the LDS Church’s First Presidency — consisting of the church’s three highest-ranking members — issued a formal statement opposing the ERA: the amendment, the First Presidency warned, might "stifle many God-given feminine instincts" and lead to an uptick in homosexual activity. This denunciation had a near-immediate impact in Idaho, home to a relatively large Mormon electorate. The Idaho legislature had previously given the ERA the requisite two-thirds approval, but this was undone by a January 1977 referendum in which a popular majority opposed the amendment.

Next, the LDS Church turned its focus to the state-level International Women’s Year (IWY) conferences taking place around the country. These gatherings had no formal role in the amendment process, but served as highly public barometers of female support for the ERA. As Mormon historian D. Michael Quinn recounts in a forthcoming anthology, God and Country: Politics in Utah (Signature Books), LDS women in numerous states worked to block pro-ERA resolutions at IWY conferences. The process was top-down, and controlled by the Church’s (male) leadership. In Hawaii, for example, Mormon women received these written instructions: "Report to Traditional Values Van, sign in, pick up dissent forms. Sit together. Stay together to vote. Ask Presidency for help if needed." At other state conferences, male Mormon coordinators staked out various rooms and informed their compatriots when a particular vote was pending; the Mormon women in attendance then rushed in to participate. This kind of discipline and cohesion allowed the Saints, as the Mormons call themselves, to dominate conferences in states where their total numbers were quite small. For example, Mormons represented about four percent of the total populations of Washington and Montana, but accounted for half or more of the women attending each state’s IWY gathering. And in both Washington and Montana, every proposed pro-ERA resolution was defeated.

In addition, under the guidance of Gordon Hinckley — then a special adviser to the First Presidency, and now the president of the LDS Church — Mormon-led civic groups were set up in a dozen states. Anti-ERA speakers were invited to speak in LDS Church buildings, and massive letter-writing campaigns were launched. Here, too, the Mormons’ limited numbers belied their ultimate effect: by one estimate, Saints generated 85 percent of the anti-ERA mail sent in Virginia, where they made up only one percent of the population. Ultimately, after a promising beginning, the ERA was defeated. And while it might be going too far to say the LDS Church killed it, it certainly put the amendment on life support. True, Mormons made common cause with conservative Catholics and Protestant fundamentalists in their battle against the ERA, a collaboration that paved the way for the political sector now broadly known as the religious right. But without the LDS Church’s timely intervention and efficient opposition, the amendment probably would have passed.

[Alexander]

14. I'd like to see one of the candidates support the ERA.

[matcom]

15. Caldwell Banker bought them out

:hide:

[LSK]

16. because the WHIP became important

[CTyankee]

17. I was working for the League of Women Voters in D.C. during the 1980 ERA push.

Two issues killed the ERA: 1)the fear that if ERA passed women would be drafted and have to fight in wars just like men. In 1980, our most recent experience with war was in the jungles of Vietnam. Also, women had just been allowed entrance to our service academies and women in the military were pressing for more equality. We didn't know then that war would basically change and women can and are in harm's way every day in Iraq even without ERA and 2)the belief that the 14th amendment had been so successfully used in litigation that ended many sexist laws and practices that we essentially didn't "need" the ERA. We know that we can't depend on those successes, however, and the ERA would unquestionably be in the Constitution.

The 3 state strategy is still being pursued. If we get the 3 states (2 if Illinois ratifies), there would be a helluva fight as to its legality. However, Congress ratified a very old amendment that had been in the ratification process in the early 19th century, so a precedent has been set.

One potential problem with the strategy: states that ratified a right to life amendment to the Constitution might want to continue with where they left off and try the same thing.