Senate GOP blocks Equal Rights Amendment | The Hill

The damn gop's war on women's rights continues!

"If you look at the terrible things happening to women's rights in this country, it's clear we must act. To the horror of hundreds of millions of American people, women in America have far fewer rights today than they did a year ago."

Really Schumer ? Does that include biological men posing as women. Even people as diverse as Caitlyn Jenner and Martina Navratilova have called on these fake females to give it up. Most normal people in the USA don't support this gender silliness which will become an albatross around the neck of the Democrat party come election time.

Women have never had more freedoms...including the freedom to have an abortion. But with every freedom comes responsibilities and restrictions...which will now be determined by the States instead of the Federal Government....which is as it should be.

OMG!  Caitlyn Jenner could have the same rights as a man?  The horror!!!

OMG! If you have ever heard Caitlyn Jenner speak then you damn well know that she is dead set against transitioning men competing in women's sports!

Democrats have done more to hurt women's rights than Republicans ever could.

I agree that trans women shouldn't compete in many women's sports.

It can always be resubmitted for ratification without the sunset clause .

but that would entail starting the entire process again and all the states legislatures would be able to take a revote .

If congress can  add or remove something from a proposed amendment that has already been submitted to the states for ratification , which the constitution doesnt say it can or cant  do .

then those changes are grounds for the states to reconsider their ratification votes made prior to the revision  no matter how insignificant the revision is .

If congress were allowed to remove the sunset clause in the origional presented amendment packet presented to the states , then the 5 states that accepted the origional packet  should be able to recind their ratification pending a new vote of the state legislature  that said they would .

That also makes me wonder which 12 state didnt ratify the amendment packet since only 38 ( the needed number of ratifing states )  did so , and removing the 5 that are saying they will recind if the sunset clause is removed and revote  puts the needed number not enough to include as an amendment .

Can someone explain to me why we cannot enshrine equal rights for women in the Constitution? 

Seriously, what is the issue?

Why are my wife and daughters not deserving of all the same rights and protections as I am? Why can their rights not be solidified in the Constitution?

Can someone explain to me why we cannot enshrine equal rights for women in the Constitution?

I will spitball this one .

Could be because some people , and maybe just enough , think that those rights are already enshrined in the Constitution already .

people can disagree of course .

Nothing is stopping congress from taking the amendment package and taking a revote in congress  and submitting it to the states yet again , without the sunset clause / expiration date .

 the vote in the senate was to remove that clause in the package  only , that clause of an expiration date for the package was the only thing  that kept it from passing , and it failed not only to meet ratification on the first date , but the second revised date as well , which is questionable if the government could do that as well.

Now way i see it if congress is allowed , after the fact to change something that failed as proposed , whats to stop them from doing it to other legislation ? imagine if they decided to vote to remove the sunset clause of the 94 AWB? it passed and was signed into law ,  remove that part of what was passed and signed , and the law comes back , and i think most would agree that without that sunset clause and a need to reauthorize with a vote after 10 years , the legislation would have never passed in the first place . which is why congress is back at square one , and has to do all that work again and create legislation to vote on and attempt to pass.

 My personal opinion?  this is shady political maneuvering, that most likely is unconstitutional and should most likely be illegal at the worst , and unethical at the least .

 Answer , simply resubmit the amendment package without the sunset / expiration date attached and go from there .

Could be because some people , and maybe just enough , think that those rights are already enshrined in the Constitution already .

So then what is the harm in voting yes? Why not make it official? 

Answer , simply resubmit the amendment package without the sunset / expiration date attached and go from there .

Agreed. Make it very public, and make our "reps" go on paper as to why they don't think women are equal citizens. Lol, see how that plays with 50% of their voter base. 

remember we are talking about an amendment , not legislation that is simply law ,  it is something that law will be held up against and no amount of legislation would be able to change without another amendment  . and there are only 2 ways afforded to create an amendment and the process is very clear and concise .

 what was proposed failed to get the needed ratification votes , in the time the package stated . it failed , it can be reconsidered and resubmitted to the states since it was never ratified .

If thats done we go from there .

Again, make a VERY public and VERY loud push for it. 

I do not understand what is even remotely controversial about this. 

I do not understand what is even remotely controversial about this.

The amendment proposal itself ? nothing controversial at all, it would give some added protection to other amendments in my view . So do not take my posts and thoughts here as i oppose the amendment itself .

what i find controversial is what Shumer attempted , to remove a part of an amendment package , AFTER it not only failed to garner the needed votes(twice) as specified in the package itself , but attempting to use a power not granted congress to change the package after the ratification process had begun .

IF allowed , with an amendment , it will be attempted to do with legislation later .

congress can change legislation after the fact to a certain degree , but that power is NOT granted in the amendment process in the Constitution such as he attempted with legislation .

 to do so there would have to be an amendment to amend the process outlined by the constitution already, granting congress that ability and power . and that power does not exist .

IF allowed , with an amendment , it will be attempted to do with legislation later .

Yeah...   imagine with our current partisan political makeup what could happen down the road if this were to happen...   

Dems take power,  remove the 2nd Amendment.  Then Republicans come back into power and they put the 2nd Amendment back in with full access to ALL weaponry.  Oy!!

if ya liked that one your gonna love this next one i thought of while thinking of this issue .

now this vote took place in the senate , what does their oath of office state ? that they will uphold and defend the constitution right ? pretty much like any other oath of office .

 i figure , by allowing such legislation to come to a vote  that this could be considered a legislative coup attempt  to circumvent the required actions demanded by the constitution itself and by the amendment package as written .

 WHICH , if considered what i have already stated , those that brought this legislation up for consideration and a vote , and those that allowed such a vote , and those that voted for the legislation , by their own actions violated their oaths of office , attempted to circumvent and overthrow the constitution ,Illegally i might add which could be viewed as sedition , and could be if one would press the issue be charged and brought befor an ethic committee , where they could be subject to censure and barred from the senate floor or and or chamber  , now if that were to happen , since the senate operates on its own rules for those censured and barred, they would then be left to their states as to if they get replaced ,but being barred and not allowed in the chamber would do that in and of itself  , i am sure that would likely replace most if not all (i think the rest would likely resign if that happened even though they didnt vote for the legislation and wouldnt be in legal peril)the democratic majority as well as maybe a couple republicans .

 Now if something like that were to come about because a citizen brought about a suit , and got the courts involved making it so that the congress HAD to do something , well thats a shitshow worth watching .

 and it has been done before to those censured and barred , just not on such a scale as this , usually its only one congress member at a time.

 and if this were to come about ? i will be saying the shyster sharkey shumer was too clever for his own good .

I think it's truly amazing that the leftists who argue this can only see a narrow vision and decry only the "unfairness" of not granting equal rights to women and have all but ignored any potential downstream ramifications if the Senate had been able to make this change.  

Now if something like that were to come about because a citizen brought about a suit , and got the courts involved making it so that the congress HAD to do something , well thats a shitshow worth watching .

I truly believe that Congress believes that the general public is just too stupid to see any issues like this or are like sheep who would not make any problems for them.  Congress really just doesn't care about us, it's obvious daily.

a power not granted congress to change the package after the ratification process had begun

Congress, like each branch of government, has always had the authority to change its mind and reverse course. The only caveat is that they do it through due process. Easy evidence for this authority is the fact that Congress already extended the deadline previously, and it hasn’t been a problem.

The time limit selected by Congress for ratification has nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitutional ratification process. The ratification process for the amendment is exactly the same whether there is a time limit or not. The time limit has its own process - a simple majority vote of both houses, and a signature from the president. The time limit is ordinary legislation. It is not part of the amendment.

By the way, time limits have become common. I think they’ve done it for the past 8 or 9 proposed amendments. There’s nothing about it in the Constitution beyond Congress’s general authority to write laws. No time limit has ever been part of the amendment. 

However, the very last amendment - the 27th - was added with no time limit. It took 202 years to ratify.

any potential downstream ramifications if the Senate had been able to make this change

For example?

Please read the conversation between Mark and myself, it spells some of it out.

No one is saying that congress cant change its mind and reverse course .

Actually if the time limit or sunsetting is part of the package itself such as the case with this particular proposed amendment does affect the ratification process, and can not be ignored  , if it was not ratified by the required number of states in that time frame it became a dead proposal .

 congress and the president at the time that extended the sunset provision may not have been questioned then , but it is now questionable because even with the extension it failed to get the needed votes to be ratified , and the sunset /time limit provision was not removed then, for that matter , why even have one if it  can be changed at a later date that is more convenient ?

here is something to think about , lets say this particular amendment came about by the convention method , would congress have the authority to change the proposed amendment from what came out of convention ?

 the answer to that is a resounding NO, that is because congress has no authority over a convention nor what proposed amendments might come out of them , they are totally out of the proposal loop, and that is why there has ever only been one convention of states in regards to the constitution , if they wanted they could use the congressional method to propose their own amendment and go through the process just as they always have . as i said to thrawn , if congress is allowed to change a proposed amendment package  AFTER it has been submitted to the states for ratification, but before it becomes an actual part of the constitution as an amendment  , then the states would also have the ability to change course and rescind their ratification vote .

I look at it like this , one party makes a proposal , the second party agrees and waits for others to agree, the first party that made the proposal changes something in the package , would not the second party be given the option or have the right  to look at that change and say nope i dont agree anymore ?

And if i remember correctly? the 27th , was one of the originally proposed 12 amendments to come out of the convention , only 10 , that we know of as the bill of rights , got ratified at that time 

Dems take power,  remove the 2nd Amendment.  Then Republicans come back into power and they put the 2nd Amendment back in with full access to ALL weaponry.

That’s not how any of this works. Amending the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of both houses, and approval of 3/4 of the states. The democrats can’t just take power and remove the Second Amendment easy peasy like that.

You misunderstand what I was saying.

The ERA amendment was passed by Congress as written and sent to the states for ratification which is the process for adding amendments to the Constitution.  As written, the amendment was not ratified by the required number of states within the timeframe that was written into the amendment.  Are you with me so far?

We can argue over the time limits but they are legal as defined by Congress and approved by SCOTUS in 1921.  It's a long article but the important part is :

On appeal, the Supreme Court in a unanimous opinion affirmed the district court's ruling. Seeking to clarify why time
limits do not violate Article V, the Court analyzed the purpose of time limits, and observed that it did "not find anything in the Article which suggests that an amendment once proposed is to be open to ratification for all time, or that ratification in some of the States may be separated from that in others by many years and
yet be effective."

To illustrate the point, the Court brought up  four ancient amendments pending before the States and described as "untenable" the proposition that states could still ratify
those amendments. The Court explained that "the fair inference or implication from Article V is that the ratification must be within some reasonable time after the proposal." 

With virtually no historical or legal precedent to guide it, the Court forged an opinion from implications and inferences drawn from a textual reading of Article V.21 After concluding that ratification must be within "some reasonable time," the Court turned to Congress's ability to set that time at the outset of the ratification process: "Of the power of Congress, keeping within reasonable limits, to fix a definite period for the ratification we entertain no doubt."

chicagounbound.uchicago

What the Senate was trying to do here was to take an Amendment that had passed both houses of Congress but was not ratified by the required 38 states within the timeframe of the written and passed Amendment.  If they were allowed to do that, what other time limits can be ignored by Congress when it comes to the Constitution?  What other changes can Congress make to the Constitution just by adding a time limit to an Amendment?  What if Congress were to modify the Fifth Amendment to add a sunset clause?  After all, that's just a time limit is it not?  Such things would undoubtedly be taken to court but that would take years as well.  IMO it's best if that potential is never introduced to Congress in the first place as it could cause too much damage abet in a temporary manner.

I agree that the ERA should have passed but the past amendment is dead.  It should be re-introduced but I'm afraid in our current contentious Congress the likely hood of passage is slim.

why even have one if it  can be changed at a later date that is more convenient ?

Things like that get changed all the time. You can get an extension on your taxes. And another one after that. Congress changes deadlines all the time. How many times has the debt “limit” simply been increased? They even pass legislation that applies retroactively. As long as it’s not some kind of ex post facto criminal law, it’s fine.

one party makes a proposal , the second party agrees and waits for others to agree, the first party that made the proposal changes something in the package , would not the second party be given the option or have the right  to look at that change and say nope i dont agree anymore ?

The proposed amendment has not been changed. It’s exactly the same as it was in 1972. The deadline is not part of the amendment. So, there’s nothing to not agree with anymore.

As written, the amendment was not ratified by the required number of states within the timeframe that was written into the amendment. 

No, the deadline was imposed by Congress.   It was not written into the amendment.

Congress imposed the deadline and Congress could equally wave the deadline.  The deadline is extraconstitutional.

The deadline is extraconstitutional.

But legal and allowed by SCOTUS.

As written, the amendment was not ratified by the required number of states within the timeframe that was written into the amendment.

The timeframe is not written into the amendment. It’s just not. The proposed amendment reads - in full: 

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.

That is the whole thing. There is no more. 

Having said that, I do not dispute Congress’s authority to attach a deadline to ratification. I think it’s been over a century since the Supreme Court affirmed that. But such a deadline is in the nature of ordinary congressional  legislation, and can be extended through ordinary legislation.

To illustrate the point, the Court brought up  four ancient amendments pending before the States and described as "untenable" the proposition that states could still ratify
those amendments. The Court explained that "the fair inference or implication from Article V is that the ratification must be within some reasonable time after the proposal." 

That’s an interesting idea, but it’s not law. It’s just dicta. The 27th Amendment was added after a 202 year wait, so that particular reasoning obviously didn’t hold up and the comment was not considered binding.

what other time limits can be ignored by Congress

But they’re not ignoring it. They would be ignoring it if they said it was ratified. Rather, they are acknowledging and respecting the deadline by seeking to extend it through congressional legislation. 

What if Congress were to modify the Fifth Amendment to add a sunset clause?  After all, that's just a time limit is it not?

That makes no sense. The Fifth Amendment is already part of the Constitution. Only a constitutional amendment could change that.

It should be re-introduced but I'm afraid in our current contentious Congress the likely hood of passage is slim.

Contentiousness has nothing to do with it. Republicans are making it clear that they are on a mission to roll back as many rights for women and minorities as they can. The Republican Party is no friend to women. If they wanted a federal ERA, they could do it in a day. It’s not their dislike of Democrats that is holding them back. Can we at least be real about that?

The timeframe is not written into the amendment. It’s just not. The proposed amendment reads - in full: 

It reads to me that a timeline was written in.

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to 
equal rights for men and women.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled {two-thirds of each House
concurring therein, That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within
seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress :

"ARTICLE —
"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.
"SEC. 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
"SEC. 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."

govinfo

I've bolded the part where I believe it states a deadline.

I really don't want to argue.  From what you have stated above, this is not part of the Constitution now yet if the Senate does remove the deadline then this becomes part of the Constitution without agreement in how it was written and presented to the states for ratification.  If this bridge is crossed what could the next Congress do?  As I said, I don't believe this is a power that Congress should be allowed to take as I believe it will lead to other abuses down the road.

Nobody has suggested that Congress is engaging in an illegal act by denying the extension.

The point was that the deadline is NOT part of the amendment and was created by Congress thus can be lifted / extended by Congress.

It reads to me that a timeline was written in.

Distinguish the proposition from the amendment.   The amendment is that which would become part of the CotUS.

Yes, but isn't the entire proposition what the states vote on?  ie, it was written that the states had seven years to pass it and they did not complete it within the timeframe.  Now the Senate Democrats just want to eliminate the time limit that was put on the document in order to get it in.  That doesn't strike you as wrong?  The states had the entire document to work with and they knew the time limits involved.  It didn't get done so now we just change the game in order to get it in?  That seems wrong to me, it doesn't to you?

It's like saying I didn't like the result so I'm gonna change the rules to get what I want.  Kind of like someone else  you know.

Now the Senate Democrats just want to eliminate the time limit that was put on the document in order to get it in.  That doesn't strike you as wrong? 

No, because the limit was imposed by Congress and can be revised by Congress.

It's like saying I didn't like the result so I'm gonna change the rules to get what I want. 

Congress is always changing rules;  that is its job.   

Now the Senate Democrats just want to eliminate the time limit that was put on the document in order to get it in.  That doesn't strike you as wrong? 

No, because the limit was imposed by Congress and can be revised by Congress.

After the fact?  That's the piece I don't want Congress to gain the power to do, the whole law of unintended consequences thing.

It's like saying I didn't like the result so I'm gonna change the rules to get what I want. 

Congress is always changing rules;  that is its job.   

Way to ignore the reference but I guess it's ok if a Democrat does it then.  

After the fact? 

Congress already has that power, snuffy.   The legislation of one Congress can be reversed by another.

While I agree that this is a bit slimy and that given all the time passed this should be started from scratch, there is nothing that I see technically wrong with Congress accepting the 38th state ratification by relaxing a past rule of Congress.

Way to ignore the reference but I guess it's ok if a Democrat does it then.  

Must you always resort to this crap?   

All he has is PD&D plus defending the indefensible.

Congress already has that power, snuffy. 

For laws yes.  But this is a Constitutional Amendment.  Do you really want to give them that power also?  Can you not see how this could be abused in the future?

If Congress can drop a deadline/timeline, then can't the individual States do it also?  Between 1973 and 1978 there were five states who passed legislation to rescind their vote for the ERA Amendment.  While Article 5 of the Constitution holds the process for states to ratify an amendment, it does not address any ability to rescind their decisions after the fact. 

When the 14th Amendment was passed and ratified in 1868, the tally included New jersey and Ohio which had passed resolutions to rescind their ratifications, and also included North Carolina and South Carolina who had originally rejected and later ratified the amendment.  Congress determined that both the attempted withdrawals of ratification and the previous rejections prior to ratification had no legal validity.  But this was not taken to Court for a legal determination.

I can see states taking the issue to court, who knows for sure where that might end.   With the current make up of SCOTUS it might not end up well.

Congress has the power to change rules made by an earlier congress.

That is simply a fact.   No amount of words changed that fact.

And it is true even if we agree that it is not the proper way to handle this situation.

You've had your say and I've had mine.  We do agree that this is not the proper way to handle this situation.  I believe we also agree that with the current hard partisan split in Congress this won't be brought back up again any time soon.  To me that's a shame as I do wish this had passed already.

But I do not want Congress to even attempt to gain more power then they already have.  I don't trust Congress to do what's best for the American public, their first concern is always for themselves.

You've had your say and I've had mine

I do not see why you are even arguing about this.    Congress is not gaining any new powers here;  these are powers that have existed since our founding.

I do not trust our elected representatives either, but that is a different subject.

Congress determined that both the attempted withdrawals of ratification and the previous rejections prior to ratification had no legal validity.  But this was not taken to Court for a legal determination.

I suppose someone might argue that even though rescission of ratification is contemplated in the Constitution, the states would still have the right to do so under the 9th Amendment. It’s been tried - and rejected - a few times. However, as you correctly point out, this has not specifically been adjudicated my knowledge. If it were, I think it would likely fail.

As early as 1789 (Hollingsworth v Virginia), the Court held that a state legislature passing a law is not the same thing as ratifying the Constitution or an amendment. This has been reaffirmed in later cases. This makes it a federal action and not a state process. So the state can only do as directed. In this case, since the power to rescind has not been granted, it doesn’t exist.

In the 1920s, proponents of rescission sought to establish the power by law, but even they understood it would take an amendment to the Constitution.

We have a lot of records surrounding discussion and debate of the ratification of the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights in meeting minutes, Federalist papers, and letters. Whether it’s Madison, Washington, Jefferson or others, they all agreed that ratification was to be total, in perpetuity, forever, so as to allow the American people to understand that their rights were guaranteed forever - absent, of course, a new amendment process. Any other situation was understood to be a foundation for chaos.

“IN TOTO” AND “FOR EVER”: WHY STATES CANNOT RESCIND RATIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

Why are my wife and daughters not deserving of all the same rights and protections as I am? Why can their rights not be solidified in the Constitution?

I have a wife and two grown daughters who don't think they have less rights and protections than I do as  male.  Maybe you can enlighten me so I can tell them why they should feel like second class citizens.

Maybe you can enlighten me so I can tell them why they should feel like second class citizens.

Can men be forced to suffer through a 9 months medical condition that is physically dangerous, yet curable.  But not be allowed to partake in that cure?

Can men be forced to suffer through a 9 months medical condition that is physically dangerous, yet curable.  But not be allowed to partake in that cure?

Now that the dems say men can get pregnant then yes they can.

Now that the dems say men can get pregnant then yes they can.

Please provide non-hearsay evidence to that "fact".

Just an example....I am sure you can find many more if you try

youtu.be

Just an example....I am sure you can find many more if you try

So you have no evidence, yet decided to speak up anyway?

[deleted]

So you ignore evidence, yet decide to double down on ignorance

So you ignore evidence, yet decide to double down on ignorance

I think you need to look up the definition for "evidence".

ev·i·dence
noun
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"

[deleted] believing something when you have absolutely no evidence to support what you believe.

Should I even bother asking for evidence to support your claim again?  It is looking extremely unlikely you have any for that support.

So you don't consider video of someone saying it is not proof.  I would suggest you google it but I feel confident you would not believe what you find there either.  I think this conversation is done.

So you don't consider video of someone saying it is not proof.

Proof that it is real?  No of course not, you have idiots on television all the time making ridiculous claims.  Do you believe in bigfoot because you have people on TV telling you bigfoot is real?

Can someone explain to me why we cannot enshrine equal rights for women in the Constitution? 

What rights that men have women do not have right now?

No answer huh,?

Why? Somebody justify this for real. Explain why you don’t support putting this language in the Constitution:

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

If you oppose the ERA, explain why. Do you not have women in your life? A mother? A wife? A daughter? A friend? Do you REALLY want it to be ok to deny them equal rights under the law?

Dude, I just don't get it at all.  Like there is nothing anyone can say that will make me understand why women should not have the equal rights of men. 

Someone explain to me how my daughters are inferior and not deserving of the same rights/protections as I am.

Please tell me what rights your daughters don't have that you do?

[Deleted]

No male gop senators believe women are equal!

Not even one...

No male gop senators believe women are equal!

You really get around JBB, how did you obtain access to all of them?

Their votes against equal rights are public!

So you don't really know each motivation.

We know all male gop senators voted against it.

Causation?

Opposition to equal rights for women...

So you don't really know each motivation.

Republicans have an easy opportunity to change people’s minds about what motivates them. If there’s a legal reason, they should make the case to the people. But they aren’t doing it. If they believe the amendment should be reintroduced, they could do that, but they won’t.

So the conclusion that people reach about the low esteem in which they hold women seems to be the obvious one. If you have a better explanation, then by all means, let’s hear it.

If there’s a legal reason, they should make the case to the people. But they aren’t doing it.

But they did.

“Radical lawmakers cannot erase women or their rights from our Constitution. This attempt is legally and morally wrong and would unleash a Pandora’s box of harmful legal implications. Nor can they replace a deadline that passed long ago. This resolution makes clear what most of us already know: The deadline for states to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment has long passed and was rightfully rejected,”  said Kennedy.

“The law and the facts outlined in this resolution are clear. Congress has no authority to go back in time to revive a failed constitutional amendment, which makes the current push to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment wrong on its face. Beyond the illegitimacy of trying to resurrect the ERA, we cannot ignore the very serious effects adding the ERA to our Constitution today would have on abortion, religious liberty, protections for women, and more,”  said Hyde-Smith.

• The ERA was not ratified to the Constitution because the deadline passed without having the necessary support from three-fourths of states.
• Congress does not have the authority to change a resolution that proposes a constitutional amendment after it is submitted to the states or after the deadline is reached.

kennedy.senate .

I believe the ERA should be passed but it ran out of time so it should be re-introduced.  You cannot say the Republicans won't re-introduce, you have no proof of that.  Your conclusion is just  your opinion.  You opine that Republicans hold women in low esteem yet they currently have the highest number of women in Congress in their history.

You cannot say the Republicans won't re-introduce, you have no proof of that.

You know as well as I do that Republicans have no interest in reintroducing it. Please do not try to gaslight me and pretend that Republicans are interesting in being the champions for women’s rights.

You know as well as I do that Republicans have no interest in reintroducing it. Please do not try to gaslight me and pretend that Republicans are interesting in being the champions for women’s rights.

Not gaslighting you at all.  You and I are not mind readers and do not know the minds of everybody in Congress.  I've said in another reply to you that I do not believe that in our contentious Congress that such an amendment would pass but I don't know if ALL Republicans are against it or if ALL Democrats are for it.  

If you want to try to tell me that  you know what each individual in Congress is thinking about you are just full of it.

Their actions tell us all we need to know. So does their lack of action. The Republican controlled House could reintroduce the ERA today, but they won’t.

Would passing ERA as amendment to the Constitution make abortion legal ?

No...

I don’t think so. But it would, perhaps, more firmly cement LGBT rights, which is what the far right is really afraid of.

Is the Equal Rights Amendment still floating around?  The deadline for ratification expired 40 years ago and the ERA was not ratified.  Nowadays people can't even provide the text of the proposed amendment.  Naturally that ignorance allows people to lie about the ERA.  And we are hearing more lies than truth today.

Liberals love kicking a dead horse.  And the ERA is so dead, it's turned into a fossil.  The dinosaurs in the Democratic Party want to revive their youth.  But the world has turned a few times and the ERA isn't relevant any longer.

Simply quoting the text of the Equal Rights Amendment would reveal why it would be problematic in the era of 'they'.  That's why no one quotes the proposed amendment any longer.  The ERA doesn't fit into today's world.

Nowadays people can't even provide the text of the proposed amendment.

Here ya go:

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.

Sections 2 and 3 are the kind of boilerplate that gets attached to any amendment, so I don’t expect people to know those. But I think most people have a pretty good grasp of Section 1.

Naturally that ignorance allows people to lie about the ERA.  And we are hearing more lies than truth today.

For example?

And the ERA is so dead, it's turned into a fossil.

Hardly a fossil.

27 states have added equal rights amendments to their state constitutions. Those states are Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

Maine, Minnesota, and New York appear to be in the process.

Additionally, 14 countries guarantee equal rights based on sex, and that number is gradually growing. Those countries are Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands.

Another inexplicable act by the modern GOP.

The ERA is not an amendment today because the 38th state to ratify missed the imposed deadline.     It is a technicality given the constitutional requirements to be an amendment were satisfied.

What is the point of blocking this amendment?   What could possibly be the downside of affirming equal rights regardless of gender that justifies this action by the GOP?

ERA:

“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

What, specifically, is wrong with NOT denying and NOT abridging rights under law per gender?

Well to me it is starting to look pretty simple , 

congress just doesnt want to risk a revote today to get the 2/3rds of congress to even have the proposed amend go to the states , nor do they want to risk  or let states that have already agreed to ratify , decide that any changes to te origional proposal including the deadline , can decide to revote on the issue because of the changes no matter how insignificant some think the change is . they may not get the 3/4ths needed if the amendment process has to restart afresh 

12 states didnt ratify the origional , and at least 5 have said they will or would not ratify , changing their votes if it comes up again . thats 17 states ,only need 13  and a proposed amendment fails .

Way i see it any state that agreed to ratify after the last deadline doesnt count because as soon as the deadline expired , the proposal died , and to resurrect it , it needs to be re introduced .

 So back to the start with a fresh new board and let the chips fall where they may .

Even if Congress had the power to resurrect a zombie amendment, it certainly wouldn't help woman much at all. In fact, the net effect would be to hurt them.  Should the Amendment, as written pass, it would  effectively outlaw all governmental  discrimination on behalf of women.  All the governmental programs that give women a leg up (firefighter examinations etc.)  would be illegal. As things stand today, passing the amendment would only hurt women, without providing any benefits.  Discrimination against woman is already illegal under the civil rights act.  This would make discrimination in their favor illegal.    

All the governmental programs that give women a leg up

What are these programs ?

Should the Amendment, as written pass, it would  effectively outlaw all governmental  discrimination on behalf of women.

I don’t think so. The only reason it would be a problem might be if a woman benefitted unfairly at the expense of a man, but that is not often seen. Similarly, prohibitions against racial discrimination haven’t meant an avalanche of discrimination against white people (even though some folks like to imagine it has).

For example, a majority of states have ERAs in their state constitutions, but that hasn’t prevented them from having female athletic programs that exclude men. Men have their own programs (usually better funded), so there’s no loss to them.

Would it would do is raise the level of scrutiny in Supreme Court cases. Right now, government actions that impact fundamental rights like speech, or protected classes like race, religion, and nationality receive strict scrutiny in the courts, and therefore fail most of the time. But sex has lived in kind of a gray area often called “intermediate scrutiny” or “elevated scrutiny,” the definition of which seems to change with each new case. Frankly, that gray area has been kind of a pain in the ass for the legal world. You can never tell how the Court will approach the problem, much less how it may rule.

Let's be really clear about this, there is no way the Republicans want equal rights to exist in the USA.

There must be a sufficient gap between the rich and the poor, and that gap continues to widen,

Woman are not to have control over their bodies - they are to be dealt with as handmaids.

A class system similar to India's caste system is to be promoted, with W.A.S.P. (white Anglo-Saxon Protestants) on top and other religions and colours lower by degree. 

After all, it's THE AMERICAN WAY. 

Let's be really clear about this, there is no way the Republicans want equal rights to exist in the USA.

Buzz, I like you, but you say some daft shit sometimes.

There must be a sufficient gap between the rich and the poor, and that gap continues to widen,

How does that relate to "rights"?  Do you really imagine people don't have the "right" to grow wealth?

Woman are not to have control over their bodies - they are to be dealt with as handmaids.

Oh for fuck's sake.  You do realize that in states where abortion is now outlawed, women have exactly the same reproductive rights men have always had.

A class system similar to India's caste system is to be promoted, with W.A.S.P. (white Anglo-Saxon Protestants) on top and other religions and colours lower by degree.  After all, it's THE AMERICAN WAY. 

You're awfully judgemental of a place you haven't set foot in for over 15 years.  You really have zero clue what life is like here.

Imagine someone thinking they understand life in China because they watched a lot of television.  You'd think they were a moron.  And you'd be right.  

Don't be that guy.

I'm fully aware that my comment was an exaggeration, and that is because the articles and comments posted about China by some members here are a ridiculous exaggeration as well.  I'll simply using fire to fight fire.  

And I think you're an okay guy too, Jack. 

But by the way, the title to this seed was about the Republican Senators blocking an equal rights amendment.  That does have the effect of making a person think they prefer to not have equal rights in America, even if they haven't set foot in America for 15 years. 

But by the way, the title to this seed was about the Republican Senators blocking an equal rights amendment.  That does have the effect of making a person think they prefer to not have equal rights in America, even if they haven't set foot in America for 15 years.

If you did live here you would undoubtedly recognize American-style political grandstanding when you see it.

The ERA was written with a 7-year deadline for ratification.  That deadline was later extended.  It still didn't pass, and the major opponents of it were women.

House Democrats claim to want to back into the adoption of the amendment, extending the adoption period to over half a century.   In reality, they simply want to make Republicans vote against it.

The irony here that drives modern pseudo-feminists into a blind rage is... at this point, the ERA would almost surely do more for men than it would ever do for women.  Imagine the constitutional challenges to Title IX alone.  Custody hearings would actually have to be fair.  It would be chaos.

Thanks for that explanation.  What it comes down to IMO is that equal rights should be a necessity, and not a provision with a shelf life.  

What rights do you think men have in the US that women do not?

BINGO!

I was thinking about abortion rights, Jack.  In many places in America women do not have the right to make determinations about their bodily functions, giving or not giving birth being the example.  Nobody is preventing men from producing sperm.

Bodily autonomy.

I was thinking about abortion rights, Jack.  In many places in America women do not have the right to make determinations about their bodily functions, giving or not giving birth being the example.  Nobody is preventing men from producing sperm.

Nobody is preventing women from producing eggs.

In states where abortion is now illegal, women have exactly the same rights men do.

Bodily autonomy.

They have exactly the same amount that men do.

Only in some states. 

What states are preventing women from producing ova?

Men don't have the ability to give birth to a child so the limitation that women must suffer under does not apply to them - there is no real comparison.  What's the next thing the backward States are going to take away from women, the right to vote?  Women having the right to vote is probably a good reason why the Republicans did not enjoy the RED WAVE they predicted.  

Actually, you're right.  What good would the handmaids be without that ability?

Jack_TX and I were discussing women's rights or lack thereof. We were discussing bodily autonomy not bodily functions.

I am still waiting for someone to tell me what rights women do not have that men do. Since there is no answer I assume there are none and women have all the same rights. 

In those states where abortion is illegal.

Men don't have the ability to give birth to a child so the limitation that women must suffer under does not apply to them

Why must women suffer?  They have more birth control options than men do.  Are you suggesting their female brains can't understand contraception?

- there is no real comparison. 

No, men just have the "right" to have their wages garnished to pay for a child.

It doesn't necessarily have to be their child, BTW.  

I am still waiting for someone to tell me what rights women do not have that men do. 

Let me know if someone come up with anything.

So far all we have is abortion, which is a situation where men have exactly the same rights as women.

    "what rights women do not have that men do."

They are not secure in their person

I see how some 'men' don't get it charger - how some 'men' choose that a woman has no rights to her own body/reproductive health/life/choices.

Off topic but they're also scared shitless of Generation Z.

They absolutely are secure in there person.unless you can give a specific examples. BTW getting and abortion is not an answer unless they are forced to have one. 

I am still waiting

You can't even follow the conversation, run along now.

Why must women suffer?  They have more birth control options than men do.  Are you suggesting their female brains can't understand contraception?

Contraception is not foolproof.  Condoms break, pills don't always work and other methods might not be used correctly.

No, men just have the "right" to have their wages garnished to pay for a child. It doesn't necessarily have to be their child, BTW.  

Another reason why abortion is necessary.

You know what, Jack.  How about your taking a tour of the top floor ward of Toronto's Sick Children's Hospital, the ward where the "monster" babies are tended to.  Volunteer to work there for a day, but don't worry about getting attached to them, they usually die in a very short time anyway.  Unfortunately the mothers failed to abort for some reason.  Maybe they simply had the same feelings about aborting that your comments indicate.

If something is up inside of you and the government won't let you have it removed then you are not secure in you person.

This compares to to the Quartering practice before the revolution, people did not want to be forced to keep others in their houses and later the Constitution protected us from that.  Women don't want to be forced to keep others in their bodies.  Same complaint

If you can't answer my simple question just say so. No need to get belligerent. 

This compares to to the Quartering practice before the revolution, people did not want to be forced to keep others in their houses

Of course that practice was the Crown forcing colonist to house soldiers against their wills and just placed them there. The woman chooses to go through the steps to have a baby enter her body. It not the same thing by a long shot. 

Nice try even if you failed terribly

Women don't want to be forced to keep others in their bodies

Then they should not have invited that someone into her body in the first place. Did you forget your biology classes in reproduction?

Another reason why abortion is necessary.

So you would be okay with a man demand that a woman gets an abortion even if she wants to have the baby. 

Figures that that would be right up the alley of male supremacy.  Where did I indicate that I would be okay with that?  

I'm getting quite bored with what I believe is trolling, and any more replies might just lead to an impasse. 

     "should not invited that someone into her body in the first place"

That someone could not stay long and left on his own

Quartering and denying abortion are both actions where the government forced innocent citizens to keep those they did not want

Figures that that would be right up the alley of male supremacy. Where did I indicate that I would be okay with that?  

What male supremacy? Jack_tx said in his comment 11.1.17

No, men just have the "right" to have their wages garnished to pay for a child. It doesn't necessarily have to be their child, BTW.  

To which you replied in you comment 11.1.25

Another reason why abortion is necessary.

The only way to interpret your statement is to conclude that you would be okay with a man forcing a woman to abort her baby even if she chooses to keep it. 

I'm getting quite bored with what I believe is trolling, and any more replies might just lead to an impasse. 

[Deleted]

Did the government put the fetus in the woman or did she engage in an act that placed it in her? 

Problem is government preventing her from removing it

"Did the government put the fetus in the woman"

Many think the government screws everybody on a regular basis anyway

BTW getting and abortion is not an answer unless they are forced to have one. 

Abortion should be illegal for anyone who doesn’t want one.  There, that was easy.

Many think the government screws everybody on a regular basis anyway

True dat! That's governments job. That is why we need less of it. 

The government is protecting the life of an innocent baby that has done absolutely nothing wrong. Protecting the innocent is one of governments most important and noble jobs. 

There, that was easy. 

No that was stupid. It would be right along the lines of making it illegal for everyone not to purchase and carry a firearm all times. 

I've never been forcibly raped. Unfortunately, that happens to many women.

In far too many states a women can't even get an abortion from a rape pregnancy.

I've never been forcibly raped.

Consensual is always better.

you're the one being belligerent

Are you saying that you're a rapist or do you just enjoy being raped?