Supreme Court Justice Scalia "ON OUR SIDE?"

About The Column

Women's eNews is the definitive source of substantive news--unavailable anywhere else--covering issues of particular concern to women and providing women's perspectives on public policy. It enhances women's ability to define their own lives and to participate fully in every sector of human endeavor .

ustice Scalia Makes the Case for E.R.A. Ratification

	By Women's eNews Contributors
Supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment should give U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a standing ovation right about now. In widely quoted comments in the current issue of California Lawyer, Scalia said the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution does not protect against discrimination on the basis of gender. That boils down to the idea that women are not part of the Constitution. Bravo! That's just what supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment, known as E.R.A., have been saying for years. The E.R.A. is rather simple. It would guarantee the equality of rights under the law not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. It gives Congress the power of enforcement. Those who follow Scalia's decisions barely raised an eyebrow at his latest comments. He showed his view on sex discrimination in 1996 when he cast the sole vote in favor of the Virginia Military Institute's ability to discriminate against female applicants. Overall, his statements are less alarming than the media have trumpeted. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 as part of the Reconstruction Amendments and was the basis for the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, leading to the dismantling of segregation laws in the South. Support Not Universal In recent decades, the Supreme Court applied the amendment to laws that discriminate against women, although support for this interpretation is not universal. Other judges have not reinforced the application of the 14th Amendment to women's rights. The E.R.A. was introduced in 1923 into both houses of the U.S. Congress, which finally passed the legislation in 1972. Initially, ratification proved relatively easy as states rushed to approve the amendment. Progress slowed by the late 1970s and growing forces rallied against its passage. The national fight for the E.R.A. was considered dead in 1982 when a ratification vote fell short by three states of the 38 states needed. At that point, the seven-year time limit imposed by Congress had expired and all seemed lost. But a legal strategy to revive the E.R.A. was developed after 1992, when Congress ratified the 27th Amendment to the Constitution 203 years after its passage, opening the way for a similar time frame for E.R.A. ratification. In recent years, several states have added their own E.R.A. to their constitutions, and many of the arguments against the ratification, such as women in the military and same-sex marriage, are no longer relevant. 15 States Remain Currently, 15 states have not ratified the E.R.A. They are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia. Since 1995, bills have been introduced in six of the unratified states. Proponents for the E.R.A. point out that every constitution in the world written after World War II includes an E.R.A.-like statement that men and women are equals. Scalia's colleague Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a strong E.R.A. proponent, has urged citizens to lobby for the amendment's passage. "I would write the lawmakers of the United States in Congress and in the states to perfect the fundamental instrument of government in this regard for the sake of my daughter, my granddaughters and all the daughters in generations yet to come," she said in the 1998 documentary The Equal Rights Amendment: Unfinished Business for the Constitution. "I would like to see in our Constitution this clarion statement of bedrock principle--equal rights shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex." This article was contributed by Kimberly Wilmot Voss, Ph.D. who is an assistant professor in the Nicholson School of Communication at the University of Central Florida. She studies the media's representation of women, including coverage of the Equal Rights Amendment. Copyright © 2010 Women's eNews
	Comment On This Article Let Others Hear What You Have to Say!! Add To This Page by Leaving Your Comments!! (512) 827-0505 ext 2869 sandy oestreich Posted 3 Seconds Ago We of Equal Rights Alliance Inc are grateful for this article explaining that the 14th Amendment does not confer upon American females (or males) guarantee against sex discrimination which continues unbridled. ERA Inc is a national organization electrified by the idea and working 18/7 for ratification of the ERA by 3 more states by mentoring now-seven states filing ratification bills. Our updating site: www.2PassERA.org and new address, SandyO@PassERA.org are urging communication and/or linking with us in order to rouse the public and legislators in those states to ratify ERA asap! The ground is fertile for Women's Revolution as the IMF, the EU and UN all agree that wherever gender equality is the standard, the GDP grooowwws! Unleash us females, and speed America's recovery! A few caveats. 1) The 7 year time limit you mention turned into a 10 year one via Congress midway through ratifications, 1972-82. 2) ERA is still "viable and contemporaneous", and the source of nationwide articles for the 3-state strategy. 2) Please never use the word "dead" in reference to ERA. It was never declared dead, only moot, by the Supreme Court; some Constitutional amendments had time limits, some didn't. ERA's is contained only in its non-votable Proposing Clause and not in the ERA's Body. There are additional substantive arguments for ERA's legal vitality. Thus the ongoing march forward for the ERA in 7 states. Opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment effort is not and probably never was about same-sex, or military draft. NO public arguments are relevant when it comes to the simple, moral American principle that all should be treated equally regardless of gender. This is not a gender war. It's a class war. Those irrelevancies are but smokescreens in an attempt to inflame constituencies against the ERA. They are raised expectantly by legislatures who fight mightily to keep Business Interests funding their campaigns, and extremist Special Interests happily voting for them! (Corporate America effectively bars ERA passage so that it doesn't get sued for its monstrous sex discrimination or have to pay equal wages with men's. Doing this 10 years gives us this perspective. Welcome to our www.2PassERA.org for full rebuttals at "ERA Rebuts Lies" and "Facts for Legislators" , and "Take Action" buttons at the top. Comment on our blog. But, come for the facts, and to link arms with us 300 000. Forge On WITH US, SandyOestreich, Founder-President ERA Inc; Fmr elected official; Co-author of internationally distributed pharmacology reference texts; nurse practitioner; biographied in Feminists Who Changed America