House Joint Resolution
Constitution Amendment – HJRCA 2 (Lang) – federal ERA
Section 1. "Equality of rights under law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of Sex."
ILLINOIS CITIZENS FOR
LIFE IS OPPOSED TO HJRCA 2 – FEDERAL ERA RATIFICATION
HJRCA 2 was
introduced this year and is for ratification of the old federal amendment to
the U.S. Constitution first proposed in 1972.
Intent of the ERA
The Yale Law Journal article, Vol. 80 states concerning the ERA: "The basic principle of the Equal Rights Amendment is that sex is not a permissible factor in determining the legal rights of women, or of men. This means that the treatment of any person by the law may not be based on the circumstance that such person is of one sex or the other." (p.889)
Professor Paul Freund of Harvard Law School testified in a Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing: "Indeed, if the law must be as undiscriminating concerning sex as it is toward race, it would follow that laws outlawing wedlock between members of the same sex would be as invalid as laws forbidding miscegenation." (marriage between different races)
Hawaii Supreme Court
Marriage Decision
A 1996 Hawaii court decision ruled, consistent with the intent that had been shown during consideration of the ERA by Congress, that gay marriages must be allowed under Hawaii's state ERA. Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P. 2d 44 (Haw. 1993), on remand, Gaehr v. Miike, Hawaii Circuit Court, Civ. No.92-1394 (injunction issued December 3, 1996).
In order to overturn the Court’s decision, the Hawaii voters had to pass a constitutional amendment stating that "the legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples."
At least one of the
Massachusetts Supreme Court Justices used the ERA in the Massachusetts
Constitution as the basis of the decision to overturn the Massachusetts
marriage law, while the other three made reference to the state’s gay rights
legislation.
In both Connecticut
and New Mexico, the ERA’s found in the state constitutions were used to strike
down the Ban on Medicaid Funding of Abortion by their respective State Supreme
Courts. The language added to
the New Mexico state constitution in 1973, is very similar to that of HJRCA 2,
and says, "Equality of rights under law shall not be denied on account of
the sex of any person."
On November 25, 1998, the New Mexico Supreme Court by
a vote of 5-0 ruled that such language prohibits the state from restricting abortion
differently from "medically necessary procedures" sought by men, and the Court ordered the
state to pay for elective abortions without restriction under the states
Medicaid program. (NM Right to
Choose / NARAL v. Johnson, No. 1999-NMSC-005)
In Connecticut, the Superior Court ruled that the State ERA
requires Connecticut taxpayers to pay for abortions, stating: "Since only
women become pregnant, discrimination against pregnancy by not funding
abortions . . . is sex-oriented discrimination . . . The court concludes that
the regulation that restricts the funding for abortions . . . violates
Connecticut's Equal Rights Amendment." (Doe v. Maher, April 9,
1986)
Senator Sam Ervin offered the following amendments to the ERA in the U.S. Senate in March 1972.
Amendment 1065: "This article shall not impair, however, the validity of any laws of the Unites States or any State which exempt women from compulsory military service."
(Defeated: 18 ayes, 73 nays, 8 not voting)
Amendment 1066: "This article shall not impair the validity, however, of any laws of the United States or any State which exempt women from service in combat units of the Armed Forces.:
(Defeated: 18 ayes, 71 nays, 10 not voting)
In 1977, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission published a book titled, “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code.” The author? An ACLU attorney named Ruth Bader Ginsburg! The book explains where the U.S. Code must be changed if the ERA is to become part of the U.S. Constitution. In her book, she clearly points out that women must not only register for the draft, but if a draft is instituted, women must be drafted equally with men. Not only that, but unlike Israeli women who are drafted for shorter terms of non-combat duty in separate units, American women will be equally obligated to serve in combat units.
In her book, “Sex
Bias in the U.S. Code,” Ruth Bader Ginsburg (in over 230 pages) points to NO
LAWS THAT MUST BE CHANGED TO HELP WOMEN IN THE WORKPLACE!!!!
Women already have
these laws in place to protect their rights:
· Equal Pay Act of 1963
· Civil Rights Act of 1964
· Executive Order 11246
· Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972
· Title VII of EEOC
· Higher Education Act of 1972
· Fair Employment Opportunity Act of Illinois
· Education Amendments of 1972
· Title IX of 1975
· Exceptions to Title IX
· Depository Institutions Amendments Act of 1972
· Federal Equal Credit Opportunities Act of October 28, 1975
· Consumer Credit Protection Act of 1976
· Illinois Human Rights Act
·
Equal Pay Act of
2003
· Illinois Constitutional Provisions -- Bill of Rights
· Section 2 states: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor be denied the equal protection of the laws."
· Section 17 states: "All person shall have the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, national ancestry and sex in the hiring and promotion practices of any employer or in the sale or rental of property.
· "These rights are enforceable without action by the General Assembly, but the General Assembly by law may establish reasonable exemptions relating to these rights and provide additional remedies for their violation."
· Section 18 states: "The equal protection of the laws shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex by the State or its units of local government."
Updated February 2011
Prepared by:
Rev. Bob Vanden
Bosch
Ralph Rivera