Equals Rights Amendment Never Ratified; due to Phylis Schlafly

[laserhaas]

Last edited Sat Sep 27, 2014, 12:32 PM - Edit history (1)

One of the writers (Ann Werner) of the "Haas Sued Romney for RICO" story; has endeared herself to me. Ann Werner, who writes for the Samuel Ward online website Liberal's Unite; is about as pure as it gets to being a true Progressive. Just a week ago, Ann went to Washington D.C. for a women's rally - where her daughter (Kimberley A. Johnson) spoke.

It was then that I learned that the ERA was never ratified;
due to the efforts to "STOP the ERA" by Phyllis Schlafly.

As per Women's History website - here's why Schlafly wanted to halt ratification of the ERA.


Why “Stop ERA”? Phyllis Schlafly traveled across the U.S. throughout the 1970s calling for opposition to the ERA because it would lead to:

1. Homosexual marriages
   
   
2. Women in combat
   
   
3. Taxpayer-funded abortions
   
   
4. Unisex bathrooms
   
   
5. Elimination of Social Security benefits for widows
   

[br]

[br]

Per Wikipedia - this is the history of Schlafly (still alive and active today) - stopping ratification of the ERA.

Schlafly became an outspoken opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment during the 1970s as the organizer of the "STOP ERA" campaign. STOP is an acronym for "Stop Taking Our Privileges." Schlafly argued that the ERA would take away gender specific privileges currently enjoyed by women, including "dependent wife" benefits under Social Security and the exemption from Selective Service registration.[27]

In 1972, when Schlafly began her efforts against the Equal Rights Amendment, it had already been ratified by 28 of the necessary 38 states. She organized a campaign to oppose further ratification. Five more states ratified ERA after Schlafly began her opposition campaign; however, five states rescinded their ratifications. The last state to ratify was Indiana, where then State Senator Wayne Townsend cast the tie-breaking vote for ratification in January 1977. Schlafly argued that "the ERA would lead to women being drafted by the military and to public unisex bathrooms."[28] She was opposed by groups such as, National Organization for Women (NOW) and the ERAmerica coalition.[29] To counter Schlafly's Stop ERA campaign, the Homemakers' Equal Rights Association was formed.[30]

The Equal Rights Amendment was narrowly defeated, having only achieved ratification in 35 of the 38 states needed (30, subtracting the five that rescinded ratification)

Please watch the video and learn how Phyllis Schlafly, a Republican activist, halted ratification of the ERA.

[br]

[laserhaas]

1. Do you see THAT list of what Schlafly was trying to stop?

WOW!

[merrily]

2. Schafly did a lot, but, alone, she would have become a laughingstock.

She had a lot of help and a lot of funding--and that entire side had nowhere near enough organized and well funded push back from the left. Nowhere. Near. Enough.

As a result, the Supreme Court can, if it wishes, point to America's failure to ratify the ERA as evidence (though not proof) that Americans don't really want equal rights for women.

BTW, I don't know if the ERA had an expiration date. If not, the left could have been working for it's ratification for the last three or four decades, give or take.

Senator Mendendez was supposedly going to do something about pushing for either ratification of the existing ERA or for a new one within the next few years, in connection ith celebrating a century of women's suffrage. Haven't heard much about that, either.

[laserhaas]

3. Yes. It had a 10 year expiration date (in the video).

It should be a 2016 agenda to ratify and/or anew!

[merrily]

10. "It should be a 2016 agenda to ratify and/or anew!"

What action items do you suggest? Maybe the activism forum is a good place to discuss that.

As my prior post stated, Menendez had said something about it a while back, but I have heard nothing since. It should at least come to a vote in Congress--and not a faux filibuster vote, either. A vote on the merits. I'd really like to see who would dare to vote against equal rights and what, if anything, happens to that person during the next election.

Maybe, after midterms, that should be a project for those DUers who really care about equal human rights for all humans.

[laserhaas]

5. Schlafly was a sell out. She is an attorney and worker in many other issues; but

she claimed to be fighting for the right that woman's place is in the home.

What a true hypocrite.

I'm just sayin.......

[merrily]

11. No argument here, but she did not defeat the ERA by her lonesome.

[Orsino]

4. That list of talking points is not what she was trying to accomplish.

Those were just how she sold the agenda to haters. Male privilege is what she was fighting for.

[laserhaas]

6. I don't disagree. Be that as it may - the "list" makes her look pretty figgn stupid (now).

I'm all for unisex bathrooms.

Can you imagine one set of stalls having a discussion about clothing on Oprah's channel;
and that being gay guys discussing such.

While the other stalls have 3 girls arguing about Harley choppers.

Would drive Schlafly nuts (especially if one of her own family were there).

[AZ Progressive]

13. Conservatives don't care to make stupid reasons

It's their hallmark.

[Orsino]

19. Yeah, those bugbears she used to frighten the rubes...

...are coming to pass anyway. It's a good lesson in how the right's PR strategies are ultimately losing ones.

[merrily]

12. I would say more Republican and religious right strength is what she was fighting for.

[Orsino]

20. And in the longest view, aristocracy was her goal.

Religious right culture-warring and male privilege are just tools.

[merrily]

23. As in "here come the aristocrats?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aristocrats

Maybe plutocracy and/or oligarchy was her goal.

(According to a story Barbara Walters once told on The View, as Walters and her family began the processional at her first wedding, Milton Berle, a guest at the wedding, yelled out, "Here come the aristocrats."

[laserhaas]

24. Schlafly is still alive and her son founded a conservative website on Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Schlafly

[merrily]

27. Yes, I know, thanks.

[laserhaas]

28. I corrected the title; once you all discussed the overlook

[merrily]

29. No poster is always perfect.

[tritsofme]

7. The ERA was ratified by Congress in 1972.

It failed to win ratification in the requisite number of states.

[laserhaas]

8. HUH!?!? - Contradiction in statements

N'est-ce pas!

[tritsofme]

14. Semantics.

Congress did it's part and passed the amendment in 1972, it failed to win enough states to be adopted.

[merrily]

15. It was passed by Congress.

Congress doesn't ratify Constitutional amendments.

[tritsofme]

16. Yes, I misused the term.

Only point was that OP should lay blame on the states, Congress passed the amendment.

[merrily]

17. So did the OP, but I think there is enough blame to go around.

Part of what Congress passed included an expiration date. That was not necessary. And, once the expiration date came and went, Congress never passed another. It could have kept trying.

[tritsofme]

21. Congress definitely deserves blame for never passing it again.

Or even seriously considering it. And some measure of blame must go to the interest groups that have not run such a full court campaign for congressional passage since 1972 either.

But I agree in principle that constitutional amendments approved by Congress should have an expiration date. I think it instills some urgency to the issue, and helps ensure that a major change continues to reflect the will of the people.

[merrily]

22. Maybe, but Congress hadn't given every amendment an expiration date.

As far as reflecting the will of the people, that is all too easily manipulated and misrepresented, as the topic of this very thread shows.

In a sane nation, repeal would be the way to ensure continuing representation of the will of the people, as happened relatively quickly with Prohibition. But, we are not a sane nation and politicians have also played a role in that.

[laserhaas]

25. That's a profound statement "we are not a sane nation--"

WOW...

[merrily]

26. I didn't realize it would make an impression.

This is an example, though OT:

Is it sane when a member of the Armed Services Committee tells his constituents that he and others have been encouraging generals to quite the military to show opposition to Obama?

As an advocate of non-violence, of course, I wish they'd all quit on principle, but, geez, not for partisan reasons, not to help Republicans win elections.

[AZ Progressive]

9. Schafly fucked over women for decades to come

But, I hate to say, it isn't unusual for a woman to screw over fellow women.

The 70's was actually the start of the rise of the conservative fightback against the radical 60's, which unfortunately has lasted far longer in terms of size than the initial 60's movement.

[merrily]

18. The "radical" Sixties--that fought nonviolently for equal rights for African Americans

and more economic justice and against a stupid war in Vietnam that the US government lied to its citizens about?


Who were the real extremists in that scenario?

[laserhaas]

30. The uprise against Vietnam War; was solely due to the fact of the draft.

If not for the draft......?!?!?!?

[merrily]

31. Solely? Is that why Muhammed Ali chose jail after he got drafted?

I don't think you are correct about that at all.

First, there have always been conscientious objectors, pacifists, those who are unconditionally non-violent, etc.

Second, there was a lot about it being an unjust--and undeclared-- war. And about America's having been lied to.

We had a draft for a very long time before Vietnam. We didn't have mass draft card burnings until Vietnam, though. Not that I know of, anyway. But, sure, if you don't believe in the justness or legality of a war, you are going to have a bigger problem with being forced to fight and maybe die for that "cause" than you would if you weren't forced. That doesn't mean the protests were solely about the draft.

[laserhaas]

34. You are speaking of one person (who actually was convicted for refusing the draft).

I was at Kent State (and many other colleges during those times) and new Mary Ann (because we were the same age). I was playing basketball at the time of the incident. But I firmly remember from that school and all others, the banter about why everyone was protesting (and being called cowards).

No one cared if we were fighting Germany etc.,; where everyone agreed they'd run up to enlist. But everyone was made (especially given the short life expectancy) that young men were being drafted (from colleges too); to fight a war for profiteers.

You can banter all you wish about the issue of "solely"; but we have never (since) had such an outrage about the wars (except it almost built to such with the "drafting" of the weekend warriors). And (having been there - all over the east coast colleges at the time) I know that everyone was motivated by the chance that "they" could be drafted (against their will) - NEXT!

Ali (whose freedom was won due to a Sup. Ct Justice vote being changed by a hard line clerk finding fault with the anti-Muslim/ but pro Jehovah witness court) and other individuals independent stance are commendable;

but it was the nations youth "uprising" that was getting all the attention!

[merrily]

36. Ali was one person, but thousands protested that war because it was

unjust and/or unwinnable and not only because of the draft.

[TheBlackAdder]

32. Actually, Schlafly was positioned to lose her battle, until the Houston Conferences.

NOW and the ERA movement was pressured to place the same sex and abortion issues in their platform.

Before this happened, Schlafly's argument was falling on deaf ears--one of domesticity of women. Once same sex and abortion entered the platform, it energized the evangelical base to rally the remaining states to withhold their votes. Elected officials saw the strong 'value voter' support that happened in Houston and the strong rallying for 'family values' and that is what scared them. Schlafly scheduled her rally on the same day as the ERA one and got more air time on television as they were rallying against 'immoral' issues that the ERA could bring... highlighting homosexuality and the breakup of traditional family roles.

Before same sex and abortion, Schlafly only had the argument of domesticity to challenge the ERA. The hypocritical thing about Schlafly was, that she ran for office in California, twice--and lost both times. Here's a woman who professes a wife's domestic role while her husband allowed and supported her runs for political office.

Like it or not, Schlafly is deemed to be a 'feminist' and one of the most successful politicians of all time. While she didn't fight for equal rights, but she was still fighting for certain 'feminine views' that many evangelical women held. She was smart, as she held sessions to train her followers to dress a certain way, she would select which earrings to wear, how to talk, what to say, and keep the talking points to no more than 3 minutes.

===

What happened the following year was that this conservative base was now formed and energized, which led to the election of Ronald Reagan. This showed the politicians that the religious conservatives were a powerful voice that could sway elections and emboldened them for the next couple of decades.

In NJ, concervatives used same sex marriages to draw out conservatives to the polls as late as the mid-2000's. This is a lightning rod issue which was even more electric during the 1970's and early 1980's. Had the ERA supporters stayed on topic, without trying to be all inclusive, it would have passed. Emma Watson's speech to the U.N. is how the ERA should have been handled. But, no one knew how these devisive issues would have energized the Schlafly position until after it hit the fan. By then, it was too late to stop the 'family values' movement.

===

(This week, my university 'Women in Politics' course just covered this.)

[laserhaas]

35. I'm going to research the actual(s) more. (Which states rescinded - which ones were never on board).

We need to fix this.

[awoke_in_2003]

33. Hard to know who was worse...

her or Anita Bryant.

[merrily]

37. Why choose only one? Twofers are free. So are multiples.

[unapatriciated]

38. I attended that Rally

My sister flew in from California, I from North Carolina. We spent friday meeting with our Reps or should I say their aids (Reps had gone home for the week-end). Only three states are needed to ratify, but we still have the issue of the time limit. I think Illinois recently or was about to ratify at the time of the rally

This site has a great explanation on why the ERA is still needed.
http://2passera.org/explained.shtml

[laserhaas]

40. Thanks Much - for your posting and link

[LibertyLover]

39. I don't need to

read anything about that woman preventing ratification of the ERA - I remember very well her activities and actions against it. I called her a hypocrite then and I call her a hypocrite now.

[Savannahmann]

41. It was the era as well.

For the last decade, America had watched their sons drafted, and taken off to war. They saw the horror on the nightly news. Young men, boys really, cut to pieces with bullets, bombs, and other horrors. They saw the veterans returning, limbless and or crippled. A young life cut short by death, by dismemberment. Plus there was the psychological scars that they would be dealing with for decades, or even forever.

The idea that young women would also be subjected to such horror was in itself horrifying. It was bad enough that our boys were going, but the idea of our girls was just too much. While it was mentioned only briefly, no one wanted to imagine their daughters, sisters, or the young women of the nation brutally gang raped if they were captured. A special hell that the men did not face for the most part. As awful as the POW experience was, and we were getting some idea by this time, we could not imagine it for a young woman.

That alone was enough to make people pause. Yes, we wanted equality for our women in the workplace. The nation however, did not want to see that equality subject the young women to horrors that we had grown reluctant to have our young men endure.

Unisex bathrooms were another horror. Women had been ogled enough by the time they reached voting age. Remember, this was the era where Separate but Equal was finally discredited. They could well imagine a court deciding some obscure case that made it a crime to have bathrooms for separate sexes, because there was an amendment that said that the women were equal in every way imaginable.

But mostly, it was the draft, and the all too fresh images of Viet-Nam. The televised war brought the truth to the people, there was no glory on the field of battle. There was only horror to be found there.