I'm Sorry... If We Are To Go Down This Syrian/ISIS Road To War... Reinstitute The Draft

[pnwmom]

90. I know I've read about specific cases,

but I can't remember them now. However, I did find this. The 14th Amendment doesn't give cases involving discrimination against women the same level of scrutiny involved with cases involving race -- because of the lack of a Constitutional amendment. There is now a vague standard that the law can be discriminatory as long as it meets "an important governmental objective."

http://eraeducationproject.com/doesnt-the-14th-amendment-already-guarantee-women-equal-rights-under-the-law/

In the 1970s the country’s highest court began to apply the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause to sex discrimination cases, finding it prohibited unequal treatment on the basis of gender. By 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that under the 14th amendment, men and women could be treated differently under the law only if it served an “important governmental objective.”

The end result, however, allows courts to interpret the ruling as they see fit, with absolutely no guarantees of consistency from case to case. Courts also evaluate cases of governmental sex discrimination under an “intermediate” standard of review, and not under “strict scrutiny,” the highest level of judicial review that applies to cases of race bias. Claims of sex discrimination typically require extremely persuasive evidence to stick.

So while the 14th Amendment at times has been interpreted to benefit women, it offers them no assurances. Women need consistency and the highest legal protection against discrimination. The Equal Rights Amendment would require courts to apply the highest level of strict judicial review.