House acts to remove deadline for Equal Rights Amendment

The Associated Press ^ | February 13, 2020 | By MATTHEW DALY

[Oldeconomybuyer]

WASHINGTON -- In a bid to revive the Equal Rights Amendment, the House has approved a measure removing a 1982 deadline for state ratification and reopening the process to amend the Constitution to prohibit discrimination based on sex.

“There is no expiration date on equality,″ said Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier of California, the resolution’s sponsor.

Nearly 50 years after it was first approved by Congress and sent to the states, the Equal Rights Amendment “is just as salient as ever,″ Speier said. ”For survivors of sexual violence, pregnancy discrimination, unequal pay and more, the fight for equal justice under the law can’t wait any longer.″

The House approved the resolution, 232-183, on Thursday, sending it to the Senate.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called passage of the resolution long overdue, noting that Congress will soon observe the 100th anniversary of women having the right to vote.

And yet “the ERA is still not enshrined in the Constitution,″ the California Democrat said. ”As a result, women still face inequality under the law from the wage gap to pregnancy discrimination, sexual harassment and, again, resulting in women being underrepresented at the table.″

The House vote ran into political headwinds this week as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — a feminist icon — said that fellow ERA supporters should start over in trying to get it passed, rather than counting on breathing life into the failed attempt from the 1970s.

“I would like to see a new beginning,” Ginsburg said Monday night at Georgetown University law school in Washington. “I’d like it to start over.”

In addition to Virginia, Nevada and Illinois also voted to ratify the amendment in the past three years. Five states have moved to rescind their earlier approvals.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

[goldstategop]

DOA in the Senate. Its also unconstitutional but that doesn’t matter to the Democrats.

[MattMusson]

You realize that the ERA is no longer about women. This is about LGBT rights.

[stars & stripes forever]

Vote these SEDITIONISTS out of office!

ERA is not about women’s rights. It’s always been about Constitutionally legalizing the LGBTQ lifestyle.

[2banana]

So, now it needs to be ratified by the states again.

[Buckeye McFrog]

This entire week in the House has been stuff that’s DOA in the Senate.

But it gives you an insight into EXACTLY what they plan to do if (God forbid) they get control of that and POTUS.

Don’t ever let your friends and neighbors forget that!

[Red Badger]

Be careful what you ask for, ladies, you might just get it.

So-called ‘Transgenders’ are taking over women’s sports, and that’s just the beginning.

...........................

[Red Badger]

Exactly so................

[kaehurowing]

This is no longer about men and women, it is about giving homosexuals and transvestites control of the country.

[goldstategop]

They can’t get two thirds to pass the ERA again today. It would never pass both the House and Senate.

Good luck trying to get 38 states to ratify it.

[Cboldt]

-- So, now it needs to be ratified by the states again. --

That's what the measuse aims to avoid. It is a retroactive rewrite of the original proposition.

See too, perpetual licenses, licens that expressly say on them "good for life," being retroactively rewritten to have an expiration.

Governments are fundamentally dishonest. NOTHING they say or promise is "good word."

[nwrep]

Yes, but I wonder if there is anyone with the rhetorical sophistication of Phyllis Schlafly on our side any more, that can explain why something that sounds nice (Equal Rights) is bad. I think we have stopped teaching, and are simply mocking. We need to return to explaining why these things are bad.

[Brookhaven]

“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.

The current trend is to treat sex and gender as the same as far as the law is concerned.

If this becomes law, it will enshrine transgender rights into the law.

[kaehurowing]

Always remember the Democrats pledged themselves to Satan at their 2012 national convention. That motivates everything they do, since they follow the evil one’s commands.

[Sequoyah101]

three added FIVE rescinded. They are still two short even if they succeeded in resurrecting this corpse.

Just more dim trouble making of course.

[Repealthe17thAmendment]

This seems to me to be unnecessary. What laws exist that treat the sexes differently?

[hanamizu]

So, now it needs to be ratified by the states again.

---

Oh no. They are trying to retroactively say that it is now ratified. The original had a 7-year time limit on ratification. When it failed to be ratified, Congress passed a 3-year extension—but not be 2/3rds majority. Even with the constitutionally questionable extension, it again failed. VA became the 38th state to “ratify” the dead ERA and now dems are trying to bring it back to life, in spite of the fact that several states withdrew their ratification—which dems, of course say they can’t do.

They are very good at not only changing the rules while the game is being played but trying to change the rules after they’ve lost the game. See their ongoing attempts to overrule the election of 2016 for example.

[goldstategop]

Not sure whether VA can change its mind.

Sorry, Democrats - that works both ways. ERA isn’t going to be revived any time soon in this century.

[Rurudyne]

If the scumbags and baby killers want a do-over restart from the very beginning with a completely new process.

[rgboomers]

People of varied opinions argue about what the ERA would mean. However, as President Nixon pointed out, our opinions do not count. Only the opinion of the SCOTUS counts as to what the ERA means. Do you trust the opinion and wisdom of the SCOTUS to decide this? Please, for the sake of everyone, oppose the passage of the ERA.