IPO Logo Home Search Browse About IPO Staff Links

By Mrs. HARRIET MULQUEENY

Should Era be Ratified

ILLINOIS should not ratify the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. ERA will not give women equal pay for equal work. ERA can add nothing whatsoever to the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972. ERA will not help women in the field of credit. This has already been mandated by the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974. On the other hand ERA will take away from wives their present right to get credit in their husbands' names. ERA will not give women better educational opportunities. This has already been mandated by the Education Amendments of 1972. ERA will not help women in athletics, but will require sex-integrated coed nonsense such as the order by Pennsylvania courts that all high schools must permit girls and boys to compete and practice together in all sports including football and wrestling.

Equal Rights for Women is a MISTAKE. It should be called the Extra Responsibility Amendment for women. ERA will make women subject to the draft on an equal basis with men and will make women and mothers subject to military combat and warship duty. It will invalidate all state laws which require a husband to support his wife and children and will place the equal 50 per cent financial obligation for support on the wife. ERA will deprive women in industry of their legal protections against being involuntarily assigned to heavy-lifting, strenuous and dangerous men's jobs, plus compulsory overtime.

ERA backers say that protective labor legislation denies job opportunities to women. However, in the state of Washington, which has a state ERA, many working women see it differently, saying ERA in Washington has failed. Passage of the state amendment caused Washington to void a protective labor law enacted for women and children in 1913. The old law restricted enforced overtime work, put limits on lifting of weights by women and provided for rest periods, among other provisions. ERA proponents blithely said they would simply have a new law passed guaranteeing to men the same safeguards once enjoyed by women; but that hasn't happened. Cindy Gipple, coordinator for the Coalition For Protective Labor Legislation, says, "As far as I'm concerned we are facing a whole new period. It's not the old sweatshop but the new, modern sweatshop." Some women have complained of being forced to work overtime by employers who found it cheaper to pay time-and-a-half than to hire additional help. Others have protested that they no longer get lunch periods because their work is defined as "intermittent" in nature. In short, reports from Washington would indicate that heaven is a better protector of the working girl than is ERA.

When they argue that ERA will not abolish sexual separation in public facilities, the proponents of ERA always refer to the constitutional right to privacy. There is, however, no such right to privacy spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut guaranteed the right to marital privacy but did not establish any generalized right to privacy. It is only through public acceptance and law that public institutions and services have sexually separate sleeping and bath facilities. Legal authorities are virtually unanimous in saying that such laws and practices would be dissolved under the sex neutral ERA. Thus we can expect sexually integrated accommodations in penal institutions, mental hospitals, veterans facilities, the armed forces and academies and even public schools. Indeed, in states that have a state ERA, many of these facilities are already being integrated. Typically, the proponents always point out that airplaines have only one rest room used by both sexes. They fail to mention that it accommodates only single occupancy in any case.

ERA Amendment

THE TEXT of the proposed amendment on equal rights for men and women to the U.S. Constitution is as follows:

"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.

"Sec. 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

"Sec. 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."

The amendment passed Congress on March 22, 1972, and was submitted to the legislatures of the states for ratification. Three-fourths(38) of the states must ratify it within seven years of the submission date in order for the amendment to be valid. As of March 1, 1978,35 states have ratified it with Illinois among the 15 which have not.

Despite proponents' denials, it seems clear, too, that ERA will legalize homosexual marriages. Sen. Sam Ervin Jr., said "I don't know but one group of people in the United States the ERA would do any good for, that's homosexuals." ERA will neuterize all legislation, which means re moving the sexist words such as man and woman. But a marriage between a person and a person is not the same thing as marriage between a man and woman.

Homosexuals themselves obviously see the ERA as a wedge in their efforts to gain acceptance in Dade County, Fl., when the county commission passed the ordinance in January 1977 to prohibit the right of private and public schools to refuse to hire homosexual teachers, one of the homosexuals' spokespersons stated, "I don't know why you people are opposing this local ordinance, because when ERA is ratified this will mean that homosexuals will have won all across the country and will be allowed to teach in the schools everywhere."

It should be apparent, too, that Section 2 of ERA is a big power grab by the federal government. Each state is clearly different from the others, reflecting in its laws the differences in its people and their political philosophies. This is the way our republic is structured. The immediate and dramatic effect of ERA would be to transfer from the state legislatures to the federal government powers that have always been the exclusive responsibility of the states. These include jurisdiction over family law, divorce, child custody, minimum marriageable age limits, dower rights, inheritance, survivors' benefits, insurance rates, welfare, prison regulations and protective labor legis lation.

NO
ERA can add nothing to current laws which guarantee women equal pay, equal credit, equal education and equality in athletics

Sen. Ervin put it very well when he said, "ERA will virtually reduce the states of this Union to meaningless zeroes on the nation's map."

On the surface ERA sounds good. The majority of the states which have ratified the amendment did so in bandwagon style within six months after it passed Congress — one within 24 hours — in what could only have been an absence of adequate study and debate. Increased public awareness has resulted in a definite reversal. Only one state has ratified the amendment in the last two years while 15 states have repeatedly defeated it; Illinois for the sixth consecutive time. In addition three states — Nebraska, Tennessee and Idaho — voted to rescind their earlier ratification. Moreover, overwhelming defeat in 1975 by the voters of New York and New Jersey of equal rights amendments to their state constitutions is broadly seen as further disenchantment with the proposed national amendment.

ERA is not the way. Illinois does not need or want ERA. The Illinois legislature should defeat ERA again this year.

HARRIET MULQUEENY A housewife and mother of two children, she is the Illinois chairman of Stop ERA, a Republican precinct committeeman and secretary of the Madison County Republican Central Committee.

10/ April 1978/ Illinois Issues


By JEAN E. MAACK


RATIFICATION of the Equal Rights Amendment to the federal Constitution will ensure full, final constitutional recognition for equal treatment of women and men before the law. Thirty-five of the necessary thirty-eight states have ratified ERA, and the Land of Lincoln is in a pivotal position in the effort to remove sex (gender) discrimination from government action.

The long struggle for equality began before the Constitution was adopted, and progress since has been uneven. The ERA was first proposed in 1923 and finally passed by Congress in 1972. An illusion of equality now exists, although antidiscrimination laws are ineffectively and erratically enforced. ERA will not provide a panacea, but will bring about important changes by providing judicial recourse to inequities in the laws and in their enforcement.

An important fact in the case for ratification of the ERA is that three quarters of the 40 million working women are single, divorced, widowed or have husbands earning less than $ 10,000 yearly. Clearly, most women work because of need, and women's substandard pay affects us all. Although ERA will not markedly expand the protection of major federal laws, these laws will be more carefully applied; and standards, policies and enforcement will be consistent. During the two-year grace period provided by ERA, state legislatures will reevaluate protective legislation, extend necessary laws and strike those preventing full participation of women. ERA will provide a universal, accessible and permanent standard by which to identify sex discrimination in employment.

It seems self-evident that our educational system should be open and without bias and should encourge development of all native abilities. Too often, however, girls and women have not found this true. Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education, could make a difference, but the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare has never vigorously enforced it. Enforcement of ERA through legislatures and the courts will equalize educational opportunities.

If it is ratified, ERA will remove the present double standard in marital law. Calm consideration indicates the courts would continue to be reluctant to interfere in ongoing marriages, and it is a cruel deceit to shrilly insist otherwise. In Illinois, where our state Constitution already prohibits sex discrimination in state and local laws, changes have occurred, although some inequalities still exist in labor, divorce and family law. Laws of all states concern each of us, however, and in some, marital laws are medieval. Ratification of ERA would encourage reform and promote consistency of enforcement.

One basic fact, for example, is that every marriage ends in death or divorce. For large estates, federal tax laws still discriminate since homemakers' contributions are given no economic value. In only eight community property states will a wife absolutely inherit one-half the marriage-acquired property. In some, without a specific bequest from her husband, a wife is not assured of any share. Men have no such problems.

Moreover, it seems self-evident that in cases of divorce, custody of the children, child support payments, property division and alimony allotments should be decided without discrimination. Child support payments have a limited value. They seldom equal half the need and, like alimony, are often unpaid. ERA will not solve the collection problem, but based on legislative history, it should ensure that decisions in divorce will be based on individual circumstances including the nonmonetary value of homemakers' contributions, the earning power of both spouses, current resources and the children's welfare.

Discriminatory rules and practices in credit, insurance and Social Security need correcting. Ratification would solidify gains brought about by recent public discussions and Supreme Court rulings, especially in credit. Scrutiny of sex discrimination in Social Security provisions would benefit both men and women. Statistics do not back many current practices in life, disability and health insurance since some practices favor women and some men — overall probably to women's disadvantage. Courts seldom have ruled that state regulation of insurance companies constitutes state action. ERA could strengthen the case for state involvement, and, in any case, discrimination in government insurance programs could be rectified.

Responsibilities go hand in hand with rights. Under ERA participation in the U.S. armed services by women and men would be equalized. Emotional rhetoric has obscured this issue. We have no draft. Congress now has the power to draft women just as all persons are now subject to Illinois state militia service. With a new draft there would be, as always, classifications based on abilities, family responsibilities and other factors. Assignment within the services has always been affected by individual capacities. Higher entrance requirements and other traditional barriers now prevent women volunteers from securing the same career, training and educational opportunities as men. ERA would rectify that discrimination.

YES
ERA will not provide a panacea but will bring about important changes by providing judicial recourse to inequalities in the laws and in their enforcement

ERA would prohibit sex discrimination in prison sentences and require equal accessibility to rehabilitation opportunities. Unfair court procedures (as in rape cases) would be reviewed. The courts and legislatures will either extend or invalidate discriminatory laws. Following present trends, rape laws will be extended to cover both sexes.

Opponents of ERA claim nonexistent rights of support by husbands. They falsely claim that ERA will cause proliferation of abortions. In 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the essence of that issue was the right to privacy guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. ERA addresses gender, not sexual activity, yet hysterical voices are raised concerning homosexual marriages. Opponents suddenly "repeal" the 1st Amendment to insist that churches will be affected. With selective blindness they fail to note the 10th and other amendments, and the grace period in ERA; then they drag out the "redherring" of state's rights. Or they claim that present legislation will suffice though they protested the passage of most antidiscrimination laws.

They ignore the basic tenets of our political and judicial system. Do they truly think legislatures will go berserk and courts will abandon due process? Such self-serving assumptions falter is the cold light of reason. We need not rely on such assumptions. Fifteen state constitutions have equal rights language. No horrible disasters have overtaken Illinois or these others. Women have not lost rights and privileges. Some areas of employment, insurance and criminal law have improved; and domestic and inheritance matters have become less discriminatory.

Ratification of the Equal Rigid Amendment will move us toward equality of the sexes under the law. It will protect the individual's freedom to choose. ERA will provide a permanent and accessible remedy for sex discrimination. The Land of Lincoln surely will fulfill its responsibility to all citizens of the United States by ratifying the proposed 27th Amendment.

JEAN E. MAACK
A junior high school teacher of science, math and home economics, and mother of four children, she is the ERA Illinois president and the chairperson of the ERA Political Action Committee.

11/ April 1978/ Illinois Issues


Illinois Periodicals Online (IPO) is a digital imaging project at the Northern Illinois University Libraries funded by the Illinois State Library
Sam S. Manivong, Illinois Periodicals Online Coordinator