newYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Like an episode of The Walking Dead, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is once again slowly making its way through the halls of Congress in an attempt to devour the rule of law and force radical change.
Key to this effort is the redefinition of many words such as “deadline,” “sex,” and “woman.” Because at the root of all the drama is a hardcore drive to make ERA an “everything related to abortion” law.
About the deadline: By 1979, Congress was able to get supporters of the ERA to approve 38 states to add it to their constitutions. And they failed, getting the consent of only 35 states.
Catholic bishop sounds ‘alarm’ on equal rights reform, says it undermines religious freedom
Again, it was a swing and a miss. But in the mindset that the rules don’t apply to me, ERA activists ignored the facts and pushed its ratification well beyond its validity period.
and Senate Judiciary Hearings on ERA This week, Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz said deadlines are usually well understood in Congress, as lawmakers who don’t get enough votes reintroduce bills each year, and the final nine amendments to the Constitution are likely to be outdone. Eight of them said they had time. I have had no complaints so far.
Deadlines are not a figment of Congress’ imagination. Those are the powers of the entire rule-setting committee. As the National Archives pointed out when it refused to publish the ERA as an addition to the U.S. Constitution, the time for ratification of the ERA has passed.
This is not a “conservative” view. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who supports abortion, said ERA is past its expiration date like old milk, and it’s time to throw out old, dead-end ERA.
US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speaks at a debate hosted by the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC, USA, September 12, 2019. ( )
“I want to see a new beginning. I want to start over. Too much controversy about latecomers — Virginia is long past the deadline. Plus, many states have withdrawn their ratifications. So, if you count, how can you ignore the latecomer on the plus side, the state of saying, ‘I’ve changed my mind’?” Ginsberg said at a 2020 Georgetown Law School event. increase.
In fact, five states withdrew their approval, responding to fierce opposition from abortion advocates seeking to waive latecomer deadlines, ignoring the change of hearts of those who reconsidered.
But it’s an inconvenient truth that changing rules is not a one-way street.
ERA: What You Need to Know About the Equal Rights Amendment
About Gender and Women: The fact that ERA, a more than 100-year-old idea, suffers from definitional problems is also troubling. ERA co-author Alice Paul once wrote of her endorsement:
But what are women? And what is sex? An important issue as the ERA defines rights by gender.
A century ago there was a clear distinction focusing on men and women. Today, the biological female could be erased as gender becomes a self-defining, fill-in-the-blank concept. This has already been proposed in the Biden administration’s Department of Education, Health and Human Services regulatory changes. It is not at all clear what “rights” are protected.
At the hearing, Attorney General Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) told his mother, Jennifer C. Bracelas, a Harvard-educated attorney and director of the Center for Independent Women’s Law, that her daughter He appealed that her concerns about access to sports were irrelevant. Access to field hockey was the only issue at stake, or the only one she raised.
Over the years abortion advocates have been honest about the importance of creating a real constitutional hook for abortion.
Click here to get the opinion newsletter
Famous feminist Betty Friedan wrote in a letter to delegates at the International Women’s Year Conference in March 1978: ERA, there is little hope of defending abortion rights in our own lifetimes. ”
But at this week’s ERA hearings, while such facts were ignored, California Democratic Senator Alex Padilla cut through all the smoke and mirrors and found that abortion wasn’t written in the constitution. Such facts were ignored until the Dobbs v. Jackson decision was mentioned. .
“In my view, Dobbs’ opinion last summer mattered,” Padilla said. “The issue here is that rights once recognized by the Supreme Court … may no longer be safe unless they are enshrined in the Constitution.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
And then there was the real goal of ending prenatal life for whatever reason, a sacred and deified constitutional “right,” a beautiful document. It’s an ugly subject.
Student for Life of America argues that the 14th Amendment already provides prenatal protection, but not abortion. After finally removing the garbage of abortion to the ashes of history, pro-life Americans are ready to oppose a new effort to manipulate the Constitution to suit Planned Parenthood.
Click here to read more about Kristan Hawkins
