Talk:Equal Rights Amendment

"Sex" vs. "gender"

Anyone else wonder about the issues that might theoretically arise based on the usage of the word "sex" instead of "gender"? Dante Alighieri 11:35 Dec 2, 2002 (UTC)

Yes. In English, sex refers to men and women. Gender refers to an aspect of grammar that does not even exist in English. The use of "gender" to mean "sex" is inaccurate. It has been theorized such inaccurate use of the word "gender" increased in the past forty years because some people were squeamish with the word "sex." However, the new usuage of gender has become popular enough that some consider the usuage standard. I am opposed to such inaccurate usuage. I am changing the word "gender" in the first sentence of the article NOT because I am opposed to such usuage, but simply because the ERA uses the word "sex." If one can not say what one means, one can not mean what one says.

In English, sex is physical. Gender is a cultural construct and a state of mind. Mwillia9 18:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

both viewpoints

We have a nice part here about the views of those who opposed the amendment, but very little reasoning behind those who supported it. Coolgamer 22:42, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

This article seems quite well reasoned. Why is anyone complaining? — 70.105.78.205 28 Jun 2005

I would certainly like to see more on this. I don't understand why people opposed this and I just tried Googling it and all I got was feminist websites and stuff like that. As stated above, the article provides virtually no reasoning for opposition. Someone please include it. Cookiecaper 01:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh I see that section now. This is weird, I should have seen it before. Oh well, carry on. :) Cookiecaper 01:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"Some states, such as Connecticut and New Mexico, have even ordered the use of tax monies in the case of "medically necessary" abortions, based upon state ERAs, under the theory that women must have health care every bit as comprehensive as that accorded to men."

This is supposed to be an argument against it, but I see nothing wrong with Medicaid covering an abortion to protect a woman's life/health. I think this sentence is POV and should be removed. Mwillia9 18:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you see "nothing wrong with Medicare covering an abortion." The sentence is not POV. Either Connecticut and New Mexico have even ordered the use of tax monies in the case of "medically necessary" abortions or they have not. — Linnwood (☎) 07:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I maintain that the word 'even' and the use of quotes around 'medically necessary' (which does not appear to be a citation) does indicate bias on the part of the author, who evidently questions the very idea of a life-or-health-threatening pregnancy and in any case does not believe women in such situations should be entitled to basic healthcare.Mwillia9 05:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I will grant you that the use of the word "even" could be POV and have removed it. While not a citation, "medically necessary" is a term of art. They are not so-called "scare quotes" — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I can live with that. :) However, when I first added the Gender Studies category, I discovered that the actual name right now is Gender studies (no capital s), so the link will not work if we put the article in Gender Studies. I think the category name should be changed and will get to work on that, but for now I think it's better to leave Gender studies so there's a valid link. Mwillia9 20:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, it appears that the way it is now is the standard form for category names. Witness the categories "Cultural studies" and "Ethnic studies". (Can't figure out how to link to categories from here, hence my multiple edits...arghh!) Mwillia9 20:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, that was a typo on my part! Thank you for correcting it. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I quote from the relevant ruleing by the Supreme Court of New Mexico on November 25, 1998, opinon by Justice Pamela B. Minzner:

“ Under the court's order, an abortion is "medically necessary" when a pregnancy aggravates a pre-existing condition, makes treatment of a condition impossible, interferes with or hampers a diagnosis, or has a profound negative impact upon the physical or mental health of an individual. ”

— Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation added — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert

Reverted from ==Opponents of ERA== and placed here pending citation of one or more member who "stood against civil rights".

"some who stood against civil rights, and some who stood for civil rights. "

Nobs01 20:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Alternative paths to equality

There are no alternative paths to legal equality except a constitutional amendment. The only right women have within the constitution is the right to vote. All their other "rights" and "privileges" are based on interpretations of other amendments. Interpretations are subject to change meaning that women's "rights" are vulnerable. Laws are not protecting women from sex discrimination, as evidenced by the currently pending case in which the largest class action law suit in the history of this country involves 1.6 million women suing Wal-Mart for sex discrimination. Now that it has come out that Judge Roberts, nominee to the Supreme Court, opposed the ERA, this page is likely to be used frequently. It's important to keep is current.

Twice now the attempt to paint opponents of ERA as opponents of equality has been made. This is clearly POV. nobs 01:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Calm down. If you're referring the "POV subhead" "Other paths to equality", I was simply trying to shorten the heading. It previously read "Alternative efforts to achieve equality", which is the same meaning in more words (and so just as arguably POV). — Mateo SA | talk 03:04, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Not to reopen a thirty year old debate, but the reference obviously publishes the POV that without ERA, women do not have equality. It also publishes that POV that opponents of ERA, then and now, are bigots who oppose equality. This issue was debated at all levels of society, from the United States Congress, to State Legislatures, the Supreme Court, several election cycle were held in the interim, the general public had numerous inputs in countless forums over many years as to whether women suffered from gender disctrimination without passage of ERA. The conclusion is final and historic. The American people through Constitutional processes decided ERA was not necessary, because under the Constitution of the United States, women have equality. Only a fractional minority, in thier POV, beleive the rest of America are bigots for opposing "equality". This clearly is a minority POV. nobs 15:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Your notions of who is the minority and the American people speaking is a little bit off-base. The anti-ERA people were and are the minority, but the process for constitutional amendments is such where a minority can block an amendment. For example, if all 13 of the old Confederate states wanted to block a constitutional amendment against all the other states, they would be capable of doing so. This is certainly not what the "American people" decided. The idea that the "American people" were anti-ERA and a "minority" was for it is ludicrous, polls show the majority of Americans were and are pro-ERA, the ERA passed the House of Representatives with 354 yeas to 24 nays, and the majority of states ratified the ERA. Ruy Lopez 19:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Sex Bias in the US Code

This section seemed ridiculously long given its relevance to the article (very little). It looks like it was placed there just as a way of discrediting ERA supporters by listing the siller viewpoints of one of its siller advocates. I was initially going to delete the whole section, but given that, for all I know, this might be an extremely significant book (though the section does not attempt to explain its significance), I simply cut the list of claims down to a single paragraph. If I'm wrong and this book is somehow relevant, please accept my apologies and revert my edit, but preferably explain why a biased review of this book is relevant to the ERA. 194.216.55.225 11:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)--

What is the general consensus here? Do most people think the ERA needs to be ratified, or is that simply a step backward for the women's movement. It seems that the real reason it got squashed was be cause Republicans didn't want bigger government, a phrase they use whenever something doesn't seem to suit their fancy.Mary Hope

Biased? I took those quotes right out of the book (some my call it a "report" like the 9/11 commision's report, but it is in fact a book. The purpose of the report was to show why the ERA was needed. Publius 07:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

See comments from Talk:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg Geoff.green 00:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

???

"For instance, ERA advocates point out that the notion that the ERA would require women to register for the draft ignores the fact under Article I of the Constitution, Congress has always had the power to draft women."

Has any advocate actually made a statement which amounts to "the ERA would not require it, because it is already permitted"? Somehow I doubt it. And if they have, it seems like an obvious enough fallacy (confusing 'require' and 'permit') that a better example should be used instead. Ken Arromdee 21:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleting this *again* after it was restored by an anonymous user. Please justify the statement or don't put it in. The fact that Congress *could* draft both sexes equally is not the same thing as a requirement that we *must* draft both sexes equally. It's like arguing that a Constitutional amendment that taxed everyone at 100% would do nothing because the government could impose a 100% tax even without the amendment. Ken Arromdee 23:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

LDS vs. ERA

I wonder if any attempt has been made to include the role of the LDS church in defeating the ERA? One reference is this article. Anyone want to take a stab at this? Alienus 01:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

Where is the support section? Is it just "anti-opposition"? I've cut the following:

Supporters of the ERA characterize these implications as "scare tactics" designed to obscure the real advantages of a constitutional guarantee of equal rights for men and women. Supporters assert that the myths which opponents perpetuate about the ERA are either without merit or concern separate issues which the ERA would not affect. For instance, ERA advocates point out that the assertion that the ERA would require women to register for the draft ignores the fact that, under Article I of the Constitution, Congress has always had the power to draft women. Opponents respond that the status quo, in which Congress may draft women—but has chosen not to—is different from a requirement upon Congress to do so. [1].

This passage refers to "real advantages of a constitutional guarantee of equal rights for men and women" without saying what they are. It looks like an argument based on, "There's nothing wrong with it, so let's do it." Surely there's more to it than that.

Did I read the article too hastily, though? My impression is that the article is 90% about the progress of the campaign to get ERA approved. But what are the reasons for it? (Too obvious to mention?)

Please repair this passage and put it back. Preferably, with a huge list of reasons favoring ERA! --Uncle Ed 18:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Currnet Status of the ERA

I removed the following line: "Polls show that a majority of Americans continue to support the ERA, and efforts to introduce ERA ratification resolutions—in the legislatures of those fifteen states which never ratified the measure—have increased in recent years."

I have a hard time believing that this question (Do you support the ERA?) is even polled any more. The deadline for ratification passed more than a quarter of a century ago. More so, until a cite can be given to show that efforts to introduce ERA ratification resolutions exists, let alone are increasing, I do not think this belongs in the article. — Linnwood 06:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Current Status

I think the Current Status section needs to be changed because there is no consensus on whether the ERA is technically dead or not. The Washington Post from March 28, 2007 pointed out that:

"In 1997, three professors argued in the William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law that the ERA remained viable because in 1992 the Madison Amendment -- which affects congressional pay raises -- became the 27th constitutional amendment 203 years after it first won congressional approval. Under that precedent, advocates say, the ERA should become part of the Constitution once three-quarters of the states ratify it, no matter how long that takes." New Drive Afoot to Pass Equal Rights Amendment, By Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, March 28, 2007; Page A01 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.228.144.101 (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

This is addressed in the 'Three States Strategy' section. 66.92.53.49 16:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Authors of William & Mary article on ERA legal status

User 68.51.12.243 changed the article to say it was written by students, not professors. A little googling backs up that claim (though it would be helpful if the person who made the change would post the support for their claim):

http://salmonriver.com/issues/era-viable.html says

The legal rationale for this position was developed in a 1995 paper by Allison Held, Sheryl Herndon, and Danielle Stager, then third-year law students at the T.C. Williams School of Law in Richmond, Virginia.

The resume of one author shows her currently in private practice, and a law school graduation date of 1996. It's unlikely that she was a professor in 1997; it seems much more likely it was written during law school and published after graduation. 66.92.53.49 15:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Now irrelevant due to subsequent edits 66.92.53.49 16:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Votes Against section should just be votes

It looks a little like name-and-shame political advocacy now, even though it's framed as an examination of their diverse backgrounds. We should list all votes or none. 66.92.53.49 16:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

CRS study

In the 22:46, 31 March 2007 revision, user 71.178.131.34 removed all mention of a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report and its citation, stating, removed link to polemical "summary" of CRS study on the Three State Strategy, which was not part of actual CRS memo, which took no position)

I reinstated it for the following reasons:

• The CRS study is important, relevant information regarding the Three State Strategy.
• The citation is the only one we currently have. I'd prefer the actual report, but CRS reports are not public, unless released by an authorized CRS customer. If someone can find it, it would make a better cite than the summary.
• I do not believe the summary is "polemic"; the website where its hosted is certainly pro-ERA, but the summary itself is mostly NPOV. I encourage anyone addressing this issue to read the summary; it's not long. The summary's analysis does not favor the prospects of the Three State Strategy:
  • The [CRS] report, while taking no position, discusses three possible alternatives for a three-state strategy.
  • The proposition that one Congress cannot bind a future Congress by means of a rule or law offers both possibilities and difficulties for the three-state strategy.
  • The U.S. Archivist ... would probably not certify the amendment ... as long as existing instructions from Congress indicate that the ratification deadline has expired.

User 71.178.131.34 says, the summary was not part of actual CRS memo. If that user has access to the CRS report, please replace the link to the summary with a link to the actual report.

User 71.178.131.34 says the CRS report took no position. The summary agrees: The [CRS] report, while taking no position ....

Guanxi 20:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

While CRS directly releases its reports only to members of Congress who request them, the members of Congress are free to release them, and so. Some members of Congress have posted many such reports on their websites. CRS is a government agency, and its reports are in the public domain. I do have a PDF of the 1996 report that is cited. It is very superficial, but citing the study is certainly superior to citing a gloss on it. I would be happy to submit the PDF if somebody will instruct me on the procedure -- I am new at this.

FedDoc 08:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be great. If it's already on the Internet, just post a link to it and someone can turn it into a citation (or, look at the page source for other < ref> tags to use as a model, and create your own citation). If it's not on the Internet, is there someplace you can upload it? If not (or even if so), perhaps one of the public CRS report repositories would like a copy (see the bottom of the CRS article). And finally, there may be a way to upload it directly to Wikipedia, but that's beyond my knowledge -- maybe it's the same process by which images or other content are uploaded. Guanxi 13:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

All right. I looked into this further. It turns out that there were TWO different CRS memos, both issued in 1996, both written by Huckabee, with somewhat overlapping content. I thought the "summary" originally cited was to one version, but I see now that the "summary" was actually based on the most extensive memo, which is not yet on the Internet, but I have now obtained the document in PDF. It is much preferable to quote the memo itself, which is far more even-handed than the "summary." Therefore, I have edited the page to remove reference to the "summary" and to quote directly from the proper CRS memo. I also used the Wiki upload page to upload the PDF file (it is a government publication, public domain), but I do not yet know how to link to it from the page, so I have merely cited it. The name of the file I uploaded to Wiki is ERAratificationissuesCRS1996.pdf FedDoc 19:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Very nicely done. In the footnote, I managed to add a link to the document, but I'm not sure how to label it (normal link syntax doesn't work). Someone who knows more than I do can make it prettier, but the substance is there. If you could mention the existence of the second memo and add its bibliographical details, it would be helpful -- someone might be motivated to acquire it (e.g., ask their congressperson), and it would assist anyone researching the issue. Guanxi 16:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I now have both memos. The initial confusion was mine -- the memo I had initially only touched superficially on the three-state strategy. It would be of little interest to anyone researching the strategy. But the second memo, now referenced and linked on the Wilipedia page, deals with the stategy in a somewhat more substantive way. This is the memo that actually is cited by pro-ERA groups, although sometimes they are selective in their quotes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FedDoc (talk • contribs) 23:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Orgin of "Three State Strategy"

Right now, our history says the pay raise amendment was approved in 1992, Virginia tried the 3SS in 1994, and then the 3SS theoretical bases were published in 1996 and 1997. Did Virginia have a basis for what they were trying, or did their legislature hatch the idea? Guanxi 16:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The 3SS preceded the William & Mary article. I will look more into what the Virginia legislators were presented with in 1994. FedDoc 23:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for the excellent work with the CRS memos. Wikipedia needs more like you. Guanxi 01:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

1982 docs

I removed the following from the External Links section:

• Read 1982 documents showing the U.S. Supreme Court declared the 1972 E.RA legally dead

It has the following problems:

• Documents are incomplete
• Without context, it's hard to understand their importance, if any.
• non-NPOV label (easily fixed if someone finds a use for the link).

An actual 1982 court ruling of importance would be interesting, especially as a citation in the main body of the article.

You were absolutely right. After seeing your comment, I looked more closely at that PDF file, and found it was garbled and contained an incomplete document. I went back to the source and have replaced the previous link with a reference-link to an undamaged file that contains the entire memorandum by the Acting Solicitor General (three pages) and the entire subsequent order by the U.S. Supreme Court (one page). Also, as you suggested, I have added a refence link to the actual opinion of the U.S. District Court in Idaho v. Freeman. I have also slightly edited the narrative in a way that I think explains more clearly what occurred, and makes the pertinence of the documents more obvious.04:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks great. One point, though: It says,

The Office of the Solicitor General of the United States advised the Supreme Court ... that "the Amendment has failed of adoption no matter what the resolution of the legal issues presented here. [Empahsis added by me]

A couple points:

• Wouldn't it be more correct that the SG argued? I think the SG is not a neutral adviser to the court, but an advocate before the court representing his/her client, the President, as other attorneys represent their clients (though obviously the SG and the client may be more influential).
• If the above is correct about the SG's role, then the SG's argument is one side of the issue. We should probably add the other side for balance. I can try to do it myself, but I'm not familiar with the arguments.

I don't meant to denigrate the work, though, which I think is very well done. Guanxi 19:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with changing it to "argued" if you like that better. However, while I don't have the resources to do definitive research on this point, it does not appear that there was much of an argument in 1982, which is why the Supreme Court's order was so brief. All sides agreed that the 1972 ERA was dead, which mooted the case. One side felt it had died at the time of the original deadline in 1979 (which was the position of the District Court), and the other thought it had died after the deadline extension was reached in 1982. One side felt it had been ratified by 30 states (allowing for the five rescissions, which the District Court said were valid), and the other side believed it had reached 35. But all sides agreed it was dead, because it needed 38. As further evidence of the consensus at that time, ERA backers tried to start over in Congress in 1983, only to see the ERA voted down on the floor of the House of Representatives. FedDoc 22:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining it. In principle, we shouldn't post one side of a case (it's not NPOV); but in this instance it sounds like, practically, it's probably not worth a lot of effort so I'm going to leave it as is. I'll rephrase it to say 'argued'. 66.92.53.49 14:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)