The ERA amendment..only two states to go....

[Wyatt earp]

45 years after the Senate approved it, only two states left to go to ratify it....but a catch their was a 1982 deadline or was there?


Thirty-five years past a deadline set by Congress, Nevada ratifies the Equal Rights Amendment

The ERA was first proposed in 1920s, but Congress didn’t pass it until 1972. The key part of its text reads: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

Thirty-eight state legislatures needed to ratify the proposed amendment, but it fell short by three when the deadline expired in 1982. Many credit the defeat to the Eagle Forum, a conservative lobbying group, and its founder Phyllis Schlafly, who argued among other things that it would open women to being drafted into the military and combat.

Once the expiration date passed, groups such as the National Organization for Women adopted a “three-state strategy” in hopes of getting to the three-quarters goal needed for ratification. Some have suggested the 1982 deadline was arbitrary and believe Congress didn’t have the power to set a deadline for passage....





.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Democrats think deadlines don't apply to them. Recall the 2000 election, for example.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Utah will never pass it based on religious beliefs about it

 

[konradv]

Deadlines can be reset. It doesn't mean the ERA is dead forever. The 27th amendment was originally proposed by Congress in 1789, but not enacted until 1992.

 

[Dragonlady]

Democrats think deadlines don't apply to them. Recall the 2000 election, for example.

No other Amendment in US history has had any arbitrary deadline imposed for its passage by the states. Not one. There should NEVER have been a deadline on this one either. Republicans opposed it and wanted it to die, assuring women that they would ensure their rights. That really hasn't worked out well for women.

Why do you have a problem with equal rights for women?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Democrats think deadlines don't apply to them. Recall the 2000 election, for example.

No other Amendment in US history has had any arbitrary deadline imposed for its passage by the states. Not one. There should NEVER have been a deadline on this one either. Republicans opposed it and wanted it to die, assuring women that they would ensure their rights. That really hasn't worked out well for women.

Why do you have a problem with equal rights for women?

When you see successful women are you ashamed of your failures?

 

[Avatar4321]

The amendment is bad regardless. Those fighting for it would not like how its applied to abortion or the draft

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Democrats think deadlines don't apply to them. Recall the 2000 election, for example.

No other Amendment in US history has had any arbitrary deadline imposed for its passage by the states. Not one. There should NEVER have been a deadline on this one either. Republicans opposed it and wanted it to die, assuring women that they would ensure their rights. That really hasn't worked out well for women.

Why do you have a problem with equal rights for women?

1) Irrelevant. A deadline was imposed.

2) None at all. Such an amendment is necessary. Simply enforce existing law. Talk to Elizabeth Warren about it, since she and Obama both pay/paid according to the sex of the employee.

 

[Little-Acorn]

From Wikipedia:

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal rights for all citizens regardless of gender; it seeks to end the legal distinctions between men and women in terms of divorce, property, employment, and other matters.[1] The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman. The amendment was introduced in Congress for the first time in 1923 and has prompted conversations about the meaning of equality for women and men. In its early history, middle-class women were largely supportive, while those speaking for the working class were often opposed, arguing that employed women needed special protections regarding working conditions and employment hours. With the rise of the women's movement in the United States in the 1960s, the ERA garnered increasing support, and, after being reintroduced by Representative Martha Griffiths (D-MI), in 1971, it passed both houses of Congress in 1972 and was submitted to the state legislatures for ratification.

Congress had originally set a ratification deadline of March 22, 1979. Through 1977, the amendment received 35 of the necessary 38 state ratifications. With wide, bipartisan support (including that of both major political parties, both houses of Congress, and Presidents Ford and Carter)[2] it seemed headed for ratification until Phyllis Schlafly mobilized conservative women in opposition, arguing that the ERA would disadvantage housewives and cause women to be drafted into the military.[3] Four states rescinded their ratifications before the 1979 deadline. In 1978, a joint resolution of Congress extended the ratification deadline to June 30, 1982, but no further states ratified the amendment before that revised deadline.

In the years since the ERA failed to ratify, a number of organizations, including the Feminist Majority Foundation and the American Association of University Women, have continued to work for its adoption; the Women's March on Washington on January 21, 2017, brought renewed interest in and attention to the ERA, with moves to reintroduce legislation at the national level and ratify the Amendment in several states.[4][5][6][7][8]

 

[Little-Acorn]

Looks like the original deadline for ratification, has already been extended at least once. And the states still failed to ratify it even after it was extended.

 

[Little-Acorn]

You know, of course, that if the ERA were ratified, it would give a man equal say in whether a woman can abort a baby that the man fathered, don't you?

 

[konradv]

Looks like the original deadline for ratification, has already been extended at least once. And the states still failed to ratify it even after it was extended.

Nothing's stopping Congress from extending it again. It took 200 years for the 27th amendment to be enacted.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Looks like the original deadline for ratification, has already been extended at least once. And the states still failed to ratify it even after it was extended.

Nothing's stopping Congress from extending it again. It took 200 years for the 27th amendment to be enacted.

It had no deadline.

 

[konradv]

Looks like the original deadline for ratification, has already been extended at least once. And the states still failed to ratify it even after it was extended.

Nothing's stopping Congress from extending it again. It took 200 years for the 27th amendment to be enacted.

It had no deadline.

So what?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Looks like the original deadline for ratification, has already been extended at least once. And the states still failed to ratify it even after it was extended.

Nothing's stopping Congress from extending it again. It took 200 years for the 27th amendment to be enacted.

It had no deadline.

So what?

The 27th amendment had no deadline for passage. The ERA did.

My God, you libs need remedial reading in the worst way!

 

[Seawytch]

Looks like the original deadline for ratification, has already been extended at least once. And the states still failed to ratify it even after it was extended.

Nothing's stopping Congress from extending it again. It took 200 years for the 27th amendment to be enacted.

It had no deadline.

So what?

The 27th amendment had no deadline for passage. The ERA did.

My God, you libs need remedial reading in the worst way!

So what is the rationale behind this imposed deadline? Seriously, can someone please explain conservative opposition to this?

 

[konradv]

The 27th amendment had no deadline for passage. The ERA did. My God, you libs need remedial reading in the worst way!

What about your lack of comprehension? There's nothing sacred about the deadline. It can be changed, extended or eliminated entirely. There's nothing about its failure to pass by an arbitrarily set deadline that means the ERA is dead forever.

 

[J.E.D]

Democrats think deadlines don't apply to them. Recall the 2000 election, for example.

You're an idiot

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Democrats think deadlines don't apply to them. Recall the 2000 election, for example.

You're an idiot

Aww. What's the matta?