Pam Althoff on ERA
Pam Althoff 's ERA Answer
An opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment, which Democrats are still trying to pass even though the deadline has long since passed, wrote McHenry County Republican State Senator Pam Althoff.Here’s Althoff’s answer:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding the Equal Rights Amendment or ERA as it is commonly referenced. I always appreciate hearing comments and concerns from my constituents.Back in the 1970’s I read the equal rights language in the Illinois State Constitution and compared it with the words in the federal Equal Rights Amendment. I could not see a substantive difference.
ERA proposals have been circulating in the state of Illinois since, well, since I was in college back in 1972. Since that time misinformation, misconceptions and untruths have become the accepted “norm”. According to some of the finest legal minds in the nation ERA alone would not legalize same sex marriage, require women to register for the Selective Service or cause many of the other untruths that have come to be associated with it. Additionally, the ERA will not cause a wife or widow to lose their social security benefits. Existing federal law prohibits this possibility.
While I understand your concerns I respectfully request you continue to research the ERA proposal and its implications.
If you have any other questions, or need further guidance as to where to turn to obtain more information, please do not hesitate to call my office at 815/455-6330 or email at palthoff@mc.net.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me about this important issue.
Warm regards,
Senator Pamela J. Althoff
I sent a survey to every registered household in my five-county legislative district about ERA. A majority supported it, leading to my “Yes” vote.
Subsequently, I figured out that there was an implementation clause. It says that Federal judges will interpret the constitutional amendment.
With my distrust of the federal government, including the judicial system, I have no idea how I could have missed this “little” thing.
I would respectfully suggest that neither Senator Althoff nor I really have any idea what rulings federal judges will rule should the Equal Rights Amendment be ratified and become part of the United States Constitution.
We surely know some state judges have handed down some really flaky rulings, e.g., forcing homosexual and lesbian “marriage” in Massachusetts.
More at McHenry County Blog, even on Memorial Day Weekend.
1 comments:
First, in regards to the legalization of same-sex marriages, several court decisions clearly verify that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) mandates recognition of same-sex marriages. The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples is sex discrimination and unconstitutional under Hawaii’s state ERA (Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 1993). The people of Hawaii had to pass a state constitutional amendment to overturn this decision. Recently Maryland’s marriage law was overturned due to their state ERA. The case is currently under appeal. Furthermore, at least one of the Massachusetts Supreme Court Justices used the ERA in the Massachusetts Constitution as the basis of the decision to overturn the Massachusetts marriage law.
Second, in regards to the military, current U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg states in her book, Sex Bias and the U.S. Code, that the ERA would require women to be drafted equally with men (p. 202, 218), and women could not be exempted from combat (p. 26 and p. 218).
Third, in regards to the Social Security benefit for wives, Justice Ginsburg wrote that the wife’s social security benefit is a form of “sex stereotyping” that must be eliminated under an ERA (p. 211-212). These claims are independent of the current gender neutral language used in the social security code. According to Justice Ginsburg, the social security benefit encourages a wife’s dependency on her husband. Such encouragement, in her legal analysis, would violate the equality principle of an ERA. She recently reiterated these views (and specifically pointed to the social security system) in the dissenting opinion she wrote for the partial birth abortion ban. In the opinion she voiced her disdain for what she calls "ancient notions about women's place in the family," which she says "have long since been discredited" because they impede "women's progress toward full citizenship." In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg specifically criticized the "Social Security classification" which rests on "archaic" notions "such as assumptions as to [women's] dependency."
Coincidentally, in her analysis of the impact of the ERA , Justice Ginsburg was unable to find any changes required in employment laws.
In the 18 states that have passed state Equal Rights Amendments, we have seen further evidence that women are harmed by the ERA. In Pennsylvania, sex-based automobile insurance rates were disapproved by the state insurance commissioner due to a claim of sex discrimination. The state legislature attempted to remedy the situation by passing a law to allow for sex-based insurance rates, but the law was overturned by the state supreme court due to the state’s ERA. Now women will have to pay the same rates as men even if they statistically have better driving records (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Insurance Commissioner, 482 A.2d 542 [Pa. 1984] and 543-44). In Massachusetts, the state ERA was used to overturn the practice of using stricter penal discipline with male inmates who are much more violent in jail than female inmates. As a result, female inmates will have to be subjected to equally harsh discipline (DuPont v. Wyzanski, 2004 Mass. Super. Ct. 2004). These examples show that even when it logically makes sense to allow for a gender distinction, an ERA will not allow for that distinction. Furthermore, state ERAs have been used in legal cases to (1) avoid alimony payments ((Coleman v. Maryland, 37 Md. App. 322, 377 A.2d [1977]), reduce child support (Conway v. Dana, 456 Pa. 536, 318 A.2d 324 [1974]), and nullify a husband’s legal responsibility to pay his wife’s medical bills (Albert Einstein Medical Center v. Nathans, 5 D&C 3d 619 [1978]).
Clearly, the ERA is not a simple good will gesture for women. If passed, the ERA will not help women; instead it will harm women, their families, and our society. The facts speak for themselves.
Post a Comment