Skip to main content

View Diary: If women are going into combat, then it's time to ratify the ERA [Important Update] (181 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Women still make only a fraction of the pay of (4+ / 0-)

    men.  Women still face problems with promotions at work, with where they're allowed to go to school, with what kinds of training they're allowed, with what health care they're allowed (viagra is covered, but birth control pills even for health reasons aren't?).  As I said in another comment, women should be the ones pointing out the ways they still face discrimination, Supreme Court ruling being ignored.

    Just because the Supreme Court has ruled (e.g. Roe v. Wade) doesn't mean laws won't be passed trying to get around it or even directly challenging it.

    •  birth control *IS* a health reason (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ColoTim, arlene, nzanne

      pregnancy is dangerous.

      In this backassward banana-republic-wannabe nation, it's getting more so every day.

      LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

      by BlackSheep1 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 03:35:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Pay discrimination is already illegal (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The fact that pay discrimination persists isn't because Congress lacks the authority to pass legislation on the issue. So I don't see how the ERA would remedy discrimination in pay.

      •  As others have said, laws are much easier to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Reepicheep, worldlotus

        ignore or change/overturn than Constitutional amendments are.  You put it into the Constitution, it's going to stay there.  The court says the 14th Amendment doesn't cover this issue (otherwise, why wouldn't this be illegal now?)

        •  But the ERA won't reach private discrimination (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          unless it is interpreted very differently from the 14th Amendment.

          The 14th Amendment bans discrimination by governments. Not only does it not forbid private discrimination in employment in its own right, but it doesn't even authorize Congress to pass laws against employment discrimination (except by government employers). See, the Civil Rights Cases. That's why Congress had to rely on its powers under the Commerce Clause to pass Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  

          And there's every reason to believe that the courts would interpret the ERA the same way--unless "equality of rights under the law" means something different than "the equal protection of the laws," the ERA is going to have virtually no effect on workplace discrimination.

          •  I refer you to the ERA organization page at (0+ / 0-)

    They can answer your questions better than I can.

            •  It doesn't seem to address the issue (0+ / 0-)

              that the Court has not recognized that the 14th Amendment gave the Federal government the right to address the actions of private citizens (like the Ku Klux Klan). I don't think we want an ERA that will be interpreted by the courts as affecting only governmental action.

              Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

              by MichaelNY on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 02:51:27 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  They skirt the issue (0+ / 0-)

              Although the website implies there is a relationship between employment discrimination and the ERA, it offers no explaination of how or why this would be the case. If anything, it's discussion of the 14th Amendment suggests that the sole impact of ERA would be to make sex a suspect class. While this is undeniably true, the impact would be quite limited--instead of proving that a policy was reasonably related to an important government interest, government would have to prove that a policy was narrowly tailored to a compelling interest in order to justify gender discrimination.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (134)
  • Community (63)
  • 2016 (52)
  • Environment (42)
  • Elections (38)
  • Republicans (36)
  • Media (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (32)
  • Jeb Bush (30)
  • Iraq (30)
  • Barack Obama (30)
  • Law (29)
  • Climate Change (29)
  • Culture (28)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (26)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Labor (21)
  • Economy (21)
  • LGBT (17)
  • Science (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site