Skip to main content

I'm betting that you are, like a very large majority of American citizens, under the impression that we actually HAVE an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in our Constitution. You believe that women in America have the same status, standing, and equality as do men in our land.

You would be incorrect.

But, there is a very strong push going on these days, and especially across the Progressive Southern United States, to remedy that ugly reality. Follow me just below the squggledoodlethingey fold, and find out about it.

Today, April 22nd, 2012, the radio show YOU started here at the GOS is live. We at "Progressive Politics: Tennessee Style" are more than excited, and honored to have our very FIRSTspecial guest in our studios for a two hour discussion on the War FOR Women vs. The War ON Women.

Fournder and Director of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) Alliance Sandy Oestreich will be with us for the entire two hour show.

She will share some ERA battle stories, talk to us about why we have been given extra time to actually work to ratify the ERA now, and show us the progress being made with the SEVEN states with which she and her amazing teams are diligently, tirelessly working. Their website is chock full of useful info, and I do recommend it to you.

Interestingly enough, among Southern Progressive States, only Kentucky and Tennessee have actually ratified the Equal Rights Amendments. This was done a very long time ago, yet only 35 of the 38 states required for ratification have done so. For us Southern Progressives, there are several states which, given the climate and anger among women AND men regarding inequaltiy of women in America, I believe it can be the Southern Progressives who can accomplish this task. Currently, the map looks like this:


Sandy and her amazing teams are currently spearheading the Florida ERA initiative, while mentoring seven other States in the process. They need some help. I believe the men and women of GOS will be very interested in hearing, and speaking with this incredible woman. If you want to find out just how busy these folks are who are working for you, led by a task force chaired by my long-time friend and ally former Colorado Rep. Patricia [Schroeder] (nobody guessed it, so I put it in.), then head over to their active and busy website called

I hope you will join us Sunday, April 22nd, 2012 from 2:30 PM-4:30 PM (Central Time)  at the radio site. You can call in to our live call-in number, or listen live online, or even jump into our already legendary chat room for questions for Sandy, or myself.

It's going to be a powerhouse presentation, and you will NOT want to miss it.

Originally posted to An American Citizen on Sat Apr 21, 2012 at 10:37 PM PDT.

Also republished by Southern Action, Daily Kos Phazebook Progressive Social Networking Group, Nashville KosKats, Three Star Kossacks, and Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  They want a war ON women? Ok! (12+ / 0-)

    Let's give them a War FOR Women. Now. Where we live. Especially in the Progressive Southern US. Are you with us?

    " Lead would float in a pool of Michelle Bachmann."
    Left/Right: -7.75
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

    by Bud Fields on Sat Apr 21, 2012 at 10:37:38 PM PDT

  •  I didn't know the possibility of an ERA existed (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, 4mygirls, Smoh, OldDragon

    When it failed to pass eons ago, I thought the votes in favor just expired.

    Does this mean that it could happen if those seven states ratify? do they all need to?

    •  Most people don't know that. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Urizen, ARDem, Smoh

      Yes, it could happen if only three states ratify. We are working all across the south because the War on Women is seeming to be focused there. That DOES include Kentucky and Tennessee, as well. The Red States on the maps are those which have not ratified the ERA.  

      Only three states need to, but as you might imagine, even from your own statements, it is slow going right now. I think declaring a War FOR Women couldn't possibly have a better outcome than the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, which got an additional number of years thanks to a passed amendment to a bill. Only three States, some of which we will discuss on the show today. Florida has bills for ratification in both chambers of the State House, thanks to Sandy and her teams. She will tell us about how they did it, and what they hope to be a successful outcome.

      " Lead would float in a pool of Michelle Bachmann."
      Left/Right: -7.75
      Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

      by Bud Fields on Sat Apr 21, 2012 at 11:12:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Um, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I believe when the ERA passed both houses of Congress, someone put in a deadline of  June 30, 1982 for getting the State Houses to adopt it.  It failed to get enough State Houses to ratify, and is dead. The deadline was a successful strategy by Congress to defeat the ERA.

        In March 2011, Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) introduced H.J.Res. 47, which would remove the ERA’s ratification deadline and make it part of the Constitution when three more states ratify. Her resolution is "in Committee".   This bill has a zero chance of passing.

        "Conservatives care from conception to crowning." VetGrl " It's just a matter of time before the Republicans realize the Ten Commandments are "regulations."" TriassicSands

        by sailmaker on Sun Apr 22, 2012 at 12:22:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm guessing if 3 more states pass it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          then there may well be a change
          both in the courts and in the congress.

        •  There is a strong argument that the deadline (4+ / 0-)

          is unconstitutional.

          There's nothing in the Constitution that says a deadline can be imposed, and the last amendment to the constitution was introduced more than 200 years before finally being ratified.

          If we get these states ratifying it, then we can get the ball moving on this again, unconstitutional deadline or not.

          Checkout Blue Arkansas:

          by ARDem on Sun Apr 22, 2012 at 12:57:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  No, actually, it is not dead. (0+ / 0-)

          I see where you might say that. The fact, however that the Amendment is sponsored by a member of the minority party, or that a vast majority of JR's fail does not necessarily equate with the Baldwin JR to be, in fact, dead.

          There is much discussion about whether or not putting a time line (for the first time, at that) on an Amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional.

          If we take up the cause, and three states do, in fact ratify, the ERA goes to the Constitution.

          " Lead would float in a pool of Michelle Bachmann."
          Left/Right: -7.75
          Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

          by Bud Fields on Sun Apr 22, 2012 at 05:12:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The death of the ERA was the first major right (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        wing victory in their push to keep the status quo (or even step backwards).

        Phyllis Schlafly led the fight. Was all over the media.

        I was under the impression that proposed amendments to the Constitution had to be passed within a certain amount of time.

        Wouldn't that mean that any pro votes would no longer be in viable?

        Progressives will win only when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive. And... It’s the Supreme Court, stupid!

        by auapplemac on Sun Apr 22, 2012 at 12:25:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, there's nothing in the Constitution (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          that says there's a time limit.  Last amendment added took around 200 years to get ratified.

          Checkout Blue Arkansas:

          by ARDem on Sun Apr 22, 2012 at 01:07:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The death of the ERA was the first major surrender (0+ / 0-)

          To triangulating third way blue dogs.

        •  Phyllis Schlafley was the shiny object (0+ / 0-)

          I was in the trenches at the time.  The real power behind the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment was the insurance industry.  That was how Oklahome went from Democratic to Republican.  I was a 'citizen lobbyist' (working for free) when National Organization for Women was active in working for ratification in the Illinois legislature.  You could just see who had been gotten to literally overnight.  

          Phyllis provided cover for the male-dominated media types who were threatened by the Women's Movement of the 70's and 80's.  She and her group never came close to matching our numbers and our work.

          Don't look back, something may be gaining on you. - L. "Satchel" Paige

          by arlene on Sun Apr 22, 2012 at 10:21:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Glad someone posted on this. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    4mygirls, Smoh, arlene

    We're pushing hard for the ERA in Arkansas now.  It failed in '07 and '09 and timid Dems in the legislature didn't even try in '11, but things are a bit different now.

    For starters, it's not a narrow group of people pushing it this time, it's turned into a movement thanks to the internet, frustration in Arkansas with the failure to pass it, and the Republican War on Women.  In the past, legislators supposedly for it told the people pushing it "don't bring anyone, it will scare folks off, just let us do this."  Well we're throwing that out the window and bombarding them with emails, petitions, pledge forms, phone calls, and men and women alike confronting them one on one.  We're using carrots and sticks-we'll be nice and ask politely and praise anyone who signs on, we'll even be patient where we have to...but we will also name, shame, and, when the time comes, threaten a primary challenge if we have to.

    Getting this passed of course hinges on Democrats holding the state house and senate next year.  I think we'll hold the senate based on the way the map was drawn, but the house is going to be tough.  But we are damn sure going to try.

    Checkout Blue Arkansas:

    by ARDem on Sun Apr 22, 2012 at 01:06:21 AM PDT

  •  Damn! I stupidly assumed that something like (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    the ERA was across the land!

    So, if Congress passes a law in DC, it then has to be ratified in every state? Is that how it always has been? For every law? or just amendments?

    "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones."

    "Life without emotions is like an engine without fuel."

    by roseeriter on Sun Apr 22, 2012 at 03:08:30 AM PDT

    •  Frist of all, the Constitution is a recipe (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      roseeriter, Smoh

      for how agents of government are supposed to function --carry out their duties and obligations.  The original Amendments to the Constitution added some prohibitions -- what agents of government are supposed to not do.  That's what makes the amendments anomalous.  If one gives positive directions to a hireling and they're not followed, then he becomes a fireling.  Prohibitions are almost impossible to enforce because enforcement always occurs after an act, rather than before.  That is, a person does wrong and then we stop him from doing more. That's how the application of force works. Getting people to do the right thing can only be accomplished with the promise of rewards/bribes/pay.

      How do our federal agents of government insure that all persons, not just the ones they serve directly, get equal treatment?  It's not possible.  However, "equal rights for all" sounds good. Or, at least to my ears, it used to, until I realized that not only is there no way to do what's being promised, but equality is a chimera.  We now know from three decades of experience that is is possible to treat almost everyone equally shoddily.  In other words, equality does not guarantee fairness and it certainly has nothing to do with good quality service.
      What would perhaps make more sense is a human rights amendment.  If we had a commitment to human rights, the children would be included. Spermies and eggs not. Giving more rights to a part than the whole makes no sense, especially when whole humans have none.

      People to Wall Street: "LET OUR MONEY GO"

      by hannah on Sun Apr 22, 2012 at 03:27:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Constitution Says That (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      After 2/3s of both the House and the Senate pass an amendment to the Constitution, it must then be ratified by 3/4s of the states.

      This is only for amendments to the Constitution of course.

      Checkout Blue Arkansas:

      by ARDem on Sun Apr 22, 2012 at 04:13:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site