May 01, 2019
Democrats love to say that Republicans are the ones stuck in the past, but liberals will need a time machine to resurrect their latest bill: the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). After conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly exposed the 1972 proposal for the radicalism it was, the crown jewel of radical feminists back in the day flamed out before it was ever ratified. But thanks to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), nothing is off the table in the radical new House -- not even something as antiquated as the ERA.
In a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing yesterday, the two sides didn't agree on much -- except this: passing the ERA would be a major coup for the abortion industry and codify special rights based upon sexual orientation and gender identity. FRC friend and ranking member Mike Johnson (R-La.) took on the bill's proponents, exposing the ERA as a trojan horse for the Left's real agenda "end[ing] the laws that protect the sanctity of every human life."
Using a recent article from the National Organization for Women as proof, he quoted the liberal group's take, which is that "an ERA -- properly interpreted -- would negate the hundreds of laws that have been passed restricting access to abortion care and contraception." "Look," Johnson said, "the fact is that now there is essential agreement between pro-life and pro-abortion groups that the language of the 1972 ERA is likely to result in a powerful reinforcement and expansion of abortion rights."
Of course, there are some conservatives who think another ERA push is a liberal pipe dream. Not so fast, says FRC's Director of Life, Culture, and Women's Advocacy, Patrina Mosley. Back in January, Virginia helped get the national conversation rolling with its own version of the measure. It was popular enough to get voted out of committee, 8-6, showing just enough spark to get imitators introduced in a handful of other states. "Women are continually used as props to push an agenda," Patrina has warned. "The ERA is not about women, it is really a smokescreen for abortion," she insisted.
And potentially, much more than that. As Rep. Johnson said, "Of course, we all believe -- I'm the father of two daughters, one of whom is sitting in this room today -- that women should be protected from discrimination based solely on their sex. And that is the law today... [but] ... the people's right to protect the unborn would be eliminated if the ERA were to pass."
Before the witnesses concluded, Rep. Johnson inquired as to whether or not the term "sex" in the ERA would include the Left's expansive definition of the word that includes "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." "The ERA would prohibit the discrimination on the basis of sex," Kathleen Sullivan, former dean of the Stanford Law School, responded. "If there is discrimination on the basis of sex in the treatment of gay, lesbian, or transgendered people. then it will count..."
It would take a supermajority of states and a very determined Left to pass the ERA, but as we've seen from the new Democrat party, never say never.
Contact your House member and urge them to vote NO on this stalking horse for taxpayer-funded abortion!
Tony Perkins' Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.