The wild-eyed, false talking points by ERA opponents were on full display this morning, both on Trumpster radio (“The John Fredericks Show”) and in the state capitol. See below for video and lowlights (NOT “highlights) of the “Family Foundation” (Victoria Cobb), State Sen. Amanda Chase (far-right R), Del. Margaret Ransone (also far-right R), and the others ranting and raving about the supposed horrors that will ensue if the ERA is ratified. Of course, none of these things are going to happen, but it’s highly revealing to at least be aware of the types of arguments, as absurd as they might be, that ERA opponents are making. For instance, they claim:
- The ERA is supposedly about “laying the groundwork for the abortion issue in the US Constitution because that is what the Equal Rights Amendment does”
- “I don’t know a Republican that says yes let’s give more government power at the highest level”
- The ERA will supposedly threaten the right of “women to have their own sports team…to have some privacy rights in showers or locker rooms or whatever it might be”
- “There are so many pro-life groups that are enraged about this.”
- ERA ratification would put “sex in the constitution,” and “this would really give gender identity a constitutional right, it would make sex under strict scrutiny, it would upend countless laws across the country that today protect women. ERA would harm women…by taking all the way all the benefits and rights that women have today in sex segregation, including prisons, schools, school athletics…women’s shelters…”
- ERA ratification would “turn the clock back on women”; our culture has “moved passed the time when an amendment like this is even needed.”
- If the ERA is ratified, “gender-specific protections we now have would be ripped away.”
- “The dirty little secret…is this is about creating a constitutional foothold for abortion…the only reason to pick the ERA back up off the dusty floor of history is because of the fierce desire to protect abortion at all costs.” The ERA is actually the “Everything Related to Abortion” Act, not the “Equal Rights Amendment.”
- “Our values are under attack…the ERA…would force equal representation of women in all military roles, regardless of their ability…would be disastrous for military readiness…would put [women] in grave danger and the people with them…would require women to be drafted…would hurt the armed forces.”
- “It would alter the constitution to create a permanent right to abortion on demand…paid for by you and I [sic]…It’s a radical assault on the equal rights of unborn children, including unborn girls…and the abortion lobby does not speak for all women.”
- The ERA supposedly is “legally moot and off the table for ratification.”
- “The ERA is really a smokescreen for abortion…by design, our poor and minority communities have been disproportionately affected.”
- Supposedly, women are already fully equal and don’t need the ERA.
- Sen. Amanda Chase (R) claimed that the ERA’s “fine print” proves it’s “not for women” because it doesn’t “define the term ‘sex’…and until you say ‘female’, I don’t believe that you mean what you mean.” Huh? She also claimed that if the ERA passes, you won’t be able to take a shower safely “after your workout.” Your daughter also, supposedly, could be assigned a male roommate in college…”we could no longer separate the sexes, male and female…I am OUTRAGED!…As a woman, I am tired of being used by the left as a pawn and I reject it and I won’t accept it.”
It goes on and on like this, but you get the picture. Anyway, let’s all redouble our efforts to ratify the ERA. Then, in a few years, when NONE of the supposed horrors that ERA opponents thought would come to pass have actually taken place, we can go back to them and ask what they were thinking.