ERA hearing tomorrow!

Here’s the update from the Nevada Women’s Lobby (full disclosure: I’m on the steering committee):

“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

It’s finally happening….AJR3 will be heard in Assembly Elections Committee on Thursday, April 9 at 3:45 PM! We’ve waited 30 years to see the ERA ratified in Nevada. Times have changed and we need to show it. Can you be at the hearing in Carson City at the Legislative Building or in Las Vegas at the Grant Sawyer Building this Thursday at 3:45 PM?

Please be there to show your support. The opposition is well organized and we need to show that we are as passionate about this issue!! When you get to the hearing, sign in with your name and in favor of AJR3. You can indicate if you want to testify on the bill.
 
If you cannot attend, please send emails to the committee members, even if you did so before, urging them to ratify the ERA. See talking points below under Myths and Facts.
 
Today, we outdid the opposition in the Opinion Poll – 99 votes in favor and 89 votes against. And our comments are compelling! If you haven’t already done so, please add your name to the opinion poll.
 
Opinion Poll:
Type in AJR3.  Then vote FOR!  You can add your own comment about why ERA is important to you.
 
Email or call the Assembly Elections Committee and ask them to vote For AJR3. Send a brief but passionate message in your own words.  You can do a blast email by copying this list:
ekoivisto@asm.state.nv.us,
hmortenson@asm.state.nv.us,
mconklin@asm.state.nv.us,
whorne@asm.state.nv.us,
rkihuen@asm.state.nv.us,
hmunford@asm.state.nv.us,
johrenschall@asm.state.nv.us,
rsegerblom@lvcoxmail.com,
dsmith@asm.state.nv.us,
tcobb@asm.state.nv.us,
hgansert@asm.state.nv.us,
jhambrick@asm.state.nv.us,
jsettelmeyer@asm.state.nv.us
 
OR CONTACT COMMITTEE MEMBERS INDIVIDUALLY:
Ellen Koivisto – 775-684-8597 
ekoivisto@asm.state.nv.us
Harry Mortenson – 775-684-8803 
hmortenson@asm.state.nv.us
Marcus Conklin – 775-684-8505 
mconklin@asm.state.nv.us
William Horne – 775-684-8847 
whorne@asm.state.nv.us
Ruben Kihuen – 775-684-8553 
rkihuen@asm.state.nv.us
Harvey Munford – 775-684-8545 
hmunford@asm.state.nv.us
James Ohrenschall – 775-684-8819 
johrenschall@asm.state.nv.us
Tick Segerblom – 775-684-8549 
rsegerblom@lvcoxmail.com
Debbie Smith775-684-8841 
dsmith@asm.state.nv.us
Ty Cobb775-684-8848 
tcobb@asm.state.nv.us
Heidi Gansert – 775-684-8837 
hgansert@asm.state.nv.us
John Hambrick – 775-684-8827 
jhambrick@asm.state.nv.us
James Settelmeyer – 775-684-8843 
jsettelmeyer@asm.state.nv.us
————————————————————————————————————————————————-
 FROM 4ERA.COM
Myths . . . and Facts
Through the years various groups and individuals have perpetuated the following myths regarding the Equal Rights Amendment:
 
MYTH: The ERA will mean that women will be drafted!
FACT: Congress already has the power to draft women into the armed services. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise armies but does not specify gender or age limitations.
 
MYTH: The ERA will guarantee same sex marriages!
FACT: The Equal Rights Amendment does not concern gender preferences nor sexual orientation. The Equal Rights Amendment says only that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied because of sex.” In this regard, sex means gender, just as it does in the 19th Amendment (which gave women the right to vote). Sexual orientation and sexual preferences do not fall under either the meaning nor the intent of the ERA.
In a 1974 decision, Singer v Hara, the Supreme Court in Washington state rejected the arguments by same sex couples that their state ERA granted same sex marriage. Recently, in same sex marriage cases in Massachusetts(2003) and in Washington (2006), both state Supreme Courts rejected claims by gay marriage attorneys that their state ERA supported same sex marriage. On September 18, 2007 the Maryland Court of Appeals also rejected the argument that their state ban on same sex marriage violated Maryland’s Equal Rights Amendment saying “the ban on gay marriage does not discriminate on the basis of gender and does not deny any fundamental rights.”
In 2006, The Family Research Council, a Christian organization promoting the traditional family unit and the Judeo-Christian value system, reversed its stance that the ERA would grant same sex marriage. Their brief in the Maryland same sex marriage case (see Family Research Councils’ Amicus Curiae for Deane v Conaway) argued that the ERA does not grant same sex marriage and cited the 2006 Washington state ruling as proof the ERA cannot be used to legalize gay marriage.
MYTH: The ERA will mean that women can demand state funded abortions!
FACT: The Equal Rights Amendment does not guarantee any rights not already in the Constitution. The Equal Rights Amendment simply says that the rights contained in the Constitution apply equally to men and women.
Abortion became a legal medical procedure in the United States because of a Supreme Court decision (Roe v Wade). The ERA says nothing about reproductive rights. In the two cases where a state with an ERA has been ordered to pay for a medically necessary abortion for a woman financially unable to obtain private medical services, the court’s decisions included the woman’s “right of equal protection,” “right to privacy” and the “right of due process.”
 
MYTH: What about unisex toilets?
FACT: Once again a baseless myth. There are no laws against unisex toilets. Many restaurants and all planes have unisex toilets. Our right to privacy laws protect us from having to share toilet facilities simultaneously with members of the opposite sex.
MYTH: We don’t need the Equal Rights Amendment because women have equal rights under the 14th Amendment.
FACT: The 14th Amendment gives no guarantees of equal rights to women. In fact, though it was passed to insure that former slaves were given equal protection under the law, black women were excluded from these rights, as were all white women. The 14th Amendment was not applied to a case involving sex discrimination until the 1970s when it was used in a case concerning equal pay. So while the 14th Amendment has occasionally been interpreted to benefit women, it offers them no guarantees.
MYTH: An amendment to the Constitution is unnecessary; there are laws against sex discrimination.
FACT: Equality of women and men is a fundamental human right and should be codified in our Constitution. The only right that the Constitution guarantees for women is the right to vote.
Laws are not guarantees. Laws can be eroded, amended or repealed, in many states by a margin of one vote. An amendment is necessary to insure that sex discrimination laws cannot be overturned or misinterpreted. But even laws meant to protect women from sex discrimination can discriminate based on sex. Although employees discriminated against because of their race or religion can avail themselves of a federal law providing unlimited recovery with no caps on damages (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981), there is no comparable federal statute providing unlimited recovery for employees discriminated against because of gender. The cap on punitive damages because of sex discrimination is $300,000, which is not enough to serve as a deterrent.
Clearly, laws have not protected women from sex discrimination in employment. The largest class action law suit in the history of this country is currently being argued. This case involves 1.6 million women who are suing Wal-Mart for sex discrimination. Cases of discrimination because of pregnancy have increased dramatically over the last few years. And women still on average make 75 cents for every dollar men make.
Recent studies have shown that women with 4 year degrees, on average earn less than men with high school diplomas. Women with Masters degrees earn less than men with 4 year degrees.
The Equal Rights Amendment would place sex discrimination in the same legal class as discrimination based on race and religion. This means that those accused of sex discrimination would have to prove why it was justified, rather than require the victim to prove that it occurred. This would greatly improve women’s chances of winning sex discrimination cases and would act as a deterrent.
MYTH: Only women are discriminated against because of their gender.
FACT: Although the impact of the ERA will be greatest for women, there are laws and practices which discriminate against men. For instance, children born overseas to American women are automatically given American citizenship, whereas the children born overseas to American men are not. In the areas of child custody and child support, men are more often discriminated against than women. And it has been shown that in some cases, men working in predominantly female jobs make less money than their female peers.
 
MYTH: What are the other effects the ERA would have?
FACT: The ERA would effect sex discrimination in insurance, Social Security and pensions where women are penalized because of their gender and their positions in society as homemakers and care givers.
 
MYTH: Are there any other effects that the ERA might have on society?
FACT: In the 1960s the Civil Rights Act empowered African Americans and helped to change their status in American society; consequently our society no longer tolerates racism. Like the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Rights Amendment will provide the legal muscle that is needed to begin to eliminate sex discrimination in our society.
 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s