Written by Mark W. Johnson

Deputy Majority Leader and Illinois State Representative Lou Lang (D-Skokie) was so impressed with the speech he prepared for the organized Chicago hearing on the ERA two weeks ago that he decided to record himself giving it. The hearing morphed into more of a rally than a public hearing as Lang bellowed into the microphone patently absurd things like “not passing the ERA means the Constitution does not protect women”. This flies in the face of the 14th amendment and was the justification in 1973 for the one thing Lang and other leftists in Springfield champion: Abortion on demand.

Watch the video yourself here:

Rep. Lang has been in Springfield for 31 years, and he urgently wants the ERA passed.  He clearly understands how the ERA will be used to advance a leftist political agenda.  Moreover, you see and hear how he angrily dismisses and denigrates the pro-family concerns some legislators have over the connection to passing the ERA  and how it will be used by pro-abortion activists to establish taxpayer funding of abortion throughout the nation.

Representative Lang railed in his statement to the committee, “This has nothing to do with abortion!”  Well, Representative Lang, if that’s true, why is Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, behind it?

Rep. Lang ignores the fact that states that have passed state ERA’s have gone on to see tax payer funding of abortion using their state ERA as justification. New Mexico and Connecticut have had tax payer funding of abortion as state policy since the 1980’s, the direct result of abortion advocates using the state’s ERA.

Representative Lang is cherry picking his facts as he bullies and manipulates members of the Illinois House (in front of the Chicago media) by telling them bluntly in this Chicago hearing that a No vote in an election year would be unwise.

Then, last Tuesday the ERA was back in Springfield for another committee hearing. Once again, Rep. Lang testified before the Illinois House Human Services Committee  using that same angry rhetoric, in an attempt to shame his colleagues into a yes vote on ERA.  To say that I was stunned is an understatement.

Three women sat with him at the hearing; all three opposed to the ERA. Apparently not seeing the humor, Lang dropped this bomb among others, “If the ERA is not passed then you are leaving women out of the Constitution and women are not protected by the Constitution currently so we must pass ERA. A no vote on ERA is anti-women.”

In case you’ve never read it, ‘women’ in not in the amendment’s language.

Three pro-life leaders — all women — testified to help bring clarity to the falsehood of this statement but not after the audience was told at the beginning of the hearing that only one proponent and one person in opposition would be heard since the all-important Chicago hearing was held the week before. Elise Bouc, State Chairman for Stop ERA was interrupted numerous times as she tried to testify against it.

Phyllis Schafly’s daughter, Anne Schlafly Cori, was able to give a historic perspective of the battle. As the daughter of national hero and the preeminent opponent to ERA, she knows first hand the battles that were fought in the 70’s and 80’s to stop the ERA from being ratified. Mary Kate Knorr of Illinois Right to Life Action also testified against the ERA.

The optics were highly ironic.  One angry male lawmaker testifying for the ERA, while three composed female advocates for life testified against it.  The paradox was only lost on the media.

The urgency of this fight cannot be overstated.  If Illinois ratifies the ERA then only one state is left to pass it and it will go before the U.S. Congress to add it as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In an email update last week, Elise Bouc pointed out the frenzied activity on the pro-ERA side, saying:

[T]he supporters of the ERA are continuing to put lots of pressure on the legislators to change their votes through phone calls and emails.  They are even using a national phone banking system to generate people within target districts to call their legislators.

We can support our legislators by countering this pressure with our own phone calls and emails.  We have many principled, conscientious legislators who understand the ERA will harm women, the unborn child, and our society.  Please reach out to them and let them know you support them and are continuing to encourage them to vote no on the ERA.  Please also pass this on to others who will help contact their legislators.

Take ACTION: Please click HERE to send your state representative a message to encourage him/her to VOTE NO on the ERA (Bill #SJRCA4).  Remind him/her that this poorly written amendment will harm women and the unborn child.  Urge them to reject the Planned Parenthood-backed amendment and the bullying tactics of Lou Lang.

Please understand that if the ERA is ratified and becomes part of our U.S. Constitution we will no longer be able to legally recognize and provide for the biological differences between men and women.  In addition, the ERA will overturn all abortion restrictions and mandate taxpayer funding for all elective Medicaid abortions. To find contact information for your legislators, see the link below.

Please pass this on to others who will help.  If we work together, they will not have their victory.  There are less than 10 days remaining before state lawmakers adjourn for the summer, and the pressure to pass this legislation is mounting.  Please send an email and make a phone call to your state representative this week.  The Capitol switchboard number is (217) 782-2000.

Read more:  Please oppose ERA (SJRCA-4): It strengthens abortion rights

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

In a stunning display of ignorance, the Illinois State Senate just voted 43-12 in favor of the resolution to adopt the Equal Rights Amendment. What makes this vote even more enraging is that Republicans Pam Althoff (R-Crystal Lake), Jason Barickman (R-Pontiac), John Curran (R-Lemont), Mike Connelly (R-Wheaton), Karen McConnaughay (R-West Dundee), Chris Nybo (R-Hinsdale), Sue Rezin (R-Morris), and Tom Rooney (R-Palatine) voted with Democrats on this partisan resolution. (Updated at 7:30 pm)

According to Illinois Review, McConnaughay made this remarkably foolish and dishonest statement in defense of her traitorous vote:

The intention of the Illinois Senate Women’s Caucus is to advance legislation that supports, empowers and protects women of all aspects of life, and that’s exactly what we are doing today. Today, we are here together, Republican and Democratic women, to demonstrate our support of the Equal Rights Amendment, which ensures equality for all women…. This isn’t a partisan issue. It’s an issue that affects every single woman in this country. By coming together, we have a chance to make an impact at a national level for women all across the nation.”

Yes, nothing says non-partisan quite like a Constitutional amendment that will mandate taxpayer-funding of abortion, that will eradicate all abortion restrictions, that will end public recognition of sex differences in private spaces, and that will require women to register with the Selective Service.

Has McConnaughay read the ERA? It says nothing about women. So, where does she get the impression that the ERA will support, empower, and protect women? Of which specific rights does she believe women are deprived?

In a recent, almost-comical article on the ERA by Jennifer Camille Lee titled “Why does a hate group want to derail the ERA in Illinois,”  Lee provides ample justification for public mistrust of the leftwing press. Before getting to the ropy meat of her “argument” about the ERA, let’s peek at just one of her false claims.

Lee identifies Nancy Thorner as “a member of IFI.” Ms. Thorner is not now nor ever has been an employee of or writer for IFI.

After erroneously identifying Thorner as an IFI member, Lee paraphrases arguments Thorner made in pieces appearing in The Madison Record and Illinois Review after which Lee says, “any Illinois citizen or legislator who uses their [meaning IFI’s] arguments against the ERA is dealing in false facts and illogical arguments from a group that purposefully pushes a hateful agenda.”

To summarize, Lee uses arguments made by someone who is not an IFI employee and published in outlets wholly unrelated to IFI to suggest that no citizen or legislator should listen to IFI’s actual arguments about the ERA.

So, let’s carefully examine Lee’s arguments—you know, assertions with evidence—and her refutation of IFI’s  arguments. Oh wait, she didn’t have any arguments and she didn’t refute anything written by any IFI member. Well, what the heck, just for fun let’s look at her rhetoric.

Lee says that Thorner wrote a “scare piece” in The Madison Record. Since Lee provided no link, title or citation, I rooted around and found a recent letter to the editor by Thorner, which I assume is the “scare piece” to which Lee is referring. Lee claimed that Thorner said, “passing the ERA will create a gender-free society where it won’t be natural for women to be homemakers any longer.”

Thorner quoted from a document written about the ERA by constitutional attorney and fierce ERA-opponent Phyllis Schlafly in which Schlafly said this:

 Women’s Lib advocates do not want it to be considered any more natural for a woman to be a Homemaker than for a man to be a House-husband.

Who would disagree with that? Second-wave feminists inarguably sought to efface distinctions between men and women—well, except when they were claiming that women were far superior to men.

Lee repeatedly refers “readers back to the actual wording” of the ERA, which says that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” Perhaps Lee didn’t notice that, while the ERA says precisely nothing about women, it does, indeed, guarantee a “gender-free society” if by gender, Lee means biological sex. You never can tell what those tricksy Leftists mean since they’re very busy redefining terms. It’s inarguable that the ERA makes it illegal to make distinctions based on sex. That’s the whole point and language of the ERA. Ergo, the ERA guarantees a “gender free society.”

Lee says that in a piece published by Illinois Review, “Ms. Thorner writes that women and all our unborn children will be irreparably harmed by the ERA.”

Evidently, Lee hasn’t read very broadly or deeply about the connection between the ERA and abortion. A court case in New Mexico, which has the equivalent of a state ERA, reveals the legal reasoning that justifies taxpayer-funding of abortion under the ERA:

The unanimous court held that a state ban on tax-funded abortions “undoubtedly singles out for less favorable treatment a gender-linked condition that is unique to women.

Taxpayer-funding of abortion—itself a grievous moral offense—will increase the number of abortions.

Moreover, as Elise Bouc, state chairman of STOP ERA Illinois has written, abortion restrictions will be overturned by the ERA, which explains why pro-abortion/anti-child organizations are fighting like the devil to get it passed:

Since abortion is unique to women, any attempt to restrict a woman’s access to abortion is seen, under the rules of the ERA, as a form of sex discrimination – because women are being singled out for a characteristic that is unique to them, and they are being treated differently based on that physical characteristic (in this case- the ability to become pregnant). Therefore any abortion restrictions would be overturned by the ERA…. In addition, since medical procedures unique to men are funded by Medicaid (such as circumcision and prostatectomies), then abortion which is unique to women, must also receive Medicaid funding under ERA requirements.

While Lee may consider the extermination of humans in the womb harmless, others beg to differ. There is no greater act of “irreparable harm” perpetrated against unborn children than killing them.

The ERA will inflict yet more damage. It will be used to grant unrestricted access to opposite-sex spaces and activities to persons who pretend to be the sex they are not. Single-sex restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, shelters, semi-private hospital rooms, nursing home rooms, dormitories, colleges, athletic teams, fraternities, sororities, clubs, and organizations would become co-ed or risk federal lawsuits. Even mother-daughter/father-son/father-daughter events at public schools would be eliminated.

The ERA would be used to force women to register for the Selective Service, and if the day should ever come when the draft is reinstated, to be drafted.

It would give enormous new powers to the federal government that now belong to the states. Section II of the ERA states that “The Congress shall have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article.” The ERA would give Congress the power to legislate on all those areas of law which include traditional differences of treatment on account of sex: marriage, property laws, divorce and alimony, child custody, adoptions, prison regulations, and insurance. For example, the Social Security System pays full-time homemaker “wives” 50 percent of their husband’s benefits over and above the check he receives. Upon their husbands’ deaths, widows receive the full benefits that their husbands had been receiving.  (The law also gives this benefit to a dependent husband, but nearly all dependent spouses are women.)

Lee believes that opposition to these changes–changes which harm women and children–is irrational. She also believes that IFI “may be entitled to an opinion, but they are not entitled to their own set of facts, and the fact is all the ERA does is grant equal protection to women under the U.S. Constitution.”

Like Lee, I will point readers and lawmakers back to the text of the ERA, which says nothing about women. It says everything, however, that lawmakers needed to know, which is that the ERA will eliminate recognition in laws, policies, and practices of the very real differences between men and women. And the victims will be primarily women and children.

This bill now moves to the Illinois House for consideration.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to email your state representative to urge him/her to oppose the ERA (SJRCA 4).

Here is the Illinois Senate roll call on the ERA:

Read more:  Please oppose ERA (SJRCA-4): It strengthens abortion rights

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ERA-Passes-Illinois-Senate_01.mp3

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

Governor Patrick Quinn is again pushing the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) — a bill that would eliminate gender distinctions and enshrine abortion as a constitutional right.  A committee hearing for this bill is scheduled for Wednesday.

ACTION: Please CLICK HERE to contact your state senator to ask them to vote AGAINST the Equal Rights Amendment, SJRCA 75. The ERA will not help women; instead it will harm women, their families, and our society.

You can also contact your state senator in Springfield by phone by calling the Capitol switchboard at (217) 782-2000.

SJRCA 75 is being sponsored by Illinois State Senators Heather Steans (D-Chicago), Mattie Hunter (D-Chicago), David Koehler (D-Peoria), Iris Martinez (D-Chicago), and Pat McGuire (D-Crest Hill)

History and Problems with the ERA
by Elise Bouc, State Director for Illinois Stop-ERA

The ERA claims to be a simple amendment that gives equal rights to women. In reality, the ERA will actually harm women, their families, and our society. The major problem with the ERA is its wording. It simply states

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

In essence, women are not being guaranteed equal rights; rather gender is being removed as a legal characteristic on which to base distinctions. Thus any laws or policies that make a distinction based on gender would be unconstitutional under the ERA.

Because 18 states have passed state ERA’s, we have been able to see the damage that would be caused by a national ERA. This same wording in state ERA’s has been interpreted by courts to remove the critical protection of wife and child support, mandate state funding of elective abortions (as only women receive abortions, refusal to provide funding for abortions is seen as a form of sex discrimination), and legalize same-sex marriage.

Given the legal precedents, the passage of the federal ERA will lead to a loss of such protections as alimony, child custody, social security benefits (for women who choose to stay home with their children), exemption from the military draft registration, and exemption from front-line combat duty. A loss of such protections would harm women and their children.

Furthermore, the ERA would also transfer enormous power from state legislatures to the Federal government since it empowers Congress to enforce it. Such a transfer would create an imbalance of power between the states and the federal government and place sensitive issues under the rule of a national government that is far less responsive to individuals than the state legislatures. In addition, the ERA would empower the federal courts to determine the meaning of “equality of rights” and “sex.” In essence, we would be handing the state’s legislative power to Congress and the unelected judges of our federal courts.

Many legislators who are new to this amendment do not understand the reality of this amendment’s language and are easily led to believe that the ERA is a nice thing to do for women. It’s important that we help them understand the problems with this amendment. In addition, they need to know that women will not gain any additional benefits from the ERA. The laws that provide women with equal rights already exist. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution has been interpreted by the courts to prohibit gender-based discrimination. Other existing laws that provide women with equal rights cover virtually all areas of American life – education, employment, credit eligibility, housing, and public accommodations. Thus, the ERA will only harm women and not benefit them.

Supporters of the ERA have been attempting to pass various versions of this legislation since the 1920’s. The movement gained momentum in 1972 after the U.S. Senate and U.S. House passed the ERA and sent it to the states for ratification with a deadline that it must be passed by 38 states by 1979. Thirty-five states have since ratified the amendment (with 4 of those original states later rescinding their support for the ERA after they understood the true problems with the amendment, and a 5th state declaring that their ratification would not extend beyond 1979. Whether these states will be allowed to rescind their vote is unclear). In 1979, Congress extended the deadline to 1982 (although the vote to extend the deadline did not receive a 2/3 majority vote as should be required for a Constitutional amendment). The ERA failed to gain passage by any more states by 1982 and was subsequently declared a moot issue by the U.S. Supreme Court during consideration of a court case that challenged the extension of the time deadline.

Since then, the supporters of the ERA have developed a legal strategy in which they claim that if 3 more states will pass the ERA, then Congress can retroactively extend the time deadline and make the ERA a legally binding Constitutional Amendment. A resolution in support of this action is filed in Congress each session. As a result, we have seen renewed pressure on Illinois to pass the ERA (Illinois received a great deal of pressure to pass the ERA in the 1970’s and early 80’s but wisely never passed the amendment). There are many who believe that passage by Illinois will give the ERA the momentum needed to gain the other 2 necessary states. As a result, it’s imperative that we not allow Illinois to pass the ERA.

Tell Others!
Please inform your friends and family so that they can help in contacting our state legislators. And, most importantly, please contact your state representative as soon as possible and ask them to vote against the ERA.  If you have a new state representative, please take some time to educate them on the problems with the ERA. Many of them don’t know much about this amendment and are often told by those who support the ERA that “this is just a nice thing to do for women.” We need to help the legislators understand the realities of the ERA.

With our combined efforts and prayers, we were able to stop the ERA in years past, and I know that we can do so again.