Written by Victoria Cobb

It’s back!  The decades-old Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has been brought back from the dead — again.

As a refresher, the ERA was passed by Congress in 1972 with a deadline of getting 38 states to ratify it by 1979.  It fell short of that deadline, so Congress extended it to 1982. However, the ERA still fell short of the necessary number of states needed for ratification.  In fact, some states rescinded their original ratification after recognizing that this was not just about elevating the status of women in society as it purports, but that it was also about putting into the U.S. Constitution the right to an abortion. Fast forward about fifty years and liberals have latched on to this “Trojan horse” as a way to push their entire abortion agenda, as well as their radical LGBT agenda.

If all “sexes” are equal, and our society no longer has a shared definition of sex, biological men who believe they are another sex must be treated and validated in the same fashion as biological women.  This new viewpoint of sex actually ensures the undermining of the original stated goals of the ERA.  If men can play within women’s sports, Title IX need not exist because biological girls must compete on identical grounds as biological males in all areas including sports, negating the very programs that were expressly put into place to provide opportunities for girls.

But now the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill, H.J.R. 17, that would strip the ERA of its original deadline. This bill is now heading to the U.S. Senate. Should it pass, states that made a decision about the intents and purposes of language fifty years ago will be held to that decision, regardless of changes within the elected leaders of the state and our society as a whole.

Take ACTION: Please contact your U.S. Senator today and ask them to vote “no.”

This article was originally published at the Family Foundation blog.

Allowing just three states to impose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution
that even proponents admitted died in 1982 is a moral fraud and a constitutional farce.

Written by Robert G. Marshall

Proponents of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) want to create a constitutional Frankenstein by breathing life into its corpse some 36 years after its ratification was defeated, in large part thanks to Phyllis Schlafly and her Eagle Forum.

The ERA Congress sent to the states in 1972 stated: “Equality of rights under law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

This simplistic language hid a radical progressive social agenda. Amendments were rejected to exempt women from frontline ground combat duty, to require husbands to support their children, to keep certain sexual assaults as crimes, to neutralize ERA’s effect on abortion, to exempt private schools from the ERA, to protect tax-exempt status of churches that have male-only clergy, to permit different insurance rates for men and women, and to deny men access to women’s private facilities and vice versa.

In 1972 Congress imposed a seven-year limit for states to ratify the ERA, as it established for all but two constitutional amendments since 1918. But when the amendment stalled in 1977 with the support of 35 states — three states short of the three-fourths needed for ratification — ERA advocates lobbied Congress to extend ratification seven more years.

Major ERA proponents said the amendment would die without an “extension.”

• National Organization of Women President Eleanor Smeal said, “We believe the life of the equal rights amendment is indeed in peril.”
• Marjorie Bell, American Association of University Women President noted: “Failure to extend now the time limit for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment would terminate … what Congress initiated six years ago.”
• Barbara Jordan said if the extension failed, “… the time will have expired for that resolution and I do not feel that would be a viable issue for consideration by the Congress because the resolution would, for all intents and purposes, be dead.”
• Then Professor, now Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said that if the original ratification time passes, “and Congress says nothing, it is unlikely that a State, given no green light by the national legislature, would nonetheless come forward and ratify.”
• President Jimmy Carter wrote to Judiciary Chairman Peter Rodino in July 1978, “I am hopeful that ERA will be ratified before the present deadline expires.”

Congress eventually extended the ratification deadline to June 30, 1982. (The Baltimore Sun, The Washington Post, The New York Times and The New Republic all supported the ERA, but opposed the time extension.)

The ERA extension resolution did not recognize withdrawal of previous ERA ratifications from Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky, and South Dakota even though North Dakota’s rescission of the Presidential Disability Amendment was recognized in 1967 by the U.S. Secretary of State, who then tallied records.

Even with the unprecedented extension, the ERA fell three states short of the 38 needed for ratification. ERA advocates recognized their 1982 loss and re-introduced the amendment to Congress in 1983, but failed to reach the two-thirds majority needed for it to pass the U.S. House of Representatives.

ERA proponents now claim they need only add three more states to the original 35 which ratified by 1982 (ignoring the five states rescinding approval), to reach the 38 states required to add the ERA to “their” Constitution!

Their novel claim derives from the adoption of the 27^th Amendment limiting congressional pay increases from taking place without an intervening election. This amendment passed Congress in 1789 without a ratification deadline. When 38 states finally approved it in 1992 — more than 200 years later — Congress declared it part of the Constitution, ignoring the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1921 finding that Congress could require contemporaneous approval of amendments.

Democratic Rep. Don Edwards, who supported the ERA extension and the Pay Amendment noted, “It should be clear that this [Pay Amendment] is an exception, not a precedent.”

Liberals are counting the actions by Nevada’s legislature (2017), and Illinois’ legislature (2018) allegedly ratifying the non-pending ERA as two of the three states they contend will bring them to the 38 state requirement.

Congressional joint resolutions from Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) and Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) proclaim that whenever 38 states “ratify” the version of the ERA submitted to the states on March 22, 1972, the ERA will be added to the Constitution. The resolutions do not mention the failed ERA time extension. Speier’s resolution has 165 cosponsors and Cardin’s has 36 cosponsors.

Cardin tweeted approval of the Illinois vote. “Most Americans are shocked to find out that the U.S. Constitution still lacks a provision ensuring gender equality. … We need just ONE more state to ratify and we need Congress to do its part by passing S. J. Res. 5, which would immediately remove the arbitrary and unnecessary deadline for states to ratify the #ERA.”

The words “Gender Equality,” mentioned in Cardin’s Tweet are not in the 1972 ERA, but hint at what liberals hope to achieve under their bogus ERA scheme. Opposition to “making women part of the Constitution” will invite the label of “bigot” or “hater.”

If one more state “votes” for the ERA, progressives are set to pressure Congress to declare the ERA approved. Possibly the Archivist of the United States, who initially certified the Pay Amendment before Congress did, will relieve Congress of its role.  This would duck the ruling in Idaho vs. Freeman (1981), in which a federal district court ruled states could rescind approvals and Congress could not extend the ratification time.

“Approval” of the ERA will legitimize other amendments still “floating around,” including one that increases the House of Representatives from 435 Congressmen to 6,400 (one for every 50,000 persons). Allowing just three states to impose a dead ERA on the Constitution, when even proponents admitted it died in 1982 is a moral fraud and a constitutional farce.

The passion of Leftists’ for their Utopia must be met with forthrightness from conservatives for constitutional government.  Find out today if your congressman and senators would affirm that only three states need to approve the ERA. If so, vote them out of office in November.

This article was originally published at The Federalist.

How did they vote?

On Wednesday evening, the Illinois House of Representatives voted 72 to 45 to ratify SJRCA 4, a completely unnecessary proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to eradicate sex as a legitimate characteristic on which to base reasonable distinctions.

Click HERE to see how your state representative voted on this legislation, or look at the graphic below.

For more than two hours, state lawmakers debated this issue. The fact that this legislation says nothing about women didn’t dissuade 15 legislators from rising to the microphone to express their support. These advocates included the sponsor, Lou Lang (D-Skokie), Ann Williams (D-Chicago), David Harris (R-Arlington Heights), Steve Andersson (R-Geneva), Stephanie Kifowit (D-Aurora), Laura Fine (D-Glenview), Christine Winger (R-Bloomingdale), Sue Scherer (D-Decatur), Emmanuel Welch (D-Chicago), Carol Ammons (D-Chicago), Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago), Christian Mitchell (D-Chicago), Dan Brady (R-Bloomington), and Juliana Stratton (D-Chicago).

It is interesting to note that both State Representatives Christine Winger and Dan Brady prefaced their remarks by claiming to be pro-life, even though it is well known that Planned Parenthood is a strong proponent of this legislation precisely because it will expand abortion “rights” throughout the nation and dismantle vital abortion restrictions—including parental notification (or consent) laws.

On the pro-life/pro-family side, eight state lawmakers rose to speak against the ERA, including Pete Breen (R-Lombard), Allen Skillicorn (R-Crystal Lake), Jeanne Ives (R-Wheaton), Mary Flowers (D-Chicago), Tom Morrison (R-Palatine), Terry Bryant (R-Mt. Vernon), and Rita Mayfield (D-Waukegan).

Proponents of the ERA claim that they need one more state to ratify this constitutional amendment for complete victory, even though the deadline for passage expired decades ago and even though five states have voted to rescind their ratification over the years it has been pending. If one more state votes for its passage, the issue will certainly wind up in the courts.

In addition to proponents of the legalized slaughter of human beings in the womb, there is another constituency that is celebrating tonight: people who masquerade as the sex they are not.

Thanks for nothing to the 72 feckless state representatives who demonstrated again why Illinois is such a sorry state.

The official roll call of this vote:

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), 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)

READ MORE

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!

Written by Elise Bouc
State Chairman, Stop ERA Illinois

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA – SJRCA 4) is a poorly worded proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would restrict all laws and practices that make any distinctions based on gender or sex.    While we believe in equal opportunity for men and women, we also recognize that there are situations where we must make distinctions based on our biological differences such as providing privacy through separate bathrooms and locker rooms.  If the ERA becomes fully ratified, men and women could not be treated differently, even if the different treatment is due to physical differences.

The ERA will harm our unborn children

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. The ERA prohibits sex discrimination.  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.

Some of the states with state ERAs have already used their ERAs to mandate Medicaid funding for elective abortions and overturn abortion restrictions:

• The New Mexico Supreme Court unanimously ruled that under their state ERA since only women undergo abortions, the denial of taxpayer funding for abortions is “sex discrimination” (N.M. Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 975 P.2d 841, 1998). As a result, New Mexico now provides Medicaid funding for elective abortions.

• A Connecticut Superior court ruled that the state’s policy of paying for abortions only in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother violated the Connecticut ERA. “Since only women become pregnant, discrimination against pregnancy by not funding abortion…is sex-oriented discrimination,” the court ruled. The court ordered the state to pay for any abortion which a doctor deems advisable for any reason relating to “physical and/or psychological health” Doe v. Maher, 515 A.2d 134 (Conn Super. Ct. 1986).  This ruling was final.  As a result, women only have to claim that their unintended pregnancy is causing depression or stress in order to receive Medicaid funding for elective abortions.

• The Montana Supreme Court struck down a statute prohibiting non-physicians from performing abortions. The majority opinion cited state ERA language in art. II, sec. 4, of the state constitution in support of its holding (par. 72 of the opinion).  Article II, sec. 4, provides, in part, “Neither the state nor any person,…shall discriminate against any person in the exercise of his civil or political rights on account of . . . sex . .” (Armstrong v. State of Montana, 1999)

Using this same ‘sex discrimination’ logic, legal scholars have stated that the ERA would:

• Eliminate all abortion restrictions including the partial birth abortion ban, third trimester abortions, and parental notification of minors seeking abortions, and overturn the Hyde Amendment.

• Mandate expanded taxpayer funding for abortions.

• End conscience clauses for nurses, doctors and hospitals who do not want to participate in performing abortions. Courts do not allow conscience clauses in race discrimination, and they would not be able to allow it under the ERA.

• Threaten tax exemptions of private prolife religious schools who discourage abortion through their teaching practices.

• ERA would provide a new basis in the Constitution for the right to abortion. Roe v. Wade is based on weak reasoning founded on an unwritten “right to privacy” assumption.  As public sentiment grows in opposition to abortion, there is hope that the U.S. Supreme Court could reverse that dreadful decision.  However, if the ERA passes, that hope would be destroyed because the ERA would insert a written and defined right based on sex discrimination into the Constitution.

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

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!

Look no further than Illinois State University (ISU) for evidence of the degradation of public education. In addition to hosting an annual drag queen fundraiser in the Bone Student Center, Illinois State University owns a fake news organization: WGLT. The call letters come from the school’s increasingly ill-fitting motto: “Gladly we learn and teach.”

WGLT, a public radio station and, therefore, an affiliate of National Public Radio (NPR), came to Illinois Family Institute’s (IFI) attention when a short article about IFI’s robo-calls warning Illinoisans about the campaign to resurrect the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) decades after its expiration date began circulating on social media. The article, written by “progressive” Baylee Steelman, is titled “Hate Group Lobbies Against ERA With B-N Robocalls” (B-N refers to Bloomington-Normal).

It should be clear from the title that the article is an editorial hit-piece on IFI masquerading as a news story about the ERA—thus a fake “news” story—but for those who need proof, here is Steelman’s “news” story:

The revival of a decades dormant campaign to pass the Equal Rights Amendment is drawing an opposition campaign from what some call a hate group.

The Illinois Family Institute has been placing robocalls to Bloomington-Normal area residents asking them to write state lawmakers Dan Brady and Jason Barickman.

“Don’t be fooled: The Equal Rights Amendment is not about equal pay for equal work. This radical anti-woman amendment will require taxpayers to fund more abortions. It will require young women to register for the military draft. It will increase car insurance premiums for women. The ERA will force women to use coed restrooms and locker rooms. It will impact child support as well as Social Security benefits for widows. The Equal Rights Amendment is all war on women,” said one recording.

Those claims are false.

The Southern Poverty Law Center lists the Illinois Family Institute as a hate group usually focusing on anti-LGBTQ issues. The SPLC says the IFI has identified headquarters in Peoria and Carol Stream.

Supporters of the ERA revival campaign are also urging their members to call lawmakers to counter the IFI robocall.

Two more states need to ratify the amendment before it could take effect.

Steelman provides no evidence for her assertion that IFI’s claims are false. She did not cite another organization as the source of the assertion that IFI’s “claims are false.” She never contacted IFI to query us about our claims or to get a statement about them. She merely inserted her opinion that the claims are false, thereby implying that her opinion is settled, inarguable fact.

Steelman stated that the ERA has been long “dormant,” but failed to include the fact that the final deadline for the passage of the ERA was 1982.

While maligning IFI with the false label assigned to us by the ethically impoverished Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Steelman never bothers to mention that the SPLC and its founder Morris Dees have been widely criticized by conservatives, “progressives,” and moderates, and is no longer listed as a resource in FBI materials. In other words, Steelman repeatedly cited a disreputable organization as her only source.

As a result of this poorly written, fake “news story,” IFI sent this email to WGLT:

Dear WGLT,

Your article titled “Hate Group Lobbies Against ERA With B-N Robocalls,” which is being promoted on social media, demonstrates why so many Americans have a dim view of the press.

We are disappointed to see WGLT and National Public Radio blindly repeating the ad hominem assault by the left-wing SPLC that falsely identifies Illinois Family Institute (IFI) as a “hate group.”

The article title suggests that the “hate group” designation represents an unassailable and objective fact, whereas the designation is given to us by a dubious organization widely criticized by even progressives.

In a brief news story ostensibly about the ERA, student reporter Baylee Steelman spent an inordinate amount of time referencing the SPLC and its false characterization of IFI without once mentioning that, for example, the FBI has removed the SPLC from its resources list.

Following her transcription of our robo-call, Ms. Steelman asserts without evidence that our claims “are false.” Without evidence, she inserted as fact her editorial opinion in a news story.

Even as she reported as fact that IFI is a hate group, Ms. Steelman failed to contact IFI for a statement or a response to this story. We’d be happy to defend our position on this important public debate on the ERA.

Shouldn’t a reporter strive for accuracy and objectivity in reporting stories on controversial cultural issues?

Perhaps Steelman should spend some time on the American Press Institute website, which warns against some of the journalistic failings she demonstrates:

This neutral voice, without a discipline of verification, creates a veneer covering something hollow. Journalists who select sources to express what is really their own point of view, and then use the neutral voice to make it seem objective, are engaged in a form of deception. This damages the credibility of the craft by making it seem unprincipled, dishonest, and biased.

Citing David Protess, the American Press Institute recommends the following:

Assume nothing is true. Go directly to the source. Don’t rely on just the authorities or officials. Touch all bases. Be systematic.

Did Ms. Steelman do those things?

IFI received this response from news director Charlie Schlenker that also went to several WGLT staffers:

We will not be responding to this hate group.

Charlie

Can readers expect fair reporting from a purported news station whose director responds like this?

Some astute readers may have noticed that the online version of the WGLT article no longer attributes it to Baylee Steelman (IFI has the original). The byline now says Charlie Schlenker wrote the article. Curiouser and curiouser.

Taxpayers might wonder, exactly what is being learned, who is teaching, and who is making administrative decisions at ISU. We already know who’s making decisions at WGLT: bigoted Charlie Schlenker.

Remember friends, we the people fund this radio station.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or fax to the WGLT “news” department, urging them to report matters of public policy fairly and objectively. Please also ask them to cease using the SPLC’s fake and slanderous attack on IFI and other theologically orthodox Christian organizations that express views of sexuality with which “progressives” disagree.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/ISUs-Fake-News-Station-WGLT-Calls-IFI-Hate-Group.mp3

The Left is working overtime to silence and/or marginalize conservative voices in America
The time to support IFI is now!

For those who weren’t politically active in the 70’s or never got around to learning the specifics about the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), here is a thumbnail sketch of the purpose and danger of the ERA.

This proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendment is deceptively named. Men and women already have equal standing and equal protection before the law and possess God-given rights which are delineated in the Bill of Rights.

If the goal is to ensure equal opportunity, then the path is not the broad and ambiguously written ERA. Even supporters of the ERA cannot answer questions about its full impact on existing legal protections for women (and children) in state and federal statutes.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote Sex Bias in the U.S. Code when she was with the ACLU. In her book, she admitted that at least 800 federal laws would likely be struck down – laws aimed at protecting women.

Are men and women different? Over the course of centuries, common sense and science have detailed the physical and mental differences that are biologically based. The push today by Leftists to pretend these obvious differences don’t exist is not a new phenomenon — and the ERA was once such an effort that ended in failure in the 1970s.

The Equal Rights Amendment says: 

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

The Equal Rights Amendment is a poorly worded amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would restrict all laws and practices that make any distinctions based on gender or “on account of sex.” Under the ERA men and women could not be treated differently, even if the different treatment is due to physical differences.

The ERA is centrally about abortion.

Since abortion is unique to women, any attempt to restrict a woman’s access to abortion would be seen, under the rules of the ERA, as a form of sex discrimination. As a result, abortion restrictions would be overturned.

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.

Pro-abortion groups, including Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the ACLU, the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, and the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund have all submitted legal briefs stating that the ERA supports abortion rights.

Using this same ‘sex discrimination’ logic, legal scholars have reasoned that the ERA would do the following:

• Eliminate all abortion restrictions including the federal partial birth abortion ban, third trimester abortions, and parental notification of minors seeking abortions.

• End conscience clauses for nurses, doctors and hospitals who do not want to facilitate abortions in any way.

• Threaten tax exemptions of private religious schools that do not believe abortion is moral and that discourage it when teaching students.

• ERA would also provide a new basis for abortion rights in the U.S. Constitution. Roe v. Wade is founded on an unwritten “right to privacy” assumption that is vulnerable in legal challenges. The ERA would insert a written, defined right based on sex discrimination into the U.S. Constitution, and thus provide a strong legal basis for overturning all abortion restrictions.

Americans need to become informed on this issue and seek to help educate others on the consequences of the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. Then they must make sure their state representatives and state senators know both the dangers of the ERA and their opposition to it.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email to your lawmakers, urging them to protect women’s rights by opposing the Equal Rights Amendment.

The Illinois Family Institute has posted important articles outlining what the ERA is all about – examples can be found here, here, here, and here.

State lawmakers will be back in Springfield for the veto session November 7-9, and this legislation may come up for a vote during that time.  PLEASE speak out today!

IFI depends on the support of Christians like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Like Medusa, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has reared its chthonic head again, and this time it’s wearing a silly pink hat over all those snakes.

Here’s what the ERA actually says:

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

Since the ERA says precisely nothing about women, why do feminists continue to claim that it’s all about women’s rights? In fact, the harm the ERA will cause will redound primarily to women.

What the ERA will do is prohibit the public recognition of sexual differentiation, and we all know who really wants to pretend that biological sex has no meaning.

Moreover, of which basic rights are women now deprived? The right to vote, assemble, associate, speak, petition their government, exercise their religion? Nope, we’ve got all those.

So, let’s peek under those pink hats and see what snakes are writhing about, restive and eager to emerge and strike:

• The ERA would be used to nullify or invalidate laws that restrict tax-funded abortion. In Doe v. Maher, the Connecticut Supreme Court stated, “Since only women become pregnant, discrimination against pregnancy by not funding abortions…is sex-oriented discrimination…The Court concludes that the regulation that restricts the funding of abortions…violates Connecticut’s Equal Rights Amendment.”The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) explains that multiple legal experts, including state supreme courts, have argued that the language of the ERA “makes it unconstitutional for…Medicaid programs to refuse to fund ‘medically necessary’ abortions (which just means abortions performed by licensed medical professionals) if procedures sought by men (e.g., prostate surgery) are funded.”

A New Mexico Supreme Court judge wrote that “there is no comparable restriction on medically necessary services relating to physical characteristics or conditions that are unique to men. Indeed, we can find no provision in the Department’s regulations that disfavor any comparable, medically necessary procedure unique to the male anatomy… [the restriction on funding abortions] undoubtedly singles out for less favorable treatment a gender-linked condition that is unique to women.” This judge neglected to mention the inconvenient presence of preborn babies that render abortion wholly different from any “medical procedure unique to the male anatomy.” Treating different conditions differently does not violate any commitment to equality, fairness, or justice.

• The ERA would be used to eliminate state laws that restrict abortion. The NRLC writes that “This same analysis—that limits on abortion are by definition a form of sex discrimination and therefore impermissible under ERA—will be used to invalidate laws requiring parental notification or consent for minors’ abortions; any federal or state restrictions even on partial-birth abortions or third-trimester abortions; and federal and state ‘conscience laws,’ which allow government-supported medical facilities and personnel—including religiously affiliated hospitals—to refuse to participate in abortions.”The ACLU writes, “Hundreds of bills that place limitations and restrictions on vital reproductive health care services [i.e., abortion] have been passed by Congress and state legislatures. The Equal Rights Amendment would provide another important weapon in the battle to resist this legislative onslaught aimed at destroying women’s rights to make their own reproductive decisions.”

• It would be used to grant unrestricted access to opposite-sex spaces and activities to men and women 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 eradicated.

• It 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.)
  
  Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her 1977 book “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code” that the concept of “dependent women, whose primary responsibility is to care for children and household … must be eliminated from the code if it is reflect the equality principle.”

Ratification history

To ratify this proposed amendment, “progressives” are attempting to circumvent deadlines that expired over three decades ago on the supposedly moribund ERA. The ERA, first introduced in 1972, had a seven-year deadline for ratification, which, by a congressional resolution was extended another three years.

The proposed Equal Rights Amendment needs 38 states for passage. By its final deadline in 1982, it had the approval of only 35 states, so supporters developed the “three-state strategy” which seeks to avoid returning the issue to all 50 states. In effect, Leftist lawmakers claim that since the ERA was extended once, deadlines can be extended in perpetuity. In other words, to Leftists legal deadlines, like other laws, can be ignored at their whim.

Leftist lawmakers defend their strategy to pass the ERA by comparing it to the passage of the Twenty-seventh amendment to the U.S. Constitution 203 years after it was proposed. They fail to mention, however, that the Twenty-seventh Amendment, unlike the ERA, did not have a ratification deadline.

Proponents of the ERA also argue that because the ERA ratification deadline was in the preamble rather than the body of the ERA, it’s essentially irrelevant and non-binding. But the Congressional Research Service explains the following:

In the case of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd Amendments, the “sunset” ratification provision was incorporated in the body of the amendment itself. For subsequent amendments, however, Congress determined that inclusion of the time limit within its body “cluttered up” the proposal. Consequently, all but one of the subsequently proposed amendments proposed later (the 23rd, 24th, 25th and 26th, and the ERA) placed the limit in the preamble, rather than in the body of the amendment itself.

It’s important to note that prior to the ratification deadline, five states had sought to rescind their approval of the ERA. The Supreme Court of the United States was poised to take up their cases when the deadline took effect at which point the Court held that their cases were moot. If the deadline is now rendered moot by liberal lawmakers, one would assume that those states that sought to rescind their approval would be able to proceed with their pursuit of “rescission of acts of ratification.” In other words, it would seem that those states that wished to rescind their approval of the ERA would be able to pursue that effort because their pursuit ended based on the legal legitimacy of the ratification deadline.

Leftists have yet another effective weapon in their arsenal to crush culture: Just add the word “rights” to any legislation they want and presto change-o, they’ve got themselves a go-to soundbite.

Anyone who opposes co-ed restrooms becomes “anti-‘trans’ rights.” Just ignore the fact that objectively immutably biologically male persons have no right to access women’s private facilities.

Anyone who believes marriage has a nature central to which is sexual differentiation becomes “anti-‘gay’ rights.” Just ignore the fact that those who are erotically attracted to persons of their same sex have no intrinsic right to unilaterally redefine marriage by stripping it of its central constituent and most enduring, cross-cultural feature.

And anyone who opposes a wholly unnecessary amendment to the Constitution becomes “anti-women’s rights.” Just ignore the facts that the amendment doesn’t mention women and that there is not a single right of which women are deprived. Oh, and please ignore those snakes writhing under Medusa’s silly pink hat.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to email your state senator to urge him/her to oppose the ERA, SJRCA 4.

Listen to Laurie read this article in this podcast:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Medusas-Pink-Hat-the-ERA.mp3

Read more here, here and here.

PLEASE consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work.
We’ve stood firm for 25 years, work diligently to accomplish our mission to
“boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy” in Illinois.

What exactly is the meaning of feminism? It sounds innocuous enough, like something akin to feminine. Declaring a man masculine or woman feminine is a good thing, not a pejorative. That is unless you are an ardent, radical feminist.

According to Webster feminism is:

1. the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes

2. organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests

The radical feminists of the 60’s and 70’s departed the pro-life moorings of the suffragette movement, which concentrated its efforts on the right to vote for women. The Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in August 1920:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Thus it would seem the suffragette goal had been realized, their dreams come to fruition. But not according to Gloria Steinem and her modern feminist pals, none of whom advocated for anything resembling femininity. The bra-burners of the 60’s and 70’s, like the pro-abortion, pro-sexual perversion, pink-hat-wearing feminists of 2017, sought extreme change in society. The Left’s hue and cry of “DIVERSITY” only matters if they want to impose morés which differ from the long-accepted, Judeo-Christian worldview.

Far be it for any person to advocate diversity between the sexes: masculine men and feminine women have been harangued and replaced with manly women and effete men.

What is the point of feminists and their protests? What do they really want to accomplish?

Perhaps the book of Judges describes present day America:

In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes. Judges 21:25

The feminist protestors shout, “My body, my choice!”

But “it’s” not their body. And it should not be their choice.

And there’s the rub.

The modern day feminist movement is not about voting rights or land ownership or equal pay for (exactly) equal jobs. In fact, our marvelous Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The noun “men” denotes the universal meaning of “all men and all women.” The Founders firmly believed that each and every one of us is endowed with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Where did those early Americans learn that notion? From the pages of Holy Scripture. Christendom was the first faith system to truly “liberate” women.

Paul expounds in his letter to the Galatians:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28

And in the Apostle’s letter to the church at Ephesus:

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it… Ephesians 5:25

The Bible admonished something quite extraordinary — revolutionary even. Women have equal worth in God’s eyes. And men were told to love women as Christ loved the church, so much that he gave Himself as a sacrifice.

The Founders knew the Scriptures and were informed by biblical precepts. Those precepts undergird our founding documents. It is that biblical wisdom which makes our U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence so very unique.

Again, what is the point of the feminists and their protests? What do they really want to accomplish?

What are the “equal rights” that radical protestors dressed in heinous costumes of “lady parts” clamor for? The only “right” modern feminists fear losing — now that Republicans control both houses of the U.S. Congress and the White House — is the “right” to lawfully kill unborn babies.

Amber Phillips writes at The Washington Post:

Fairly or not, many women, especially on the left, feel like their rights could be under attack now that Washington is controlled by Republicans who are opposed to abortion and want to cut off funding for national women’s health care clinic Planned Parenthood.

The only “right” that might be terminated is the “right” to terminate a pregnancy, aka murdering the unborn. This new wave of anarchistic protests, full of x-rated costumes and vulgarity, is about abortion and Planned Parenthood and doing “what is right in their own eyes.”

The Washington Post article concludes:

A quick history/civics recap: Changing the Constitution is one of the most difficult things in all of governing, but Equal Rights Amendment supporters have come tantalizing close. In 1972, after a decade or so of debate, Congress passed it and sent it to the states for ratification. (Under one process to change or add a constitutional amendment, 38 states — or three-quarters — must ratify it, whether via their legislatures or a state convention.)

Congress gave the states an entire decade for 38 states to get that done. In the end, 35 did.

The amendment has been introduced in Congress off and on ever since, but it’s fallen flat. States haven’t bothered to touch it.

Until now. The Democratic-controlled Nevada State Senate passed it mostly along party lines on Wednesday. The Democratic-controlled State Assembly will pick it up from there, where it’s expected to sail through on party lines.

“It’s like a no-brainer. Equal Rights Amendment,” said state Nevada Sen. Pat Spearmen (D), the author of the bill. “Equal rights. That’s what it is. It’s just equal rights.”

And Illinois, ever eager to lead the “progressive” parade, has introduced legislation to approve the U.S. Constitution Equal Rights Amendment in  SJRCA 4. This bill is sponsored by Illinois Senator Heather Steans (D-Chicago), and includes these provisions:

Section 1. Equality of rights under law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This Amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.”

Note the verbiage, “The Congress shall have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article.” So the U.S. Congress, where laws are created and passed, has the power to enforce this amendment.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your state representative, urging him or her to vote AGAINST the Equal Rights Amendment. It’s essential for us to let our state representatives know that this amendment harms women, their families, and our society. Your calls and emails are vital tools for fighting this destructive proposal.

The feminists are attempting to codify abortion more stringently: they fear conservatives may attempt to overturn the wrongly decided Roe v. Wade and in a preemptive move are pushing this equal rights amendment.

It all comes down to life, not equality. A pro-life president and pro-life vice president are regarded as a threat to their most “sacred” tenet of abortion.

Don’t be deceived: the Left calls the blessing of children a curse. The radical feminists call good evil and evil good.

We must be informed. We must be radical, fervent prayer warriors. We must make our voices heard in defense of those who have no voice.

And we must always, without ceasing, choose life.

BTW — You can also call your state representative to ask him/her to vote NO to SJRCA 4 by calling the Capitol switchboard number at: (217) 782-2000.

IFI Text Alerts!

For up-to-the minute news, action alerts, coming events and more you can now sign up for IFI Text Alerts!

Stay in the loop with IFI by texting “IFI” to 555888 to be enrolled right away.

How did they vote?

This afternoon, the Illinois Senate voted 39 to 11 with 6 voting present to pass SJRCA 75, a completely unnecessary proposal  to amend the U.S. Constitution to eradicate sex as a legitimate characteristic on which to base reasonable distinctions.

Click HERE to see how your state senator voted on this legislation, or look at the graphic below.  State Senators Pam Althoff (R-McHenry), Karen McConnaughay (R-South Elgin), and Sue Rezin (R-Morris) spoke against the bill.  Unfortunately, Republican leader Christine Radogno and Senator Kirk Dillard (R-Hinsdale) voted in favor of it.

The bill now moves to the Illinois House where Representative Lou Lang (D-Skokie) is the chief sponsor.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state representative. Ask him/her to please vote against SJRCA 75.  (If you have already sent an email to your state senator, please now send an email to your state representative.)