Equal Rights Amendment

[SgtSpiderMan]

There is a bill in the Florida that is winding it's way through that would require a 24 hour waiting period for an abortion.

I can't think of any similar procedure a man would have to wait 24 hours for.

 

[KingOrfeo]

if a woman wants to get an abortion yet needs legal permission, has to drive three states, can be arrested for taking medicationif she's pregant... those are all prohibitions....... how many men have been arrested for popping pillswhile being pregnant?

I was once.

It's a long story, the memories are hazy, and I'd rather forget it anyway . . .

 

[phrodeau]

An interesting development...

Virginia's election has given both houses of the General Assembly to the Democratic Party. Ratification of the ERA is likely next year.

If so, it falls on Congress to extend the ratification deadline, and add it to the Constitution.

 

[Boxlicker101]

An interesting development...

Virginia's election has given both houses of the General Assembly to the Democratic Party. Ratification of the ERA is likely next year.

If so, it falls on Congress to extend the ratification deadline, and add it to the Constitution.

I don't believe it would be that simple. Originally, there was a ten year deadline for the states to ratify the amendment and that deadline passed. The proposal should have been a dead issue when that happened, but a majority (less than 2/3) of Congress voted to extend the deadline. I strongly doubt the change would have been valid, because it did not meet the requirement of a 2/3 majority.

When this amendment was passed by Congress, I looked askance on it. Although 100% in favor of gender equality, within limits, I thought of this as being a can of worms. It would have meant women being drafted, handed a rifle and being sent to Viet Nam. Women enjoyed certain rights at the work place, such as rest breaks, and these rights would have been extended to men also. In fact, and this was before Roe v. Wade, I didn't know of any laws that favored men over women, but there were many laws for the protection of the latter.

 

[Boxlicker101]

There is a bill in the Florida that is winding it's way through that would require a 24 hour waiting period for an abortion.

I can't think of any similar procedure a man would have to wait 24 hours for.

There is nothing like an abortion that a man might have performed on himself, but here is something similar: https://www.vasectomy-information.com/vasectomy-age-requirements/

 

[YDB95]

It would have meant women being drafted, handed a rifle and being sent to Viet Nam.

Not necessarily. Besides, if a woman wants to serve, what have you got against that?

Women enjoyed certain rights at the work place, such as rest breaks, and these rights would have been extended to men also.

What's wrong with that? If your point is that men don't need breaks because they don't get cramps or something like that, not all women do either. In fact, the assumption that all do is more than a little bit sexist.

In fact, and this was before Roe v. Wade, I didn't know of any laws that favored men over women, but there were many laws for the protection of the latter.

A lot of those "protections" were nothing more than patronising and treating women like less than full citizens. (Just off the top of my head, spousal rape was legal back then, a woman couldn't get a credit card in her own name or buy a house on her own, and firing pregnant women because they were pregnant was perfectly legal in many places.) The logic you're using here is exactly the logic that was used to justify not letting women vote for 150 years after men could (because politics was such a dirty business, women and their delicate constitutions had to be "protected" from it...by not giving them a voice at all).

 

[My I]

It should require all women 18 yrs or older to register for Selective Service. THEN it will be equal.

 

[YDB95]

It should require all women 18 yrs or older to register for Selective Service. THEN it will be equal.

Plenty of feminists agree. I seem to recall NOW even took that matter to the Supreme Court at one point (and lost).

 

[phrodeau]

It should require all women 18 yrs or older to register for Selective Service. THEN it will be equal.

Yes, because that is such an important issue, especially with a Civil War coming up.

 

[seeshelly]

Equal rights?

So if this equal rights thing was the law of the land would that make 'affirmative action' against the law?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Funny how some people think society can only do one or the other, and not both.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Still wondering who isn't covered by 14A and doesn't have equal rights???

Yes, because that is such an important issue, especially with a Civil War coming up.

Equal is equal.

So if this equal rights thing was the law of the land would that make 'affirmative action' against the law?

Yes.

Funny how some people think society can only do one or the other, and not both.

One or the other what?

Equal rights and affirmative action??

 

[Boxlicker101]

So if this equal rights thing was the law of the land would that make 'affirmative action' against the law?

You would think so, but the Civil Rights act of 1964 did nothing to eliminate AA, even though it should have.

 

[YDB95]

You would think so, but the Civil Rights act of 1964 did nothing to eliminate AA, even though it should have.

I always wonder, are they really this obtuse, or are they just playing it up for the deplorables?

 

[BotanyBoy]

So nobody can say what rights weren't covered by 14A......thus necessitating the ERA??

Imagine that.


Also looks like YDB thinks institutionalized racism against white people is equal treatment....not at all shocking.

 

[YDB95]

There's nothing racist about affirmative action when it is used correctly.

I WILL grant you progress has been made toward gender equality since the ERA was first introduced. But with the pay-gap not only still present but growing, the continued persistence of women being fired for being pregnant even though it's illegal, the glass ceiling still being very much a reality...I could go on, but you get the idea, whether you want to or not.

 

[magicalmoments]

#37 above: in answer to your 1st question, gingers!

 

[My I]

There's nothing racist about affirmative action when it is used correctly.

I WILL grant you progress has been made toward gender equality since the ERA was first introduced. But with the pay-gap not only still present but growing, the continued persistence of women being fired for being pregnant even though it's illegal, the glass ceiling still being very much a reality...I could go on, but you get the idea, whether you want to or not.

So giving a small group of people special consideration makes them equal?

 

[YDB95]

So giving a small group of people special consideration makes them equal?

No. No it doesn't.