The pro-abortion Equal Rights Amendment moves closer to reality

The House of Representatives changed the rules on ratifying the pro-abortion Equal Rights Amendment along a largely part line vote. If it passes the Senate, President Biden promises to sign it.

Here’s what the ERA actually says:

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

How could any modern person disagree with such a straight forward proposition? Because the Amendment is a Trojan Horse intended to gut pro-life laws and usher in a Constitutionally protected era of unfettered abortion.

Here’s the background:

The ERA is all about abortion

Liberal Congresswoman, Bella Abzug (D-NY) made it clear back in 1971 that the ERA would supersede sex-based pro-life laws, because only women can become pregnant:

“Thus the amendment … eliminates all existing legal distinctions based on sex and rejects the assumption that sex is ever a reasonable legal classification.”

Another liberal Congressman from New York, Gerald Nadler (D-NY), made it clear in 2018 that passing the ERA is a back-up plan if Roe v Wade is overturned:

“We cannot trust the Supreme Court not to go back … what the Supreme Court giveth, the Supreme Court can taketh away … we are worried now that another Supreme Court nominee … might overturn Roe v. Wade …”

Legal scholars admit Roe v Wade needs the ERA

Abortion-friendly legal scholars recognize that the Roe v Wade decision was a verbal smokescreen with no Constitutional basis. Harvard’s pro-abortion, pro-ERA legal scholar, Laurence Tribe, admitted as much:

“One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgments on which it rests are nowhere to be found.”

Stanford Law School’s former dean, John Hart Ely concurred by acknowledging that Roe v Wade …

“is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.  What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution …”

What is frightening to the pro-life community is that such a dishonest case still stands.

Even a sitting Supreme Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has acknowledged that  Roe v Wade’s flaws need to be shored up, which the ERA would do:

“the Court presented an incomplete justification for its action … the Court’s Roe position is weakened … by the opinion’s concentration on a medically approved autonomy idea, to the exclusion of a constitutionally based sex-equality perspective.

It is essential to woman’s equality with man that she be the decision-maker, that her choice be controlling.  If you impose restraints that impede her choice, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex.”

The ERA forced New Mexico taxpayers to fund abortion

New Mexico passed the ERA in 1973. In a 1998 ruling, the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld a case which compelled New Mexico taxpayers to fund abortions, basing its ruling solely on the ERA. The same happened in Pennsylvania and Connecticut.

Ultimately, the Equal Rights Amendment has nothing to do with equal rights. It is a smokescreen to beat back pro-life regulations which have been spreading across the U.S. at the speed of love.

The ERA passed Congress in 1972, who then gave the states seven years to ratify the amendment. It takes 38 states to amend the Constitution. Thirty-five approved the ERA before the deadline for ratification passed. Five of those states later changed their mind and rescinded their approval.

Undeterred, pro-abortion legislators are trying to work around the process to resuscitate the ERA. The House vote removes a deadline on the ratification process.

In recent years, Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia have passed the ERA, bringing the total number of states approving the amendment to 38 according to abortion advocates, even though the deadline passed decades ago, and even though five of those states rescinded their ratification.

This bill effectively resuscitates the amendment.

The Senate requires 60 votes to pass this change to the Amendment process, and of course the president’s signature. Two Republicans, Susan Collins of Maine and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, are the only two Republicans likely to support the bill, along with all Democratic senators.

[subscribe2]