Yes that dinosaur from the 1980's. Did not get enough states to support and died with the time limits set by the Congress ran out. Several states that did not pass it then and now have Democrat state legislatures have ratified it, even though it is dead and noise was being generated to claim that it is ratified now into the Constitution. " Congress passed the ERA in 1972, but it fell short of the three-quarters of the states it needed to become a constitutional amendment. Progressives have made a cause of reviving it in recent years, and Nevada, Illinois and recently Virginia have added their names to the list of ratifying states. Which brings the total to 38 states, the number they need. On Thursday Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives passed, 232 to 183, new legislation meant to resolve the problem by dissolving the deadline. But the measure will likely die in the Senate, bringing us back to square one." BUT "Everything old is new again in politics, including socialism. So why not the long lost Equal Rights Amendment that failed in the 1980s? The answer came Monday from no less than Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said at Georgetown University’s law school that ERA supporters are obliged to “start over.” And if Ginsburg says it's dead you can bet the mortgage the rest of the court will go along. So is this just another Democrat political stunt to rile up the populist? It wasn't needed then and even less so now but with the Democrats try to make it any issue? https://www.wsj.com/articles/truth-in-constitutional-amending-11581723602?mod=opinion_lead_pos3
Well, it did just get its 38th state, Virginia. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...es-era-38th-state-amendment-women/4477813002/ More chutzpah, before the deadline, a number of states rescinded their approval. So, for pro era types to win, they have to ignore the deadline AND the rescissions that came timely after. Will the ruling elite that desperately want this drop trough in the face of public opinion? I wonder what defining thing can put the issue to rest (end up in front of the USSC?) ITMT: I want to know: was the Hayden Rider on this thing in Virginia? For all 35 states that ratified before the deadline? The rider : "the Hayden rider", introduced by Arizona senator Carl Hayden. The Hayden rider added a sentence to the ERA to keep special protections for women: "The provisions of this article shall not be construed to impair any rights, benefits, or exemptions now or hereafter conferred by law upon persons of the female sex." It enshrines 2nd class status to men.
Seems this would cut against the Democrats these days. It would end alimony for women, it would halt a lot of special treatment for women.
Except for the fact that it has been modified to ensure said special treatments for female individuals are codified into the united states constitution itself.
Sadly most men are not aware of rampant discrimination against men in USA. Most men are aware of some discrimination, but they do not consider it unfair.
So, is the Hayden Rider still in the ERA? Was it there for Virginia? All the other states that ratified it? For the unaware, "The Hayden rider added a sentence to the ERA to keep special protections for women: "The provisions of this article shall not be construed to impair any rights, benefits, or exemptions now or hereafter conferred by law upon persons of the female sex." It enshrines 2nd class status to men. Loved recent Netflix movie, "Marriage Story". Ton of reviews out there, many if not most by men who almost every single one found it to be about a balanced divorce story where nothing is anyone's fault. Just happens. I loved the movie but thought the wife played by Scar Jo a monster. Here is a review from a guy that notes it is well made but hated it. My point: if I (and this critic) are correct, why are soooo many men out there not seeing it? How blue pilled is the average guy?
Ruth Bader Ginsberg is correct in that adherents will have to start from scratch with the Legislative Branch creating and then passing a new amendment proposal. A clean bill. Then states will once more have to go through the ratification process. It will pass the second time around but only if it is proposing true equality; which means NO gender-based leftist style give-away Affirmative Action style wording. True equality means that there are no differences in treatment under the law; zip, zero, nada, none. If the draft ever gets started up again then you get drafted and put into active combat roles based on a fair lottery style process -- in which case one could foresee a massive increase in the numbers of pregnancies with -- mysteriously -- almost no female demanding an abortion. Alimony laws and so forth? No gender-based unfairness allowed. Equal treatment MEANS e-q-u-a-l treatment. I can't wait to see the political Left even attempt to pass something like that considering that their entire Party is based on UNEQUAL treatment of minorities Versus the majority.
