Oppose

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

The Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence that some truths are self-evident, and one of these is the fact that all men are created equal. The Christian faith teaches, “…there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).  New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, in accordance with what the Scripture teaches, believe that men and women are created equal.

While mankind is created equal, there are obvious biological and physiological differences between the sexes. Though each gender’s legal standing and individual rights must be protected, the significant differences between the sexes must be recognized and respected.

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) would not bring women to a position of biological and physiological equality.  Further, it is unnecessary to define in statute a women’s legal standing (for this is already established under the US Constitution).

The ERA Could Endanger Certain Rights Women Currently Enjoy

The ERA could potentially hurt women’s rights, and remove certain protections they currently enjoy.  For example:

• When the Governor calls up the National Guard, a pregnant women serving in the Guard would be forced to serve just as any man called into service in a state of emergency. If the ERA were passed, it would be discriminatory action against men to allow pregnant women to not serve during times of advanced pregnancy.  This could prove detrimental to her baby’s life.
• Certain protections are granted to women in matrimonial and divorce proceedings (such as the assumption that a husband should provide spousal support or alimony) that could be endangered if the ERA were passed.
• Survivor benefits for wives and widows would also be in jeopardy.
• It would also seem that the rights of private organizations (such as the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, YMCA, YWCA, and single-sex schools) to limit their membership to a single sex could be endangered as well.

The ERA Would Lead to Virtually No Limitations on Abortion

Leading pro-abortion groups including NARAL, the ACLU, and Planned Parenthood have strongly urged state courts to construe state ERAs to require taxpayer funding of abortion on demand, and state ERAs have been interpreted to require this in both New Mexico and Connecticut.

The proposed amendment is very similar to the language of the ERA which New Mexico added to its state constitution in 1973, which says, “Equality of rights under law shall not be denied on account of the sex of any person.” The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that such language prohibits the state from restricting abortion differently from “medically necessary procedures” sought by men, and the court ordered the state to pay for elective abortions under the state's Medicaid program. (NM Right to Choose / NARAL v. Johnson, No. 1999-NMSC-005)

In Connecticut the Medicaid program had paid for abortions only for life of the mother, rape and incest. In April 1987, its Superior Court ruled this restrictive law to be unconstitutional under that state's ERA the court found that, “Since only women become pregnant, discrimination against pregnancy by not funding abortions is sex-oriented discrimination.”

Once a court adopts the legal doctrine that a law targeting abortion is by definition a form of discrimination based on sex, and therefore impermissible under an ERA, the same doctrine would invalidate virtually any limitation on abortion. Under this doctrine, the ERA would nullify state restrictions even on partial-birth abortions or third-trimester abortions (since these are sought only by women). Also vulnerable would be state freedom of conscience laws which allow government-supported medical facilities and personnel (including religiously affiliated hospitals) to refuse to participate in abortions.

If such “sex discrimination” were treated like “race discrimination” any government refusal to fund abortion or to permit it would be treated like a refusal to fund medical procedures that affect members of minority races, for example sickle cell disease for African-Americans.

The bottom line is that pro-abortion advocacy groups have increasingly employed the ERA-abortion argument in state courts.

The ERA Needs an Abortion-Neutral Amendment

The above referenced abortion-related concerns could be avoided if the following abortion-neutral-amendment (originally proposed by Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner in 1983) is added, “Nothing in this Article [the ERA] shall be construed to grant, secure, or deny any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof.”

This proposed revision would not change the current legal status of abortion, nor would it permit the ERA itself to be employed for anti-abortion purposes. Rather, the revision would simply make the ERA itself neutral regarding abortion policy.

Unless this abortion-neutral amendment is adopted, New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms must remain strongly opposed the Equal Rights Amendment.