ERA would do more harm than good

The proposed Equal Rights Amendment is another phrase, like pro-choice, that is designed to mislead. On the surface, it appears benign, but is an issue that requires a closer look. In your Guest View section on Nov. 21, Michelle Fadeley contends that without ERA, "numerous laws that currently protect women, including the Equal Pay Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Title IX are not irreversible, and that the U.S. Constitution as it stands does not officially protect all citizens of gender the same way it protects citizens against discrimination based on race and religion."

Saying that rights cannot be denied by gender conversely negates protections based on gender in the same stroke. It is a sword that cuts both ways. For instance, Maryland's court held, under the state ERA, that a husband could no longer be required to support his dependent wife (Coleman v. Maryland). Pennsylvania's state ERA exempted a father from providing support for his minor children and legal responsibility for his wife's medical bills (Conway v. Dana, Albert Einstein Medical Center v. Nathans).

The ACLU's argument is that denying abortion is sex-discrimination, so ERA would require federal and state government to fund Medicaid abortions, because not providing funding would be discrimination based on gender.

In Doe v. Maher, Connecticut's Supreme Court concluded, the regulation restricting funding for abortion "violates Connecticut's Equal Rights Amendment, because only women become pregnant." ERA would stop all efforts to pass meaningful parental notification or consent laws, since only girls become pregnant.

The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection for everyone. Women have used this amendment successfully in discrimination cases for 30 years. If passed, ERA will supersede state laws and be the basis for challenging any law favoring one sex over another, creating a genderless society.

Bonnie Quirker

President

Lake County Right to Life

Libertyville