IL-14: Full Context and Discernment on Sue Rezin Interview with MSNBC

Sue Rezin

Media Research Center’s Newsbusters blog article needs discernment too

This past Wednesday, MSNBC did a TV segment titled “Republican Women Look to Make Up Lost Ground in House”, which was a nearly 7 1/2 minutes segment that aired this past Wednesday about the challenges of electing Republican women to Congress.

Additionally, and admittedly how I found out about this interview was having the Media Research Center (MRC) article from their Newsbusters blog titled “MSNBC Hypes Republicans Saying GOP Needs to Drop Litmus Tests on Abortion” forwarded to me.

Upon reading the MRC article, and playing the 49 seconds of video embedded, the first question asked was “where’s the rest of it?”

The MRC excerpt included MSNBC’s Chris Jansing in a living room/roundtable setting with 14th congressional district Republican candidate and State Senator Sue Rezin, with former Republican State Senators Karen McConnaughay and Pam Althoff with Republican media consultant Tamara Edwards.

Here’s the transcript of the 49 seconds roundtable excerpt:

CHRIS JANSING [VOICEOVER]: They’re also talk to each other. Sue Rezin regularly talks to a group of friends with campaign experience and the night we were with them, the conversation turned to yet one more challenge facing Republican women candidates. 

KAREN MCCONNAUGHAY: I really think it’s the social issues, to be honest. I think the Republican Party needs to do some recalibration when it comes to the social issues. 

JANSING: If things like abortion and gay marriage become litmus tests, it works against women in the Republican Party? 

[PAM ALTHOFF]: I think so. 

SUE REZIN: And I think that we just need to change the conversation about who we are as Republicans. 

TAMARA EDWARDS: Who is messaging this from the top? Who is saying get women elected? If Someone has an objective to go get women elected, they’re make it happen because their livelihood depends on it.

Source: MSNBC Transcript
This ERA button says, “Ratify ERA in 1975.”

At this point, the MRC article jumps all over the McConnaughay quote and “litmus test” and then brings up something not mentioned anywhere in the MSNBC segment — the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).

MRC goes on to bash McConnaughay and Rezin for supporting the ERA ratification in the state senate back in 2018 (Althoff had resigned from the state senate by that time) and embedded a 26 minute WTVP video with transcript of a 2018 interview on ERA.

The transcript included how Rezin (McConnaughay would resign from the state senate after the WTVP video) was downgraded by Illinois Right to Life Action over the ERA vote.

And as expected, beginning with an Illinois Family Institute’s David E. Smith column in July, Rezin’s ERA vote makes her unfit for Congress and pro-life voters should look for someone else to support in the 14th district primary.

That’s in spite of Rezin’s pro-life record since the ERA vote.

We see a “litmus test” playing itself out as Rezin’s detractors saying her ERA vote is proof she is no longer pro-life.

Why Rezin supported the ERA in 2018, as well as voting “present” on the 2014 ERA ratification vote in the state senate, was disclosed through a statement published on Illinois Review back in 2018:

“It’s shocking to know there is no federal constitutional provision that guarantees equality on the basis of sex. Equal rights under the law should never be denied simply because one is female.

“This was an important step forward in solidifying that women will be constitutionally protected from discrimination. As a mother, who has two daughters in the workforce, I want equal rights for women. And, as a female in Senate leadership who is trying to mentor the next generation, when I speak to females, I want to be seen as someone who supports equal rights for all.”

Sue Rezin in statement to Illinois Review 4/13/2018

While Rezin’s reasoning for her ERA ratification vote is understandable, given the realities of how the ERA will be manipulated to codify pro-abortion laws, Rezin is just wrong to support the ERA.

Does not mean she’s pro-abortion, but on the ERA, she’s wrong.

“STOP ERA” the most common button red.

What does ERA have to do with 2020?


In the state elections in Virginia last month, Democrats took control of both houses of the Virginia legislature as well as the governor’s mansion.

If Virginia ratifies the ERA, the Old Dominion will be the 38th state, thus the ERA achieving the 3/4 of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment.

But the ERA when passed in 1972 had an expiration of 1979, with an extension to 1982 for the states to ratify, right?

When Virginia ratifies the ERA, Congress will have to pass a joint resolution to remove the time constraint for ratification.

The federal legislation is drafted and is HJRes79 in the current Congress, which was introduced three days after the elections in Virginia in November.

There are also two additional joint resolutions, one in the House, the other in the Senate, but looks like HJRes79 will come to a House vote, possibly by the end of the year.

Passage in the Senate is not a given, nor is a presidential signature.

And the constitutionality of this approach, 37 years after the 1982 expiration of the ERA will likely be decided by the Supreme Court if approved by Congress and signed into law by the President.

So all of the candidates for Congress in the 14th must be asked, will they oppose a resolution like HJRes79? If the answer is “yes”, the ERA will have one fewer vote, and if a “no”, than both primary voters and general election voters will have to decide if their position on the ERA, and all of the issues, will determine if a candidate will earn their vote .

And this gives Rezin a chance for a do-over and to right a wrong in her conservative record. It’s up to her if she’ll take it.

A future article will apply discernment to the MSNBC segment itself, but in the meantime, the link to the full context MSNBC segment is below, along with other referenced articles:


IL-14: Full Context and Discernment on Sue Rezin Interview with MSNBC — 10 Comments

  1. To those accustomed to priviledge, equality feels like oppression

  2. Kvidera is really a narcissistic little twit. He wants to oppress straight White Christian taxpayers on an hourly basis.

    He wants to destroy Western Civilization and replace it with what? CHAOS.

  3. Very little in common with average McHenry County Voters.

    Maybe she is in tune with the rest of the district?

    Kinda snobby, know it all, and filthy rich individual!

    Otherwise, she’s great!

  4. In today’s Democrat world and thinking, ERA means equal rights for illegal aliens.

  5. “old”?

    Sue Rezin is only 56, but if we want to discuss age:

    -Jim Oberweis, 73
    -James Marter, 57 (on Jan. 2)
    -Sue Rezin, 56
    -Ted Gradel, 55
    -Anthony Catella, 49 (turns 50 early March)
    -Jerry Evans, 30-something
    -Catalina Lauf, 26

    The way things are in our country, if Republican primary electorate going by same trends, while not back to the “never trust anyone over 30” from the late 60s and early 70s, Millennials want Millennials representing them in Congress, not Baby Boomers.

    We’ll see if that hits the 14th in the primary.

  6. I want whoever is competent, regardless of which arbitrary man-made “generation” they belong to.

    There are plenty of smart boomers and millennials and many more who are clueless.

  7. Who the he** with a brain, anyone, watches this cable tv outlet?

  8. A very concise & well written breakdown (and it puts all aspects out there for the reader to suss out at their leisure).

    I walked with my grandmother when she marched for the ERA in the 70’s.

    I must confess, my initial inclination when seeing this article was to go (well, it is about time).

    And yet, my mind immediately went into overdrive to actually look at the ERA as written back in the 70’s… because the author’s mention of abortion sparked an “uh-oh”.

    So, I needed to look at the ERA as it would implement here in 2020 or beyond.

    First, it did not meet the extension so was considered dead on arrival.

    And yet, Virginia voted on it recently?

    And now congress can possibly eliminate the deadline?

    There have been many laws written and court cases decided since the ERA was nailed down and presented to the states for ratification (some of which I am quite sure address issues brought up in the ERA).

    I am quite sure some of the legal language is outdated also.

    So, isn’t it prudent that the ERA be amended to reflect 2020’s America and for it to be again sent to the states for ratification?

    Just thinking out loud….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *