McHenry County Blog

A Friend of McHenry County Blog sent the following paragraph from Forbes:

“The fourth most dangerous city as ranked by our list is Springfield, Ill., a metro area of 200,000 four hours south of Chicago where the FBI reports 855 violent crimes and 70 rapes each year per 100,000 citizens.

“Despite its dangerous ranking, the state of Illinois has made great strides to respond to violent crimes against women; Illinois currently has more than 33 24-hour rape crisis centers and in 1992 was one of the first states to include rights for victims of violent crime in its state constitution.”

I doubt the danger to woman has anything to do with the politically charged atmosphere of the State Capital, but there is not doubt that there is a sexual aspect to this and undoubtedly other political arenas.

A view of the Illinois Capitol rail on the third floor where the legislative chambers are located.

In the musical “Boss,” based on Mike Royko’s book of the same name, there’s a song about “the girls who keep their jobs with their tails.”

I was told that Illinois Bell used to hire good looking young woman from rural parts of Illinois to fulfill that role.

Such assignations, of course, would not end up in an FBI data base, if the practice continued.

Neither would the “Springfield wives” of state legislators.

There was widespread talk that one of the ERA supporters changed an attorney-legislator’s vote the night before one of the votes.

And at a post-session party thrown by Governor Jim Thompson at the Executive Mansion, I was approached by a good looking young woman. When I demurred, she asked my if I let my wife (Robin Geist then) run my life. I told her that in matters like this, I did.

I stayed in the cheapest hotel–the Hotel Governor–along with other legislators who were not rolling in dough. It and its former parking lot is now the location of the Illinois Wine Tasting event at the Old Capitol Art Fair each May.

The walls were not that thick and some political types used it for affairs.

Then, there was the lobbyist who tried to pick up one of my constituents who was in the Capitol city for the week lobbying on a matter dear to her heart.

When he handed her his hotel key, she dropped it over the rail. They were on the third floor.

This is as good a place as any to put the initiation rite in the Illinois House of Representatives.

Veterans wait until there is a good looking woman sitting in the gallery.

They write a note to the legislator saying the woman would like to get acquainted and inviting him to join her in the gallery.

When the man (maybe it’s used on women, too, now) approaches the woman, someone gains the floor for purposes of an introduction and introduces the State Rep., who gets razzed when he returns red-faced to the chamber.

This time from former State Rep. Penny Pullen (R-Park Ridge).

The Chicago Tribune obituary concentrated on the opposition of former State Representative Tom Hanahan (D-Johnsburg) to the Equal Rights Amendment.

I asked, Penny Pullen, the Republican leader of the opposition to the ERA, to jot down a few thoughts and here they are,

“When Illinois was besieged by the radical feminists, demanding that the Illinois House vote over and over again (something like 13 times!) on the so-called Equal Rights Amendment to the US Constitution, it was Rep. Tom Hanahan who marshaled the votes on the Democrat side.  

“Though we had little else in common — he being a union Democrat and I being a pro-business Republican — we did share the cause of protecting the family, the Constitution and the sovereignty of the states in our opposition to the ERA.

“We used to meet clandestinely in a little-traveled corner on the south side of the second floor of the state capitol to swap ERA vote counts on our respective sides of the partisan aisle. 

“Tom had very little use for radical feminist types (like the female legislators who sponsored ERA and by the very fact that they had attained positions of leadership in government proved that ERA was unnecessary for the fulfillment of women!).  

“It was he who circulated on the House floor a hilarious color poster showing a woman lined up with the men at a public restroom’s urinals; the radical fems were flabbergasted. 

“It was also he who referred to their pals in the sisterhood (also known as the ERA lobby) as ‘brain-less, bra-less broads,’ in House debate, no less! 

“Flamboyant, cheerful, funny and thoroughly settled in his beliefs, Tom Hanahan was one of a kind and literally contributed to the history not only of Illinois but of this country.”

My memories are here and here.

It’s not many times that you get to be at an affair with someone who has changed American history.

Last night was one of those times.

The woman who led the successful fight against the Equal Rights Amendment was on a fund raising cruise for Paul Capiro’s Family PAC.

She also is the reason the Republican Party is a pro-life party, according to Caprio.

I remember reading her 1964 book, “A Choice Not An Echo,” and realizing that she had created the new campaign technique for the year–the mass produced political book.

Last night was the first time Schlafly had seen the Chicago lakefront from a boat on Lake Michigan.

The views she saw were certainly worth her trip from the St. Louis area.

After Family PAC Chairman Emeritus Tom Roeser presented the Lifetime Achievement Award, Schlafly spoke to the 180 attendees.

She complemented the candidates present. (More on them in another article.)

Schlafly knew what she was talking about because she ran for office in 1952 in a Democratic district after her husband decided not to run.

She said she was called “the power puff candidate. It was a fun year.”

“I know we’ve had some dismal days in Illinois, but things are looking up.”

I think she said something like “they have to,” suggesting they couldn’t go any lower.

Speaking of the candidates present, the veteran Republican activist said,

“We’re going to get them elected and start over.”

Commenting more generally on campaigning, Schlafly came up with this gem:

“I have run for public office.

“It’s a dog’s life.

“I wouldn’t wish that on Betty Friedan.”

“We’ve been through some tough times,” she continued, then asserting,

“This is no worse than 1976.”

She related how North Carolina’s Jesse Helms came up with a conservative platform which was forced upon President Gerald Ford.

“Helm’s platform prepared the way for Ronald Reagan’s 1980 victory,” she explained.

“I think politics is the best game in town,” the political science major said.

In his introduction of Schlafly, Caprio was effusive in his praise of perhaps the most influential woman in politics in the 20th century.

Attending from McHenry County were the Skinners, Gene and Nancy Brown of Alqonquin and Irene Napier of Crystal Lake. The young lady with Napier and Schlafly in the bottom photo is Napier’s granddaughter.

It’s not many times that you get to be at an affair with someone who has changed American history.

Last night was one of those times.

The woman who led the successful fight against the Equal Rights Amendment was on a fund raising cruise for Paul Capiro’s Family PAC.

She also is the reason the Republican Party is a pro-life party, according to Caprio.

I remember reading her 1964 book, “A Choice Not An Echo,” and realizing that she had created the new campaign technique for the year–the mass produced political book.

Last night was the first time Schlafly had seen the Chicago lakefront from a boat on Lake Michigan.

The views she saw were certainly worth her trip from the St. Louis area.

After Family PAC Chairman Emeritus Tom Roeser presented the Lifetime Achievement Award, Schlafly spoke to the 180 attendees.

She complemented the candidates present. (More on them in another article.)

Schlafly knew what she was talking about because she ran for office in 1952 in a Democratic district after her husband decided not to run.

She said she was called “the power puff candidate. It was a fun year.”

“I know we’ve had some dismal days in Illinois, but things are looking up.”

I think she said something like “they have to,” suggesting they couldn’t go any lower.

Speaking of the candidates present, the veteran Republican activist said,

“We’re going to get them elected and start over.”

Commenting more generally on campaigning, Schlafly came up with this gem:

“I have run for public office.

“It’s a dog’s life.

“I wouldn’t wish that on Betty Friedan.”

“We’ve been through some tough times,” she continued, then asserting,

“This is no worse than 1976.”

She related how North Carolina’s Jesse Helms came up with a conservative platform which was forced upon President Gerald Ford.

“Helm’s platform prepared the way for Ronald Reagan’s 1980 victory,” she explained.

“I think politics is the best game in town,” the political science major said.

In his introduction of Schlafly, Caprio was effusive in his praise of perhaps the most influential woman in politics in the 20th century.

Attending from McHenry County were the Skinners, Gene and Nancy Brown of Alqonquin and Irene Napier of Crystal Lake. The young lady with Napier and Schlafly in the bottom photo is Napier’s granddaughter.

Giving Chicago Alderman life and death power over development in their wards has led to many an indictment.

The most recent to succumb to temptation seems to be just defeated Alderwoman Arenda Troutman.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was kind enough to allow her to be arrested before the election. Now, he has charged her with 13 more crimes.

It sounds like a good ol’ Chicago Democratic Party shake-down.

The same dance we have seen before, except this time a female is taking the lead.

Or, perhaps Troutman had a better analogy when she said,

“Well, the thing is, most alderman, most politicians are hos.”

Who says we need a federal Equal Rights Amendment?

So, why isn’t some Republican making a big deal about this?

= = = = =
The photograph of ex-Chicago Alderwoman Arenda Troutman came from her campaign web site.

Giving Chicago Alderman life and death power over development in their wards has led to many an indictment.

The most recent to succumb to temptation seems to be just defeated Alderwoman Arenda Troutman.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was kind enough to allow her to be arrested before the election. Now, he has charged her with 13 more crimes.

It sounds like a good ol’ Chicago Democratic Party shake-down.

The same dance we have seen before, except this time a female is taking the lead.

Or, perhaps Troutman had a better analogy when she said,

“Well, the thing is, most alderman, most politicians are hos.”

Who says we need a federal Equal Rights Amendment?

So, why isn’t some Republican making a big deal about this?

= = = = =
The photograph of ex-Chicago Alderwoman Arenda Troutman came from her campaign web site.

Elise Bouc, a Republican precinct committeeman from Lake County, read McHenry County State Senator Pam Althoff’s reply to an Equal Rights Amendment opponent and offers these rebuttals to the McHenry legislator’s views.

If you have not read Senator Althoff’s reply to an ERA opponent, it probably would be well to do so before reading this refutation, so you can more fully understand the two positions.

The ERA Rebuttal

First, in regards to the legalization of same-sex marriages, several court decisions clearly verify that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) mandates recognition of same-sex marriages.

The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples is sex discrimination and unconstitutional under Hawaii’s state ERA (Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 1993). The people of Hawaii had to pass a state constitutional amendment to overturn this decision. Recently Maryland’s marriage law was overturned due to their state ERA. The case is currently under appeal. Furthermore, at least one of the Massachusetts Supreme Court Justices used the ERA in the Massachusetts Constitution as the basis of the decision to overturn the Massachusetts marriage law.

Second, in regards to the military, current U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg states in her book, Sex Bias and the U.S. Code, that the ERA would require women to be drafted equally with men (p. 202, 218), and women could not be exempted from combat (p. 26 and p. 218).

Third, in regards to the Social Security benefit for wives, Justice Ginsburg wrote that the wife’s social security benefit is a form of “sex stereotyping” that must be eliminated under an ERA (p. 211-212). These claims are independent of the current gender neutral language used in the social security code.

According to Justice Ginsburg, the social security benefit encourages a wife’s dependency on her husband. Such encouragement, in her legal analysis, would violate the equality principle of an ERA.

She recently reiterated these views (and specifically pointed to the social security system) in the dissenting opinion she wrote for the partial birth abortion ban. In the opinion she voiced her disdain for what she calls “ancient notions about women’s place in the family,” which she says “have long since been discredited” because they impede “women’s progress toward full citizenship.” In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg specifically criticized the “Social Security classification” which rests on “archaic” notions “such as assumptions as to [women's] dependency.”

Coincidentally, in her analysis of the impact of the ERA, Justice Ginsburg was unable to find any changes required in employment laws.

In the 18 states that have passed state Equal Rights Amendments, we have seen further evidence that women are harmed by the ERA.

In Pennsylvania, sex-based automobile insurance rates were disapproved by the state insurance commissioner due to a claim of sex discrimination. The state legislature attempted to remedy the situation by passing a law to allow for sex-based insurance rates, but the law was overturned by the state supreme court due to the state’s ERA. Now women will have to pay the same rates as men even if they statistically have better driving records (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Insurance Commissioner, 482 A.2d 542 [Pa. 1984] and 543-44).

In Massachusetts, the state ERA was used to overturn the practice of using stricter penal discipline with male inmates who are much more violent in jail than female inmates. As a result, female inmates will have to be subjected to equally harsh discipline (DuPont v. Wyzanski, 2004 Mass. Super. Ct. 2004). These examples show that even when it logically makes sense to allow for a gender distinction, an ERA will not allow for that distinction.

Furthermore, state ERAs have been used in legal cases to (1) avoid alimony payments ((Coleman v. Maryland, 37 Md. App. 322, 377 A.2d [1977]), reduce child support (Conway v. Dana, 456 Pa. 536, 318 A.2d 324 [1974]), and nullify a husband’s legal responsibility to pay his wife’s medical bills (Albert Einstein Medical Center v. Nathans, 5 D&C 3d 619 [1978]).

Clearly, the ERA is not a simple good will gesture for women. If passed, the ERA will not help women; instead it will harm women, their families, and our society. The facts speak for themselves.

One more point of clarification: The ERA, which is a constitutional amendment would supersede all federal laws in court. Current federal laws could not protect social security benefits for wives/spouses under the currently proposed federal ERA.

= = = = =

The picture is of State Senator Pam Althoff explaining a point at a Crystal Lake Kiwanis meeting.

Elise Bouc, a Republican precinct committeeman from Lake County, read McHenry County State Senator Pam Althoff’s reply to an Equal Rights Amendment opponent and offers these rebuttals to the McHenry legislator’s views.

If you have not read Senator Althoff’s reply to an ERA opponent, it probably would be well to do so before reading this refutation, so you can more fully understand the two positions.

The ERA Rebuttal

First, in regards to the legalization of same-sex marriages, several court decisions clearly verify that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) mandates recognition of same-sex marriages.

The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples is sex discrimination and unconstitutional under Hawaii’s state ERA (Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 1993). The people of Hawaii had to pass a state constitutional amendment to overturn this decision. Recently Maryland’s marriage law was overturned due to their state ERA. The case is currently under appeal. Furthermore, at least one of the Massachusetts Supreme Court Justices used the ERA in the Massachusetts Constitution as the basis of the decision to overturn the Massachusetts marriage law.

Second, in regards to the military, current U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg states in her book, Sex Bias and the U.S. Code, that the ERA would require women to be drafted equally with men (p. 202, 218), and women could not be exempted from combat (p. 26 and p. 218).

Third, in regards to the Social Security benefit for wives, Justice Ginsburg wrote that the wife’s social security benefit is a form of “sex stereotyping” that must be eliminated under an ERA (p. 211-212). These claims are independent of the current gender neutral language used in the social security code.

According to Justice Ginsburg, the social security benefit encourages a wife’s dependency on her husband. Such encouragement, in her legal analysis, would violate the equality principle of an ERA.

She recently reiterated these views (and specifically pointed to the social security system) in the dissenting opinion she wrote for the partial birth abortion ban. In the opinion she voiced her disdain for what she calls “ancient notions about women’s place in the family,” which she says “have long since been discredited” because they impede “women’s progress toward full citizenship.” In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg specifically criticized the “Social Security classification” which rests on “archaic” notions “such as assumptions as to [women's] dependency.”

Coincidentally, in her analysis of the impact of the ERA, Justice Ginsburg was unable to find any changes required in employment laws.

In the 18 states that have passed state Equal Rights Amendments, we have seen further evidence that women are harmed by the ERA.

In Pennsylvania, sex-based automobile insurance rates were disapproved by the state insurance commissioner due to a claim of sex discrimination. The state legislature attempted to remedy the situation by passing a law to allow for sex-based insurance rates, but the law was overturned by the state supreme court due to the state’s ERA. Now women will have to pay the same rates as men even if they statistically have better driving records (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Insurance Commissioner, 482 A.2d 542 [Pa. 1984] and 543-44).

In Massachusetts, the state ERA was used to overturn the practice of using stricter penal discipline with male inmates who are much more violent in jail than female inmates. As a result, female inmates will have to be subjected to equally harsh discipline (DuPont v. Wyzanski, 2004 Mass. Super. Ct. 2004). These examples show that even when it logically makes sense to allow for a gender distinction, an ERA will not allow for that distinction.

Furthermore, state ERAs have been used in legal cases to (1) avoid alimony payments ((Coleman v. Maryland, 37 Md. App. 322, 377 A.2d [1977]), reduce child support (Conway v. Dana, 456 Pa. 536, 318 A.2d 324 [1974]), and nullify a husband’s legal responsibility to pay his wife’s medical bills (Albert Einstein Medical Center v. Nathans, 5 D&C 3d 619 [1978]).

Clearly, the ERA is not a simple good will gesture for women. If passed, the ERA will not help women; instead it will harm women, their families, and our society. The facts speak for themselves.

One more point of clarification: The ERA, which is a constitutional amendment would supersede all federal laws in court. Current federal laws could not protect social security benefits for wives/spouses under the currently proposed federal ERA.

= = = = =

The picture is of State Senator Pam Althoff explaining a point at a Crystal Lake Kiwanis meeting.

An opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment, which Democrats are still trying to pass even though the deadline has long since passed, wrote McHenry County Republican State Senator Pam Althoff.

Here’s Althoff’s answer:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the Equal Rights Amendment or ERA as it is commonly referenced. I always appreciate hearing comments and concerns from my constituents.

ERA proposals have been circulating in the state of Illinois since, well, since I was in college back in 1972. Since that time misinformation, misconceptions and untruths have become the accepted “norm”. According to some of the finest legal minds in the nation ERA alone would not legalize same sex marriage, require women to register for the Selective Service or cause many of the other untruths that have come to be associated with it. Additionally, the ERA will not cause a wife or widow to lose their social security benefits. Existing federal law prohibits this possibility.

While I understand your concerns I respectfully request you continue to research the ERA proposal and its implications.

If you have any other questions, or need further guidance as to where to turn to obtain more information, please do not hesitate to call my office at 815/455-6330 or email at palthoff@mc.net.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me about this important issue.

Warm regards,

Senator Pamela J. Althoff

Back in the 1970’s I read the equal rights language in the Illinois State Constitution and compared it with the words in the federal Equal Rights Amendment. I could not see a substantive difference.

I sent a survey to every registered household in my five-county legislative district about ERA. A majority supported it, leading to my “Yes” vote.

Subsequently, I figured out that there was an implementation clause. It says that Federal judges will interpret the constitutional amendment.

With my distrust of the federal government, including the judicial system, I have no idea how I could have missed this “little” thing.

I would respectfully suggest that neither Senator Althoff nor I really have any idea what rulings federal judges will rule should the Equal Rights Amendment be ratified and become part of the United States Constitution.

We surely know some state judges have handed down some really flaky rulings, e.g., forcing homosexual and lesbian “marriage” in Massachusetts.

An opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment, which Democrats are still trying to pass even though the deadline has long since passed, wrote McHenry County Republican State Senator Pam Althoff.

Here’s Althoff’s answer:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the Equal Rights Amendment or ERA as it is commonly referenced. I always appreciate hearing comments and concerns from my constituents.

ERA proposals have been circulating in the state of Illinois since, well, since I was in college back in 1972. Since that time misinformation, misconceptions and untruths have become the accepted “norm”. According to some of the finest legal minds in the nation ERA alone would not legalize same sex marriage, require women to register for the Selective Service or cause many of the other untruths that have come to be associated with it. Additionally, the ERA will not cause a wife or widow to lose their social security benefits. Existing federal law prohibits this possibility.

While I understand your concerns I respectfully request you continue to research the ERA proposal and its implications.

If you have any other questions, or need further guidance as to where to turn to obtain more information, please do not hesitate to call my office at 815/455-6330 or email at palthoff@mc.net.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me about this important issue.

Warm regards,

Senator Pamela J. Althoff

Back in the 1970’s I read the equal rights language in the Illinois State Constitution and compared it with the words in the federal Equal Rights Amendment. I could not see a substantive difference.

I sent a survey to every registered household in my five-county legislative district about ERA. A majority supported it, leading to my “Yes” vote.

Subsequently, I figured out that there was an implementation clause. It says that Federal judges will interpret the constitutional amendment.

With my distrust of the federal government, including the judicial system, I have no idea how I could have missed this “little” thing.

I would respectfully suggest that neither Senator Althoff nor I really have any idea what rulings federal judges will rule should the Equal Rights Amendment be ratified and become part of the United States Constitution.

We surely know some state judges have handed down some really flaky rulings, e.g., forcing homosexual and lesbian “marriage” in Massachusetts.