Stunning Display of Ignorance with Passage of Equal Rights Amendment

The following is published with permission from the Illinois Family Institute

ERA Passes Illinois Senate
Written By Laurie Higgins

In a stunning display of ignorance, the Illinois State Senate just voted 43-12 in favor of the resolution to adopt the Equal Rights Amendment. What makes this vote even more enraging is that Republicans Pam Althoff (R-Crystal Lake), Jason Barickman (R-Pontiac), Mike Connelly (R-Wheaton), David Harris (R-Arlington Heights), Karen McConnaughay (R-West Dundee), Chris Nybo (R-Hinsdale), Sue Rezin (R-Morris), and Tom Rooney (R-Palatine) voted with Democrats on this partisan resolution.

According to Illinois Review, McConnaughay made this remarkably foolish and dishonest statement in defense of her traitorous vote:

The intention of the Illinois Senate Women’s Caucus is to advance legislation that supports, empowers and protects women of all aspects of life, and that’s exactly what we are doing today. Today, we are here together, Republican and Democratic women, to demonstrate our support of the Equal Rights Amendment, which ensures equality for all women…. This isn’t a partisan issue. It’s an issue that affects every single woman in this country. By coming together, we have a chance to make an impact at a national level for women all across the nation.”

Yes, nothing says non-partisan quite like a Constitutional amendment that will mandate taxpayer-funding of abortion, that will eradicate all abortion restrictions, that will end public recognition of sex differences in private spaces, and that will require women to register with the Selective Service.

Has McConnaughay read the ERA? It says nothing about women. So, where does she get the impression that the ERA will support, empower, and protect women? Of which specific rights does she believe women are deprived?

In a recent, almost-comical article on the ERA by Jennifer Camille Lee titled “Why does a hate group want to derail the ERA in Illinois,”  Lee provides ample justification for public mistrust of the leftwing press. Before getting to the ropy meat of her “argument” about the ERA, let’s peek at just one of her false claims.

Lee identifies Nancy Thorner as “a member of IFI.” Ms. Thorner is not now nor ever has been a member of IFI.

After erroneously identifying Thorner as an IFI member, Lee paraphrases arguments Thorner made in pieces appearing in The Madison Record and Illinois Review after which Lee says, “any Illinois citizen or legislator who uses their [meaning IFI’s] arguments against the ERA is dealing in false facts and illogical arguments from a group that purposefully pushes a hateful agenda.”

To summarize, Lee uses arguments made by someone who is not an IFI member and published in outlets wholly unrelated to IFI to suggest that no citizen or legislator should listen to IFI’s actual arguments about the ERA.

So, let’s carefully examine Lee’s arguments—you know, assertions with evidence—and her refutation of IFI’s  arguments. Oh wait, she didn’t have any arguments and she didn’t refute anything written by any IFI member. Well, what the heck, just for fun let’s look at her rhetoric.

Lee says that Thorner wrote a “scare piece” in The Madison Record. Since Lee provided no link, title or citation, I rooted around and found a recent letter to the editor by Thorner, which I assume is the “scare piece” to which Lee is referring. Lee claimed that Thorner said, “passing the ERA will create a gender-free society where it won’t be natural for women to be homemakers any longer.”

Thorner quoted from a document written about the ERA by constitutional attorney and fierce ERA-opponent Phyllis Schlafly in which Schlafly said this:

 Women’s Lib advocates do not want it to be considered any more natural for a woman to be a Homemaker than for a man to be a House-husband.

Who would disagree with that? Second-wave feminists inarguably sought to efface distinctions between men and women—well, except when they were claiming that women were far superior to men.

Lee repeatedly refers “readers back to the actual wording” of the ERA, which says that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” Perhaps Lee didn’t notice that, while the ERA says precisely nothing about women, it does, indeed, guarantee a “gender-free society” if by gender, Lee means biological sex. You never can tell what those tricksy Leftists mean since they’re very busy redefining terms. It’s inarguable that the ERA makes it illegal to make distinctions based on sex. That’s the whole point and language of the ERA. Ergo, the ERA guarantees a “gender free society.”

Lee says that in a piece published by Illinois Review, “Ms. Thorner writes that women and all our unborn children will be irreparably harmed by the ERA.”

Evidently, Lee hasn’t read very broadly or deeply about the connection between the ERA and abortion. A court case in New Mexico, which has the equivalent of a state ERA, reveals the legal reasoning that justifies taxpayer-funding of abortion under the ERA:

The unanimous court held that a state ban on tax-funded abortions “undoubtedly singles out for less favorable treatment a gender-linked condition that is unique to women.

Taxpayer-funding of abortion—itself a grievous moral offense—will increase the number of abortions.

Moreover, as Elise Bouc, state chairman of STOP ERA Illinois has written, abortion restrictions will be overturned by the ERA, which explains why pro-abortion/anti-child organizations are fighting like the devil to get it passed:

Since abortion is unique to women, any attempt to restrict a woman’s access to abortion is seen, under the rules of the ERA, as a form of sex discrimination – because women are being singled out for a characteristic that is unique to them, and they are being treated differently based on that physical characteristic (in this case- the ability to become pregnant). Therefore any abortion restrictions would be overturned by the ERA…. In addition, since medical procedures unique to men are funded by Medicaid (such as circumcision and prostatectomies), then abortion which is unique to women, must also receive Medicaid funding under ERA requirements.

While Lee may consider the extermination of humans in the womb harmless, others beg to differ. There is no greater act of “irreparable harm” perpetrated against unborn children than killing them.

The ERA will inflict yet more damage. It will be used to grant unrestricted access to opposite-sex spaces and activities to persons who pretend to be the sex they are not. Single-sex restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, shelters, semi-private hospital rooms, nursing home rooms, dormitories, colleges, athletic teams, fraternities, sororities, clubs, and organizations would become co-ed or risk federal lawsuits. Even mother-daughter/father-son/father-daughter events at public schools would be eliminated.

The ERA would be used to force women to register for the Selective Service, and if the day should ever come when the draft is reinstated, to be drafted.

It would give enormous new powers to the federal government that now belong to the states. Section II of the ERA states that “The Congress shall have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article.” The ERA would give Congress the power to legislate on all those areas of law which include traditional differences of treatment on account of sex: marriage, property laws, divorce and alimony, child custody, adoptions, prison regulations, and insurance. For example, the Social Security System pays full-time homemaker “wives” 50 percent of their husband’s benefits over and above the check he receives. Upon their husbands’ deaths, widows receive the full benefits that their husbands had been receiving.  (The law also gives this benefit to a dependent husband, but nearly all dependent spouses are women.)

Lee believes that opposition to these changes–changes which harm women and children–is irrational. She also believes that IFI “may be entitled to an opinion, but they are not entitled to their own set of facts, and the fact is all the ERA does is grant equal protection to women under the U.S. Constitution.”

Like Lee, I will point readers and lawmakers back to the text of the ERA, which says nothing about women. It says everything, however, that lawmakers needed to know, which is that the ERA will eliminate recognition in laws, policies, and practices of the very real differences between men and women. And the victims will be primarily women and children.

This bill now moves to the Illinois House for consideration.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to email your state representative to urge him/her to oppose the ERA (SJRCA 4).


Stunning Display of Ignorance with Passage of Equal Rights Amendment — 14 Comments

  1. The backstabbing A- Holes in Springfield voted to make Illinois a “Sanctuary State”, among
    other things, so why not this ?
    The stench of Socialism hangs heavy in the air over Illinois and
    is slowly choking this state to death.

  2. Why is there such a group as the “Illinos Senate Women’s Caucus”? Are men Senators allowed to join it? Can biological men who identify as female join the group? Is there an “Illinois Senate Men’s Caucus”?

  3. I’m case anyone is curious, this is the sum total of the amendment passed this week:

    “Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

    Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.”

    That’s what’s inspired all this frenzy. All these claims are what people SAY it might do. As is so often the case, unable to argue the measures merits, they resort to making things up!

  4. The original deadline for ratification of the ERA expired, and so did the extended deadline.

    Four of the 35 states that ratified the ERA have rescinded their ratification, and legal experts are divided on whether or not states can rescind ratification of an amendment before it is adopted – it’s entirely uncharted legal territory.

    If three more states ratify the ERA, there will be a whole slew of court cases before the issue is decided.

    If ERA supporters are are really serious about passage, and not just grandstanding for political purposes, they should start over in Congress and do it right.

  5. Illinois has an ERA in Article 1 Section 18 of its constitution, yet the court didn’t establish taxpayer funded abortion through judicial review — we had a Republican governor sign it into law.
    I’m more interested in how this will affect bathrooms (although those lines seem to be disappearing anyway due to the transgender community) but especially prisons.
    Imagine a group of men arguing to tear down the heteronormative barriers so they can comingle with female inmates — because they’re not so different after all! I wonder what liberals will say about that.

  6. @An American

    There have already been cases of pre op trannies successfully suing to be placed in a women’s prison.

    Full blown mixed gender prisons can’t be far off.

    Isn’t progressivism wonderful?

  7. For JoeK: Yeah. Kinda like the public sector pension guarantee would NEVER cause judges to impose tax increases.

    There are ALWAYS unintended consequences when you start messing with the Constitution.

    What this vote did was show that McConnaughay and Althoff DO NOT SUPPORT THE GOP PLATFORM!

    It is only because voters are so ignorant that they can continue to masquerade as Republicans.

  8. That’s why Althoof must be given the hoof. She’s an ugly person and GOP-faker who betrayed us time and time again.

    Like Tina Hill(ary), she supported Hillary Clinton!

  9. Joek is a Joke!

    He deserves the pillory, at least.

    Some fine day rotten cabbages may fly in his direction, aimed at his greasy head. A head of old cabbage tossed at the head of Joek. It’ll be a well-deserved comeuppance. I plan to be on hand, but no cabbage shall I hurl. Only straws and penny nails.

  10. Karen McConnaughay and Pam Althoff have betrayed us again.

    First it was voting to make IL a Sanctuary State.

    Then it was gun control.

    Now it’s taxpayer funded abortions.

    Do they were dumb?

  11. Sorry I meant “Do they think we’re dumb” meaning the voters.

  12. Ah, the oxycodone electorate, checking in at full strength! A bunch of shaved monkeys, eating their own feces in their overpriced Crystal Lake particleboard shit-castles that they’ll die in, because they paid 3x the true value…

    Sweet, sweet schadenfreude- almost too much for breakfast!

  13. Why would a woman not want to be in a prison with men?

    I don’t know Clarence. I guess rape is just something for “snowflakes” to worry about…

    Very progressive!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.