Opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment, led by Phyllis Schlafly, center, white coat, march in front of the White House Friday. The group, about 200 strong, were protesting Rosalyn Carter’s campaign for ERA from the executive mansion. [AP]
To the Editor:
The Tampa Bay Times just endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment. But ERA would offer no benefit to women; in fact, the language does not even include the word “women.” ERA instead would enforce equality on the basis of “sex” without defining what sex means. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Phyllis Schlafly both agreed that ERA would make all laws sex-neutral.
The far-reaching consequences of Florida ratifying ERA would be to eliminate the sex differences that favor women in schools, athletics, prisons, shelters, privacy, scholarships, set-asides, sororities, pregnancy and breast-feeding accommodations, and our military forces. Does anyone think that combining men and women in prisons would benefit women? ERA would also guarantee taxpayer-funded abortions, as has happened under state ERAs in New Mexico and Connecticut.
ERA died in 1979 for good reasons; the more Americans learned the pernicious effects of a government enforcing sex-neutrality, the more Americans oppose ERA. ERA would give enormous power to the Judiciary to parse the meaning of “sex” in every law. Section Two of ERA would transfer enormous power to Congress to enforce sex-neutrality.
As my mother, Phyllis Schlafly, said, ERA attempts to repeal human nature. The important differences between men and women should not be ignored.
Anne Schlafly Cori
chairman, Eagle Forum