Once the great white hope of feminists, now the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is the great hope of those who want to eliminate the ladies’ room, women’s sports, and women.
This from frontpagemag.com.
A coalition of more than 100 lawmakers wrote a letter on Sunday urging Biden to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which would outlaw gender discrimination in the Constitution.
Congress members penned:
We must continue our efforts to fully affirm and recognize the equality of rights for all people, regardless of sex, as part of our Constitution, a vital effort that has never been more urgent.
“People.” Not women. Which people do they mean? Men in dresses.
Reps. Cori Bush (C/G-MO) and Ayanna Pressley (C/G-MA), co-chairs of the Congressional Caucus for the Equal Rights Amendment, have long advocated for Biden to take action toward instating equal rights under the law.
They cited concerns for gender-affirming health care requested by transgender minors and the rise in state abortion bans as reasons to ratify the amendment.
The ERA would not stop abortion bans, but it would be a very useful tool in fighting efforts against castrating young boys.
The origins of the ERA were a pretty straightforward effort to prevent legal discrimination against women. Its original backers would have been horrified at the idea of reducing the ERA and womens’ rights to a defense of killing children, let alone to reducing it to the rights of men to pretend to be women.
Let’s for a moment go back to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s defense of the ERA:
As a sample of laws destined for the scrap heap if the amendment is ratified, consider these:
Arizona law stipulates that the governor, secretary of state, and treasurer must be male. In Ohio only men may serve as arbitrators in county court proceedings. In Wisconsin barbers are licensed to cut men’s hair and women’s hair, but cosmeticians may attend to women only.
Note the lack of interest in the current sine qua non of feminism… abortion. The focus is largely on wage and legal parity. She does however raise and dismiss the bathroom question.
Final horrible. Rest rooms in public places could not be sex separated. Emphatically not so, according to the amendment’s proponents in Congress, who were amused at the focus on the “potty problem.”
Apart from referring to the constitutional regard for personal privacy, they expressed curiosity about the quarter from which objections to current arrangements would come. Did the people who voiced concern suppose that men would want to use women’s rest rooms or that women would want to use men’s?
Ironically, RBG lived just long enough to see an answer to her question as to why men would ever want to use women’s rest rooms.
Support for the ERA is now reducible to having men in the ladies’ room.
Final thought: The ERA, in its present form, is senseless. For this reason, We the People must anticipate Biden—in front of the direction of BHO behind the screen—signing this insult to America.
