Gloria Steinem: The Roe v. Wade Overturn Has Made Ratifying the ERA More Urgent Than Ever

[FM123]

(snips from a long interview)

Gloria Steinem: First of all, on the global level, I would point out that we are the only democracy in the world that does not have women in its Constitution, which is a travesty in itself. Then, on the more individual level, there are many situations in which the ERA’s absence is felt, whether with regard to property or privacy rights, or others.

snip

What role could the ERA have in helping to curb the assault on women’s reproductive freedom, with Roe having fallen?

If democracy means anything, it means decision-making power over our own bodies—and that means equal decision-making power. Can men be forbidden to have a vasectomy? So why are women uniquely governed—in terms our physical selves—by various state laws? Well, the answer is because we have a womb. We happen to have the one thing guys don’t. And when you look back in history at authoritarian movements around the world, you learn that often the first thing they have done is to outlaw abortion and declare family planning a crime against the state.

What would the ERA do to boost women’s reproductive rights?

It would strengthen rights around our own bodies. The issue of fetal rights would not arise until a fetus could survive outside of women’s bodies. Right now fetal rights do apply, even though the fetus is 100 percent dependent on women’s hearts and lungs and circulation and so on. But it would not come into play until the fetus was at the point of viability. I mean, in a way that’s the kind of popular, sensible understanding already, even though there are differences on the idea of when viability arrives.

What do you think its chances are of passing the Senate now?

Many legal experts think it doesn’t even need to pass the Senate. They say the National Archivist can simply enact it, but so far he hasn’t done that. But one way or the other, we’ve got to get it done!

Read More:

https://www.oprahdaily.com/entertainment/books/a39860562/now-that-roe-v-wade-has-been-overturned-ratifying-the-era-is-urgent-says-gloria-steinem/

[mopinko]

1. i always thought the way they pointed to abortion access as the likely outcome of the era

didnt mean what they thought it meant.

[Hortensis]

2. Steinem style: Using disaster to double down on goals. Go, Gloria!

[spooky3]

3. I always learn something from Gloria Steinem Nt

[DURHAM D]

4. Amen nt

[BumRushDaShow]

5. Last year, the House passed a bill to remove the expiration time for passage

H.J.Res.17 - Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment.

I found the Senate has a companion resolution introduced this past January (2022) but they haven't acted on it -

S.J.Res.1 - A joint resolution removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment

[Polybius]

7. The states that have rescinded could be an issue too

Can states rescind before an amendment is ratified? The SC would have to decide.

[BumRushDaShow]

8. That I know...

and I don't know how they are going to handle those rescinds... And even how to handle the "extensions".

There have been calls to "start over" and that will be the end of it for sure if that has to happen.

[Polybius]

10. As for the date, RGB in 2019 or so said that they have to start over

She basically said that it expired with the expiration date, and how could you extend something that's already expired?

I'm out right now and don't have a link, but I can get you one later.

[BumRushDaShow]

11. I remember her saying it

But guess what? Congress can pass anything they want and make it retroactive as long as the President signs it.

How the courts interpret that is a different matter.

Article V that has the procedure, is pretty straight forward where there was no time limited required -

Article V


The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlev

Except what happened, when the original ERA passed Congress, it included a legislative timeline, but one not incorporated in the text of the actual amendment, and that is where the opinions diverge on what happens next. In fact, the 27th Amendment, that suddenly bubbled up after a couple hundred years, ended up going into effect in the '90s when it was found the process had started but hadn't completed, and then a few more states signed on when they discovered it, and Congress went on and accepted the validity of the previous ratifications through new resolutions, and the 27th became final.

The CRS has a good write-up on this here that I remember reading a couple years ago - https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42979 (PDF)

[Buckeyeblue]

6. Didn't we recently get a new National Archivist?

The question is does a proposed amendment have a time limit?

[FM123]

9. Just found this May 23rd article from Los Angeles Times

Finalizing the ERA is the clearest path forward for abortion rights.

The Senate, though generally an unproductive quagmire of late, should have at least 52 yes votes on a House-approved resolution eliminating the original ratification deadline placed in the proposing clause of the ERA. That would help remove any lingering doubt opponents try to drum up about its legitimacy. Biden should use a majority vote on the ERA, which has bipartisan co-sponsorship, as evidence that Congress supports the archivist publishing the ERA, once and for all.

ERA opponents frequently decry its enormous potential to protect reproductive rights and freedom. They’re not wrong. New Mexico’s state Supreme Court struck down a law (akin to the federal Hyde Amendment) that prohibited government-funded coverage of abortion, basing its ruling on the state’s ERA. Other states have had similar successes under their state-level ERAs — a good sign for future abortion litigation on the federal level with the ERA in place.

In addition to completely changing the landscape for the courts, a federal ERA would also provide a constitutional hook for Congress to pass laws that not only “codify Roe” but also move beyond the limited privacy framework to support the rights of women and other marginalized genders nationwide.

With five dedicated antiabortion “originalists” on the Supreme Court, the only thing we can do to protect abortion rights permanently is to change the constitutional text. Even originalists have to concede that Article V exists, creating a way to edit the Constitution. If we at long last finalize the ERA, we can achieve abortion access based on equal citizenship.

Read More:
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-05-23/roe-abortion-equal-rights-amendment

[BumRushDaShow]

12. "Senate...should have at least 52 yes votes on a House-approved resolution"

But "52" ain't enough to break cloture.

I posted upthread that the Senate also introduced their own (pretty much identical) resolution in January - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=16845674

Here are the House and Senate Resolutions (the House one passed in March 2021) -

H.J.Res.17 - Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment. (ROLL CALL VOTE HERE 4 (R)s voted for it)

S.J.Res.1 - A joint resolution removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment

[FM123]

13. Yes. That 52 votes conversation is still not resolved.

Some folks believe that even without that, all President Biden has to do is just publish it....

Professor Laurence Tribe’s analysis stated:

“My conclusion as a constitutional scholar is that the ERA is currently a valid part of the United States Constitution, that Congress should act concurrently to recognize it as such, and that even if Congress takes no such action the Archivist should publish it as the Twenty-Eighth Amendment.”

https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/on-50th-anniversary-of-congress-passing-the-era-chairwoman-maloney-presses

[BumRushDaShow]

14. I posted upthread here

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=16846100

a link to the Congressional Research Service's analysis in 2019 that laid out all the different scenarios (starting about pg. 19) - https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42979 (PDF)

Of note on pg 24 -

Advocates of congressional authority over the amendment process might also note the fact that
Congress has acted on several occasions in the course of, or after, the ratification process by the
states to assert its preeminent authority under Article V in determining ratification procedures. 106
For instance, on July 21, 1868, Congress passed a resolution that declared the Fourteenth
Amendment to have been duly ratified and directed Secretary of State William Seward to
promulgate it as such. Congress had previously received a message from the Secretary reporting
that 28 of 37 states then in the Union had ratified the amendment, but that 2 of the 28 ratifying
states had subsequently passed resolutions purporting to rescind their ratifications, and the
legislatures of 3 others had approved the amendment only after previously rejecting earlier
ratification resolutions. Congress considered these issues but proceeded to declare the ratification
process complete.107 Congress similarly exercised its authority over the process less than two
years later when it confirmed the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment by resolution passed on
March 30, 1870.108 Congress exercised its authority over the amendment process again in 1992
when it declared the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, the so-called “Madison Amendment,” to have
been ratified, an event examined in the next section of this report.

[FM123]

15. Yes, thank you for the links!

There certainly are a lot of scenarios!

[BumRushDaShow]

16. You're welcome

It's good to have several paths to pursue and it seems some in Congress are trying different things...