SJRCA 0004 Equal Rights Amendment
Gov. Rauner signed into law HB40, the massive taxpayer funding of
abortion bill last month. Now anti-life forces want to pass a so-called
Equal Rights Amendment or ERA in the General Assembly that
would lock in abortion rights in the U.S. Constitution and would cause
HB40 type taxpayer funding of abortions in every state in our country
and the federal budget. Contact your State Representative and urge him or her to vote NO on the ERA!
There is a renewed push to pass the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the
Illinois veto session that begins on October 24th, 2017. Supporters of
the ERA are targeting legislators and threatening to run candidates
against them in the upcoming elections if they don't vote for the ERA.
To counter these tactics, your Illinois state legislators need to hear from you. They need to hear your continued encouragement for them to vote against the ERA, and they need to know you will support them if they vote no on the ERA. Please remind them that the poorly worded ERA will harm women, harm our unborn children, and harm our society.
The ERA will harm our unborn children by overturning all restrictions on abortions and mandating taxpayer funding for elective medicaid abortions.
Please click here to contact your State Senator and State Representative by phone and email and encourage them to vote no on the ERA (Bill #SJRCA0004). If they have previously told you they will vote against the ERA, please contact them and encourage them to stay firm in their conviction to vote against the ERA. Let them know you will support them in their no vote and in the elections.
Click here for contact information for your Senator and Representative.
To counter these tactics, your Illinois state legislators need to hear from you. They need to hear your continued encouragement for them to vote against the ERA, and they need to know you will support them if they vote no on the ERA. Please remind them that the poorly worded ERA will harm women, harm our unborn children, and harm our society.
The ERA will harm our unborn children by overturning all restrictions on abortions and mandating taxpayer funding for elective medicaid abortions.
Please click here to contact your State Senator and State Representative by phone and email and encourage them to vote no on the ERA (Bill #SJRCA0004). If they have previously told you they will vote against the ERA, please contact them and encourage them to stay firm in their conviction to vote against the ERA. Let them know you will support them in their no vote and in the elections.
Click here for contact information for your Senator and Representative.
THE ERA-ABORTION CONNECTION
Consider, for example, the case of New Mexico, which in 1973 adopted a state ERA (“Equality of rights under law shall not be denied on account of the sex of any person”) virtually identical to the federal language that SCR 194/HCR 109 purports to ratify. In New Mexico, this ERA language was subsequently used as the sole basis for a successful attack the state policy against tax-funding of abortion. In 1998, every justice on the New Mexico Supreme Court agreed that the state ERA makes it unconstitutional for the state Medicaid program to refuse to fund “medically necessary” abortions (which simply means any abortion performed by a licensed medical professional) if procedures sought by men (e.g., prostate surgery) are funded. The case was NM Right to Choose / NARAL v. Johnson, No. 1999-NMSC-005 – you can read or download it here: http://nrlc.org/uploads/era/ERANewMexicoSupremeCourt.pdf. (Moreover, similar arguments regarding tax-funding of abortion have been accepted by some courts in other states, including Connecticut.)
The New Mexico Supreme Court based its ruling solely on the state ERA, and the justices merely adopted the construction of the ERA urged upon it in briefs submitted by Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the ACLU, the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, and the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. The doctrine that the ERA language invalidates limitations on tax-funded abortion was also supported in briefs filed by the state Women's Bar Association, Public Health Association, and League of Women Voters.
Writing for the unanimous court, Justice Pamela Minzner wrote that
“there is no comparable restriction on medically necessary services
relating to physical characteristics or conditions that are unique to
men. Indeed, we can find no provision in the Department’s regulations
that disfavor any comparable, medically necessary procedure unique to
the male anatomy . . . .[the restriction on funding abortions]
undoubtedly singles out for less favorable treatment a gender-linked
condition that is unique to women.”
It should be obvious that this same analysis – that limits specific to abortion are by definition a form of sex discrimination and therefore impermissible under ERA – can be used to invalidate any federal or state restrictions even on partial-birth abortions or third-trimester abortions (since these are sought “only by women”); the federal and state “conscience laws,” which allow government-supported medical facilities and personnel -- including religiously affiliated hospitals -- to refuse to participate in abortions; and parental notification and consent laws. Indeed, the ACLU “Reproductive Freedom Project” has published a booklet that encourages pro-abortion lawyers to use state ERAs as legal weapons against state parental notification and consent laws.
When questioned about the New Mexico ruling and other such rulings, some ERA proponents reply that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously reviewed abortion-related restrictions under a “privacy right” analysis, and ruled (5-4, in 1980) that this “privacy right” does not invalidate a law (the Hyde Amendment) restricting federal Medicaid funding of abortion. They go on to assert that the proposed federal ERA would not “change” these past “privacy” rulings. But this argument is transparently evasive, wholly begging the question. Obviously, past U.S. Supreme Court rulings on abortion issues have dealt only with the current U.S. Constitution – without the ERA’s absolute prohibition on abridgement of “rights” on the basis of “sex.” Whatever one thinks of the Supreme Court’s “privacy” doctrine, that doctrine is irrelevant to the question of what legal impact the ERA itself – as a new constitutional provision -- would have on future cases involving abortion-related laws, when ERA-based challenges come before judges.
For additional documentation on the ERA-abortion connection, see the NRLC website at http://www.nrlc.org/federal/era.
It should be obvious that this same analysis – that limits specific to abortion are by definition a form of sex discrimination and therefore impermissible under ERA – can be used to invalidate any federal or state restrictions even on partial-birth abortions or third-trimester abortions (since these are sought “only by women”); the federal and state “conscience laws,” which allow government-supported medical facilities and personnel -- including religiously affiliated hospitals -- to refuse to participate in abortions; and parental notification and consent laws. Indeed, the ACLU “Reproductive Freedom Project” has published a booklet that encourages pro-abortion lawyers to use state ERAs as legal weapons against state parental notification and consent laws.
When questioned about the New Mexico ruling and other such rulings, some ERA proponents reply that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously reviewed abortion-related restrictions under a “privacy right” analysis, and ruled (5-4, in 1980) that this “privacy right” does not invalidate a law (the Hyde Amendment) restricting federal Medicaid funding of abortion. They go on to assert that the proposed federal ERA would not “change” these past “privacy” rulings. But this argument is transparently evasive, wholly begging the question. Obviously, past U.S. Supreme Court rulings on abortion issues have dealt only with the current U.S. Constitution – without the ERA’s absolute prohibition on abridgement of “rights” on the basis of “sex.” Whatever one thinks of the Supreme Court’s “privacy” doctrine, that doctrine is irrelevant to the question of what legal impact the ERA itself – as a new constitutional provision -- would have on future cases involving abortion-related laws, when ERA-based challenges come before judges.
For additional documentation on the ERA-abortion connection, see the NRLC website at http://www.nrlc.org/federal/era.
Again, please click here to contact
your State Senator and State Representative by phone and email and
encourage them to vote no on the ERA (Bill #SJRCA0004). If they have
previously told you they will vote against the ERA, please contact them
and encourage them to stay firm in their conviction to vote against the
ERA. Let them know you will support them in their no vote and in the
elections.
