Drinking the Kool-Aid

Let’s begin by saying that I am Pro-Choice on the Abortion Issue. My reasons for this are very simple. I don’t get pregnant, and I am not willing to adopt any of the millions of children who are already without homes, so I choose to not cast the first stone at those who are Pro-Choice. But, neither do I dismiss the concerns of those who are Anti-Choice. At the same time though, I am not for overturning the Roe vs. Wade ruling which made abortion legal.

Why am I even writing about this? Well, for some unknown reason I receive the e-mails from NARAL, which is some sort of Women’s Rights group. How or why I receive these e-mails is irrelevant; although I wish they would stop sending them as they tend to tick me off. Here’s why.

I just got this one a week or so ago. It concerns the “would be” Governor of Virginia who is Anti-Choice on Abortion. His reasons are that it is comparable to slavery and it is pushing this country towards Civil War. NARAL says you should be infuriated, and to prove it they want you to send them money to stop the plans of this fellow down in Virginia. But they need to bone up on their own history a bit first. 

For starters, they claim he’s nuts for comparing Abortion to Slavery; and I agree. But what they are missing is that Roe v. Wade, which legalized Abortion in America; from sea to shining sea; was decided on the 14^th Amendment, the very one which this fellow in Virginia is claiming as the basis for being Anti-Choice. So, the problem for NARAL is this; if the Court’s decision concerning Roe v. Wade relied on reference to the 14^th Amendment, how can they now be opposed to the very same Amendment?

In Roe v Wade, the justices found, by a vote of 7-2; Justices White and Rehnquist dissented; and the Court found for Roe and upheld her right to abortion in the first trimester (90 days). The Court stated that the 14th Amendment, in Section 1, contained three references to a “person.”

I thought the findings were correct, but have always believed the decision should have been based on Amendments 4, which gives you the right to freedom from undue search and seizure, and to be secure in your homes; and with the 9^th Amendment ceding all rights to you not denied by the Constitution; meaning that they are implied by omission.

So, the views of the “would be” Governor are that a Civil Rights issue; which Abortion is; could set off a conflict not unlike the Civil War, which was the very way in which we got Amendment 14 to begin with. And, if that’s not inconsistent enough for you, the NARAL group is now opposed to the very reasoning by which Roe v. Wade was decided in the first place.

I hope this is clear to you all. Inconsistency is the one thing I have come to expect from my Political leaders and Social advocates. With their minds so firmly set on “winning”, they have lost their intellectual capacity to reason in a consistent manner. And this, I believe, is the biggest threat of all.

The Lilly Ledbetter Act and The Wal-Mart Discrimination Case

When Doris Dukes sued Wal-Mart over unfair wages last year, and lost, something did not seem quite right with the Supreme Court's decision in the case. We all know, or should know, that American women do not have an Equal Rights Amendment. It was passed by Congress in 1973, but never ratified by the Senate. And it has largely been ignored ever since, even by women of both parties who were in a position to do something about it. I'm thinking about both Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton, who, during their respective terms as Secretary of State, travelled the world over talking about Human Rights in every country they visited. Women's Rights were also big on both of their foreign agendas. But never once have I ever heard an American woman, in a position of authority, tackle this seemingly simple issue; Equal pay for equal work.

To his credit, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act into law in January 2009. But, much to the discredit of all those involved in writing that law, they never addressed the employers right to enforce a policy which prohibits an employee from disclosing to another employee, how much they earn for the same job. When Lilly Ledbetter sued Goodyear Tire and Rubber in 2007 this was the very issue at the heart of the matter. The Courts decision essentially told her that she and her fellow female employees had no right to compensation simply because they had learned too late about the discrimination, in other words, it was okay for Goodyear to have not made full disclosure to them about their terms of employment. That was a travesty of justice, as is the Wal-Mart case decision, in which the plaintiffs amounted to more than all of the female members of our Armed Forces, who do receive equal pay by law. Where is the consistency here?

I cannot help but wonder how the Court arrived at their logic in either case. In the Lilly Ledbetter decision it is akin to telling the victim of a crime that they have no civil recourse now, based on the fact that they didn't realize the unfairness with which they were treated at the time. It flies in the face of logic, especially at the present time, when compensation is being awarded to victims of the governments Eugenics Program, in which people were sterilized by court order. Those orders were both legally and morally wrong, and compensation, such as it is, is the correct remedy. What is the difference in the legal principle involved? I fail to see it.

These two episodes have now set the stage for corporations, such as Wal-Mart, to continue to dance about, and skirt the real problem, for years to come. In this election year, all women should be concerned about this inequity. Sadly, the majority seem to be unaware of the entire issue.

Women's Rights - The ERA that Never Was.

Question: What is the total number of registered voters in the US as of the last Presidential election?


The answer is that there are 169 million registered voters in the United States. 86 million are Democrats, and 55 million as Republicans, with about 28 million others unspecified. Of these, in the 2008 election it is estimated that about 131 million persons cast a vote. Of those votes 70 million were women, and 60 odd million were men.

Given these numbers I am constantly amazed at the fact that the ERA has never been Ratified by the Senate, where it has languished since passing the house in 1972. Since that time the Supreme Court decided Roe V. Wade, and then all the hoopla surrounding the passage of the ERA vanished, seemingly overnight. As a matter of fact, there are women in this country who are under the impression that they have the protection offered by such an Ammendment. With a woman Presidential Candidate in 2008, as well as the 17 Senators and 76 Congresswomen currently serving in the Legislative branch of our government, you would think that this would be a high priority issue.

We have had 3 women Secretary's of State who have traveled the world talking about Women's Rights in places like the Middle East and China. But I have never heard any of them mention the lack of an ERA here at home. The same is true of the 35 women serving as Governors of individual states. Here in North Carolina, we have a woman Governor, Beverly Purdue. She has just lost a battle with the Republican state legislature concerning a new 24 hour waiting period for a woman to seek an abortion. The woman must also watch a film and view photos about the negative consequences of abortion. No mention is made of the children born into inescapable poverty, or abuse. My question is, where are all the women on this issue? Why don't I hear more from the leaders of NOW as they have continued, for almost 40 years, to collect money for Women's Rights? Where is the money going? After all, Congresspersons, as well as Senators, are about the cheapest things that money can buy.

I cannot imagine how the women in America have dropped this ball. They need to band together for the 2012 campaign, making this an issue, and demand the passage of the ERA, without watering it down. The text of the Amendment is short and clear;

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.

The ERA was introduced in every session of Congress from 1923 until 1972, when it was passed by Congress, but not Ratified by the Senate, where it had a statute of limitations lasting 7 years for it's passsage. It was even extended an additional 3 years in 1979, but still never Ratified. It was still, at that time, only 3 votes short of becoming the law of the land. It has been re-introduced, and soundly defeated in every Congress since. Why?

Here's the dirty little secret that keeps this Amendment from becoming law. The wording is not limited to just women. It includes all the Gay Lesbian Transgender and Transsexual groups. By its wording it is all inclusive. Should the wording be changed to cover only Women? That would be short sighted and foolishly split the disenfranchised groups asunder, making it impossible to gain any advantage, and perhaps in the process, even roll back some of the Women's Rights that have been gained since the 1970's.

No issue is as easy to tackle as it first appears on the surface. But this is one that needs to be resolved if we are to going to continue roaming the world talking about Equal Rights for Women, as well as Human Rights for All. I urge you to call upon your respective leaders in the Congress and Senate to put this issue to rest. A state by state listing of your lawmakers is attached below. I hope that you will use it.

For your Senator, go to this site;

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

For your Congressional Representative, go to this site;

http://www.house.gov/representatives/