The Equal Rights Amendment has attracted national attention in recent days. The Republican Party at its National Convention removed from its platform support for the ERA. Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan made it clear that the GOP was not thereby removing its support for women’s rights, but was, in fact, promoting women’s rights by protecting women from some of the abuses which are certain to result from passage of the ERA. He also pointed out that women have achieved many of their rights, such as equal pay for equal work (contrary to what the noisy ERA proponents are saying), and whatever wrongs remain to be corrected (if there are any) can be resolved by individual legislation.

The State of Iowa Republican Party similarly removed support of an ERA plank from its platform. The citizens of Iowa, however, will be put to a critical test when on November 4, 1980 they will be voting on an Equal Rights Amendment to the state constitution which says:

All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. Neither the State nor any of its political subdivisions shall, on the basis of gender, deny or restrict the equality of rights under the law.

   

At first glance, the amendment sounds generous and harmless. But a clear examination reveals that the amendment is dangerously ambiguous and broad. We are living in a time of social revolution and there is abundant evidence that the feminists and pro-abortionists stand ready to exploit this amendment on the federal and state levels to advance their goals. They parade the amendment as new “rights” for women when actually the amendment removes privileges from and increases the responsibilities for women.

A Deceptive Defense of Abortion

Abortion is one of the “rights” that feminists hope to cement into the constitution by federal and state ERA amendments. Abortion pioneer Lawrence Lader, in his book Abortion II, Making the Revolution makes the following statements:

No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her own body . . . I was convinced that abortion must be completely legalized as a backup emergency measure to contraception . . . the biggest step was to demand legalization as an inalienable right of woman, protected by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

The pro-abortionists rationalize their position by insisting that since a man does not have to bear a child, a woman must have the “equal right” not to bear a child. If she finds herself pregnant, she should have constitutional protection and federal funding to abort her child. The language of the federal and state ERA amendments are broad enough to allow this interpretation of their provisions by any court.

Passage of the federal and state ERA amendments would also jeopardize the conscience clauses which now give hospitals and medical personnel the right to refuse to perform abortions. It could in fact, make it mandatory that hospitals and personnel perform abortions.

In an attempt to get their amendment passed, many pro·ERA enthusiasts insist that such interpretation will not be made by the courts. But it is important to remember that an amendment will be interpreted by the language in which it is couched not by the wishful thinking of some of its proponents. If ERA can be interpreted to give a women her rights to abortion and federal or state funding for the same, it will be interpreted this way.

It is naive to think that feminists and pro-abortion organizations such as NOW (National Organization of Women), Planned Parenthood, National Abortion Rights Action League and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are not exploiting the ERA for their own purposes. Betty Friedan, founder of the NOW organization, fearing that some future Supreme Court may overturn the infamous decision to permit abortion taken by the Supreme Court in 1973, states:

as for reliance on future Supreme Courts that’s the reason we need ERA. If ERA goes through, no Supreme Court can overturn the decision of 1973.

Other Abuses of Women

There are other changes which could result from the passage of ERA. On a national level, it could become impossible for a woman to draw social security benefits on her husband’s earnings. This would force her out of her home into the labor force to earn her own income on which to claim future benefits.

On a national level, it could become imperative for women to be drafted and to be assigned to combat duty. The Yale Law Journal article of 1971, one of the best sources for understanding the purposes and effects of ERA says:

1. The amendment permits no exceptions . . . women will serve in all kinds of units . . . including combat duty. (p. 978) 2. Neither the right to privacy nor any unique physical characteristic justifies different treatment of the sexes . . . pregnancy justifies only slightly different conditions of service for women. (p. 969) 3. It will require the military to see women as it sees men. (p. 970) 4. All standards will have to be sex neutral. (p. 971)

A Threat to Religious Freedom

As a result of the passage of either the national or state ERA, churches could lose their tax-exempt status for refocusing to ordain women to the offices of pastor, elder or deacon. Feminist movement NOW, in its leadership manual, Revolution: Tomorrow is NOW, states: We demand that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act be amended so that religious groups no longer have legal sanctions to discriminate on the basis of sex.

A constitutional amendment such as ERA would meet their demands.

A Moral Threat

As a result of the passage of ERA, men and women could lose privacy in restroom privileges in public places.

Women could lose the special courtesies they are shown in places where they work. Divorce laws would no longer favor the mother in alimony and child custody rights. Homosexuals would also be given the right to marry, adopt children and teach our children.

Many pro-ERA enthusiasts deny that these things could happen as a result of the passage of national and state ERA amendments, but history has shown that all these changes are in the plans of those who are working overtime to effect massive social change.

Several years age former Senator Sam Ervin, chairman of the committee on Watergate proceedings, offered amendments to the national ERA which would allow for reasonable and beneficial distinctions for women under ERA. On behalf of women he proposed:

1. exemptions from the draft and combat duty, 2. preservation of protective labor legislation (much of which was won by the original “women‘s movement”), 3. preservation of laws which allow mothers, widows, or wives to remain in the home, 4. support from the fat her or spouse, 5. retain privacy between men and women, 6. maintenance of laws which make sex offenses against women punishable as crimes, and finally 7. an amendment that would recognize the physiological or functional differences between men and women.

All of these amendments were defeated! This shows how much headway the feminist movements have made in the federal government of this country.

The Equal Rights Amendment could better be renamed the Equal Responsibilities Amendment because it robs women of a privileged and protected position and places on them burdens and responsibilities which have been assigned by God to the husband as protector and provider.

Let no one think that there is other legislation which will protect women. Because ERA is a proposed amendment to a constitution, it takes precedence over ay existing legislation which grants special consideration to the physiological or functional differences of women.

Needed Action

On April 21, 1972 the Iowa State Legislature made a hasty decision to ratify the federal ERA with very little solicitation of the reactions of Iowa citizens. May the State of Iowa not make another perilous decision because of the inaction of Iowa citizens when they face an important referendum on this issue on November 4. I invite and urge concerned citizens of Iowa to write me to find out what concrete action they can take to defeat t his amendment.

Let those who do not face a state ERA drive please pray that the federal ERA may not receive the ratification it needs from 3 more states before June 1, 1982 in order to become law. It must be defeated for the preservation of God’s revealed will as it applies to church, family and national life.

The address of Mrs. Vanden Heuvel, writer of this article and editor of this department, is 207 Kansas, N. W. , Orange City, Iowa 51041.