“Equality of rights under
the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on
account of sex.” For reasons beyond my understanding, the state of Illinois has
never been able to ratify these 24 simple words. If Illinois does ratify the
ERA, it will be 35 years late.
This Monday, saying “Better
late than Never” and hoping that Illinois would finally get it right, I got on
the El Monday, May 7th to attend the Hearing of the human rights
committee of the Illinois House on SJRCA4.
The Illinois Senate had
passed SJRCA4, the bill that would have Illinois ratify the federal ERA. An ERA
for the state of Illinois has been part of the state constitution since 1970.
The bill is now before the House. I needed to witness the state of Illinois making
history at long last. After all, Abigail Adams had beseeched her husband John
Adams to “remember the ladies” in a letter to him on March 31, 1776. They
didn’t listen to her and women have been omitted from the Constitution ever
since. It was about time.
What I witnessed,
however, was probably not Illinois making history but rather reliving it. The
room of viewers was packed predominantly with proponents of the ERA. Four
panels of witnesses – twenty altogether – had the opportunity to tell the
members of the House human rights committee what their opinions were regarding
the ERA and about their life experiences that pointed to its necessity. Sixteen
people testified in favor and four testified against it.
The arguments were the
same as they had been in the 1970’s. Rep. Lou Lang, chief sponsor of the bill,
started off presenting cogent arguments. The state and federal government
needed to ratify the ERA to protect women’s rights. At present, the only right
for women delineated in the Constitution is the right to vote. Laws passed
which give equal rights to both sexes can be repealed at any time. The
opposition gave the same old arguments: that the ERA would lead to more
abortions, unisex bathrooms, and a groundswell of boys demanding to play on
girls’ high school LaCrosse teams. The ERA states nothing about any of those
issues.
After each panel, the
House members were able to ask the panelists questions. One house member Mary
Flowers asked the same questions to each panel member after a tirade about how
the ERA would not specifically protect women of color. Each panel member
explained how it would protect all American women but wouldn’t explicitly
protect women of color from racist discrimination. The bill is about sex, not
race. The vociferousness with which Ms. Flowers presented her arguments
suggested to me that some behind the scenes horse trading to which the public
was not privy was most likely going on. The failure of the Illinois House to
make some bargain was what doomed the ERA to failure in Illinois in the 1970’s.
I hope that I wasn’t seeing Illinois history
repeat itself. At this writing, a hearing in Springfield in the Illinois House is
in process. There’s still time to call your representatives and tell them to
vote YES. All of us American women – white, black, Asian, Latina, native
American, pink, green, or whatever – deserve better. It’s about time.