IN ILLINOIS, IT’S . . . ERA YES
Legislature approves Equal Rights Amendment, bringing ’ 70s women’s- rights cause closer to national adoption
SPRINGFIELD — The Illinois House made history on Wednesday, allowing for the state to become the 37th in the country to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment designed to protect Americans against discrimination based on their sex.
Nearly a century after the amendment was drafted, the Illinois House voted 72- 45 to ratify it following more than two hours of debate. Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan stood behind the speaker’s podium in the House chambers to watch the historic vote. The Illinois Senate voted to approve it in April.
While the vote may be symbolic — the country needs one more state to ratify the amendment — the state’s passage creates a window of opportunity for the embattled constitutional amendment.
The state is where the efforts seized in 1982. Only 35 of the necessary 38 states ratified the amendment before the 1979 deadline set by Congress. The deadline was extended to 1982, but Illinois and other states remained firmly against the proposal.
After the state Senate approved the ERA in April, Deputy Majority Leader Lou Lang and Republican state Rep. Steven Andersson, RGeneva, took time to try to muster the bipartisan 71 votes needed to approve the constitutional amendment.
Lawmakers shared impassioned personal stories of their upbringings, their daughters and their lives in the military.
The amendment declares that equality of rights will not be denied by the U. S. or any state on account of sex. It was originally introduced in Congress in 1923 and was sent to the states for ratification 46 years ago.
Opponents feared it could mean unisex bathrooms, allowing men to compete on women’s sports teams or doing away with athletic competition based on gender differences. They’ve also argued women already have all the protections they need under the law and that this proposed change to the Constitution could only hurt them, rather than help women achieve pay equity.
Lang called the vote a historic moment for Illinois and told those against it to “spare the hair on fire routine” about what the amendment will do.
“It’s going to be nothing to hurt the fabric of America because all it says is give women the same rights men have in the United States of America,” Lang said.
State Rep. Jeanne Ives — who was narrowly defeated by Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner in the March primary — argued that women are already guaranteed protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Ives, R- Wheaton, said it’s up to men to stop domestic abuse, trafficking, discrimination in the workplace and sexual harassment.
“We have the rules on the books. What we need is great men to stand up and protect women,” Ives said.
Opponents have argued the ERA is really just a smokescreen to allow unfettered access to taxpayerfunded abortions. And state Rep. Peter Breen, R- Lombard, argued that’s the real reason behind the amendment.
The ERA was drafted by Alice Paul, a lawyer, in 1923. But she died before seeing it passed.
Breen said supporters of the ERA have “twisted her [ Paul’s] language into a mechanism for abortion — something that Ms. Paul never would have stood for. “
Rep. Sue Scherer said she’s a mother of three daughters and a grandmother to four granddaughters. Scherer, D- Decatur, said she listened to several Catholic, pro- life friends and family.
“Every time I asked I got the same answer. They said it’s time to quit using pro- life as an excuse to suppress women,” Scherer said. “I dream of a day when all people are treated equally. And I hope that today is that day.”
The road to ratification is not over, even if 38 states approve it. It will likely meet a court challenge. Nevada became the 36th state to approve the amendment earlier this year. With Illinois, that means only one more is needed. But five of the original 35 later claimed to withdraw their support — a change ERA supporters insist is not allowed.
And Congress would have to extend the original deadline needed to ratify.
The issue is hugely political, and Rauner has been careful about voicing support for the amendment.
He has no official role in the ratification. The amendment does not require his signature.
But declaring himself in favor of the amendment would risk further alienating the conservative wing of the Republican Party that he is trying to win back after a divisive primary election against Ives.
And Democrats clearly knew that bringing up the ERA just months ahead of the November election would put Rauner in a tough spot.
But openly opposing the ERA could hurt Rauner’s chances with women voters, particularly the suburban independent women who provided an important part of his winning coalition in 2014.