[net.politics] Rights under the ERA

kew@burdvax.UUCP (Karen Wieckert) (10/04/84)

During the ERA hearings last year, most objections to the ERA centered 
around two issues:  abortion and the military.  I believe opposing the 
ratification of the ERA because of the "vague" language actually boils 
down to views on these two issues.

First, at this point, although abortion is legal, it is legal based upon
grounds of the viability of the fetus, not on the unalienable rights of the
mother.  If the language in ERA does not explicitly deny a women's "right"
to have an abortion, opponents fear that the ERA will forever allow women
that right.  This is an area open to interpretation, although I think it
is quite straight forward (but then I do not wish to outlaw abortion).

Second, men in this country "enjoy" the right of being drafted to serve in
the military, and in particular are allowed to serve in "combat" positions
from which women are explicitly excluded.  Those who oppose the drafting of
women into military service or allowing women to serve in combat positions
want these prohibitions explicitly stated in the ERA.  I believe, requiring
"the other half of the population" to carry this burden seems quite unfair.
Also, those fit for combat should be allowed to serve in combat and, on the
other hand, those not fit for combat should not be forced into it,
regardless of their sex.

This is beside the issue, but  I was in Washington last year working in the
House and I attended the ERA hearings.  The hearings included an entire 
panel of women from the military who were pilots, nurses, doctors, clerks,
Coast Guard captains, etc.  A major problems these women faced in their
military careers was the reclassification of positions for which they were
training into combat positions.  For example, at one point the women who was 
a pilot was allowed to fly transport planes, then transport pilot was
classified as combat, and then reverted back to noncombat.  I'm not sure 
what state it is in now.  In many instances, positions are classified as
non-combat when few men are available to fill them.  In the early 80s in 
particular, when many men (and women for that matter) were joining the
military because of a dearth of civilian jobs, many non-combat positions were
reclassified to combat, since there were plenty of men to fill them.  

Nonetheless, the hearings were fascinating.  They made me despise a few 
politicians however.

Ka:ren