walsh@ihuxi.UUCP (11/16/83)
In the Chicago Tribune today, the article describing the defeat of the ERA in the House stated "Opponents ... claimed that a vote for the ERA was a vote for abortion." I feel really dumb, because I don't see what one has to do with the other. Could someone explain the opponents' reasons? Is it because once women can no longer be discriminated against, there can never be anti-abortion legislation? Since abortion is already legal, I don't understand this as a reason to be against ERA. But then, I can't understand ANY of the opposing views. B. Walsh
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (11/17/83)
ERA has *nothing* to do with abortion. It's a red herring raised by assorted opponents to (a) whittle down abortion rights even more; (b) throw obnoxious garbage into the ERA in the hopes that people will reject a "christmas tree" amendment; and (c) generally confuse and delay the issue. There are all sorts of other irrelevant amendments that folks attempted to talk on, such as (a) say that it doesn't mean that women can be drafted (it does mean that, actually); (b) say that it has nothing to do with insurance rates (!); (c) say that it doesn't mean that laws that "protect wives and widows" are invalid, etc. I didn't see any reports of amendments saying that the ERA didn't mean that separate-sex bathrooms had to be banned, but I wouldn't be suprised... --Steve Bellovin