Do you support the 28th Amendment, the "Equal Rights Amendment" ? (Poll)

[j-mac]

It's the 14th that already establishes equal protection under the law.

Exactly my point. Equality is already codified in the constitution

 

[Moonglow]

As Biden heads out the WH door he makes a statement that the 28th Amendment is ratified. This will be a legal battle.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/17/politics/joe-biden-equal-right-amendment/index.html

Biden says Equal Rights Amendment is ratified, kicking off expected legal battle as he pushes through final executive actions​

“He is using his power of the presidency to make it clear that he believes – and he agrees with leading constitutional scholars and the American Bar Association – not that it should be, but it is the 28th Amendment of the Constitution,” the official added.
But legal experts contend it isn’t that simple: Ratification deadlines lapsed and five states have rescinded their approval, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s law school, prompting questions about the president’s authority to ratify the amendment more than 50 years after it first passed.
Biden is leaning on the American Bar Association’s opinion, the senior Biden official said, which “stresses that no time limit was included in the text of the Equal Rights Amendment” and “stresses that the Constitution’s framers wisely avoided the chaos that would have resulted if states were able to take back the ratifying votes at any time.”

My opinion is that Trump needs to evaluate what happens if the 28th is ratified. Does it make any difference in 2024? Will it hurt business?

The ERA Solidifies Women’s Rights in the Constitution as the 28th Amendment

The federal government has finally recognized the Equal Rights Amendment as the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ushering in a whole new era for gender parity in this country.

www.americanprogress.org

Much ado about nothing? Or, will it open the flood gates to frivolous lawsuits?

The time clause for the amendment ran out long ago.

 

[Couchpotato]

Divided bathrooms are actually a fairly recent thing. Everyone peed in the same bathrooms prior to the 1890s.

But they are divided. And they are divided for a reason. And that reason has nothing to do with your "gender". I put it in quotes because people like you keep changing the meaning of words including that one.

Society got along just fine with unisex bathrooms (or privies, as they were called back then.)

See above.

It's stupid to deny women equal treatment under the law and then say, "But you don't have to pee next to a tranny, so be happy with your 86% earnings!"

Women arent denied equal treatment under the law. Which laws are enforced differently for women than men. Go.

 

[hadit]

Women don't have equal rights by the law.

Yay, another blanket statement with no backing, not even an example. Specify which law does what you say they are doing.

The NY people with special rights have been white men. Providing equal rights for others isn't giving them special rights. You are here saying you support restricting rights and don't want to be called a fascist.

Again, which laws?

 

[hadit]

If it doesn't say yes or no then the default answer is no, Congress cannot implement a time frame.

Then it was badly written and should not be passed in its current form. Rewrite it to pass muster and resubmit it.

 

[martybegan]

Society isn't going to collapse because a tranny peed in the lady's room.

Small cracks in the wall lead to larger cracks and to the wall coming down.

 

[Rawley]

but not for the reasons you guys think (that Globby the Fetus is a person.)

We weren't talking about us "guys" Contrary to ridiculous lie that only "morons" believed Roe was a bad decision, you've just admitted your Goddess RBG thought it was a fundamentally flawed decision.

 

[Winston]

Then it was badly written and should not be passed in its current form. Rewrite it to pass muster and resubmit it.

Rewrite the Constitution?

 

[hadit]

Rewrite the Constitution?

No, the amendment.

 

[Winston]

No, the amendment.

Wow, just wow. The ignorance is astonishing. Here is a clue, look up the definition of "amendment".

 

[hadit]

Wow, just wow. The ignorance is astonishing. Here is a clue, look up the definition of "amendment".

If people can't agree on what an amendment means or if it's not written correctly, just rewrite it so people agree and resubmit it. You don't just announce decades after the fact that it passed when it didn't.

 

[JoeB131]

Except that it does. There's nothing in the 14th amendment that would allow the government to enforce a law differently for one person vs another based on anything, including their sex, gender, eye color, foot size, or any other immutable or immutable characteristic.


This claim has been debunked so many times it's laughable.

If the ERA Is as meaningless as you say, you should have no problem adding it to the constitution.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Except it really doesn't.

As demonstrated by the fact that women only make 83% of what men make.

It's not possible for even YOU to believe that long-refuted lie.

This claim has been debunked so many times it's laughable.

He knows. Buit he does not care: Joey is a propagandist, in the tradition of Goebbels: The Big Lie. Joey will look at a turd, insist it's a diamond, and call you a racist/sexist/homophobe/Mormon/whatever when you point out that it stinks.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

You are claiming what you want to be true to be so, without evidence. And you don't want to be called an idiot and liar, which you are.

You have just summed up the very essence of leftism. Excellent.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Only if they are complete fucking idiots.

Oh, wait, Trump supporters.

The dems and their media have made you believe abortion was a constitutional right for forty years. It never was. They’re doing the same thing here. Wake up lemming.

 

[JoeB131]

The dems and their media have made you believe abortion was a constitutional right for forty years. It never was. They’re doing the same thing here. Wake up lemming.

Actually, as a pragmatic thing, it's always been a right.

If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she will find a way to be not be pregnant. Just like women (and men) finds ways to take drugs, or be a prostitute, or drink alcohol.

You see, you guys forget what was actually accomplished with Roe and Doe 52 years ago.

The law caught up with reality.

 

[Couchpotato]

Actually, as a pragmatic thing, it's always been a right.

Everyone has the right to do anything they want absent a law prohibiting it.

If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she will find a way to be not be pregnant. Just like women (and men) finds ways to take drugs, or be a prostitute, or drink alcohol.

And yet those things are illegal (minus the alcohol). And in all those cases the person being harmed is only the person engaging in the activity at least directly. Not so with abortion.

You see, you guys forget what was actually accomplished with Roe and Doe 52 years ago.

The law caught up with reality.

Murder happens too should we just legalize it since people are going to murder anyway?

 

[JoeB131]

Everyone has the right to do anything they want absent a law prohibiting it.

Except when a law doesn't pass common sense, the law becomes meaningless.

Let's take prostitution. Consider the absurdity of prostitution laws. I meet a woman in a bar, and we go home and have sex. I never see her again. Not a crime.
I meet a woman in a bar and pay her $300.00, we go home and have sex. I never see her again. This is suddenly a crime? Why?

And yet those things are illegal (minus the alcohol). And in all those cases the person being harmed is only the person engaging in the activity at least directly. Not so with abortion.

Works on the assumption Globby the Fetus is a person who has more rights than the women he is inside.

Murder happens too should we just legalize it since people are going to murder anyway?

Except most people aren't going to murder. We only have 25,000 homicides a year. As opposed to 600,000 abortions. So one is clearly acceptable and the other is not.

The problem is you want to equate a grown ass human with a glob of tissue the size of a kidney bean. That's why you fail the reasonable person standard.

 

[Couchpotato]

Except when a law doesn't pass common sense, the law becomes meaningless.

Let's take prostitution. Consider the absurdity of prostitution laws. I meet a woman in a bar, and we go home and have sex. I never see her again. Not a crime.
I meet a woman in a bar and pay her $300.00, we go home and have sex. I never see her again. This is suddenly a crime? Why?





Works on the assumption Globby the Fetus is a person who has more rights than the women he is inside.

Do you really want to start quantifying who is more "worthy" of their rights than others?

Except most people aren't going to murder. We only have 25,000 homicides a year. As opposed to 600,000 abortions. So one is clearly acceptable and the other is not.

Most people aren't going to do heroin or use prostitutes or get an abortion either.

The problem is you want to equate a grown ass human with a glob of tissue the size of a kidney bean. That's why you fail the reasonable person standard.

So when does it get rights? What's the "thing" that bestows the right to life on the "entity" inside a woman's womb? Is it just locational? Inside this circle I have no rights outside I do?

 

[Care4all]

Including Ginsburg.

Yes, that right-winger Ruth Bader Ginsburg...wait.

Not quite! Her issue was, she wanted the decision on abortion to be more about equal rights for women, than the Roe v wade case was.....

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Offers Critique of Roe v. Wade During Law School Visit | University of Chicago Law School

Casual observers of the Supreme Court who came to the Law School to hear Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speak about Roe v. Wade likely expected a simple message from the longtime defender of reproductive and women’s rights: Roe was a good decision. Those more acquainted with Ginsburg and her...

www.law.uchicago.edu