PAC Formed to Promote Passage of Equal Rights Amendment

Team Uterati
Politics • Views: 21,646

Imani Gandy, known to the Internets as “Angry Black Lady,” is launching a PAC to promote passage of the Equal Rights Amendment — a worthy cause that deserves our support.

May 7, 2012 – People Organizing for Women’s Rights (POWR) was created with the goal of uniting women across the nation to encourage passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, Imani Gandy, president of POWR, announced today.

“Most people don’t know that it is not unconstitutional to deny women equality under the law. But, as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently pointed out to us, the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex,” said Ms. Gandy.

“This is why we are seeing a flood of bills come out of state legislatures attacking women. This is why we have to struggle to protect what progress we have made every time election season rolls around. This is why it is still legal to pay women less than men, to discriminate against mothers seeking jobs, and restrict the availability of health care services for women. This is why our bodies become political footballs and bargaining chips whenever other issues are raised. Women are tired of this. We want better for the daughters of America, and we mean to give it to them,” Ms. Gandy added.

Jump to bottom

68 comments
1 HappyWarrior  Mon, May 7, 2012 11:39:55am

I wish them well. Uphill battle but one that is worth it.

2 Kragar  Mon, May 7, 2012 11:41:41am

Obviously an American hating commie.
/

3 allegro  Mon, May 7, 2012 11:42:42am

I can't believe we're still having to fight for this.

4 The Mountain That Blogs  Mon, May 7, 2012 11:44:20am

A worthy cause, but as long as there is actual opposition to the Violence Against Women Act, I can't see this getting off the ground.

5 HappyWarrior  Mon, May 7, 2012 11:44:35am

re: #3 allegro

I can't believe we're still having to fight for this.

Another "triumph" of conservatism.

6 allegro  Mon, May 7, 2012 11:46:17am

re: #5 HappyWarrior

Another "triumph" of conservatism.

Unfortunately, I think this one can be filed under both columns.

7 Simply Sarah  Mon, May 7, 2012 11:46:48am

Are they referring to passing a new version of the ERA or attempting to finalize ratification of the one Congress passed in 1972? I poked around a bit, but I couldn't find anything clearly stating one way or another. If the latter, I have some major concerns because that would lead to a legal and Constitutional mess with a strong possibility of either the whole thing being struck down by the Supreme Court or some rather dangerous precedents being set.

If it means a new version, I can certainly get behind that, but I would want expanded language to cover additional groups. While I know that might not fly politically, I don't like the idea of enumerating this kind of thing and not covering all of your bases, since I fear that could further weaken the broader interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

8 Kragar  Mon, May 7, 2012 11:48:18am
9 HappyWarrior  Mon, May 7, 2012 11:49:06am

re: #8 Kragar

Scott Walker uses communist slogan "Forward" for his campaign

Clearly Walker's a Communist right Washington Times? Oh wait, red baiting is only for Obama and Democrats.

10 Daniel Ballard  Mon, May 7, 2012 11:50:21am

I remember the effort in the 1970's. It almost made it. Too bad, things really would be better now had it made in then.

11 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, May 7, 2012 11:51:09am

re: #7 Simply Sarah

that would lead to a legal and Constitutional mess with a strong possibility of either the whole thing being struck down by the Supreme Court or some rather dangerous precedents being set

Can you explain? It goes too far?

12 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Mon, May 7, 2012 11:52:36am

re: #7 Simply Sarah

Are they referring to passing a new version of the ERA or attempting to finalize ratification of the one Congress passed in 1972? I poked around a bit, but I couldn't find anything clearly stating one way or another. If the latter, I have some major concerns because that would lead to a legal and Constitutional mess with a strong possibility of either the whole thing being struck down by the Supreme Court or some rather dangerous precedents being set.

If it means a new version, I can certainly get behind that, but I would want expanded language to cover additional groups. While I know that might not fly politically, I don't like the idea of enumerating this kind of thing and not covering all of your bases, since I fear that could further weaken the broader interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Unless the old version had specific expiration verbage in it then it would still be the one to approve. I commented the other day on finding out there was a 27th Amendment to the Constitution, and it took a few hundred years to get sufficient state approval.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

13 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Mon, May 7, 2012 11:53:59am

re: #11 May Day! May Day!

Can you explain? It goes too far?

Hmm, I don't think the Supreme Court would have standing to strike down part of the Constitution itself.

14 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, May 7, 2012 11:55:16am

re: #13 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste

Hmm, I don't think the Supreme Court would have standing to strike down part of the Constitution itself.

Good point.

15 ArchangelMichael  Mon, May 7, 2012 11:57:34am

re: #7 Simply Sarah

There was a deadline to ratify on the original so even if the same text were used, it would technically be a "new" proposal and require re-passage by Congress and to go through the whole process in the state legislatures all over again.

16 Simply Sarah  Mon, May 7, 2012 11:58:31am

re: #11 May Day! May Day!

Can you explain? It goes too far?

re: #12 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste

Unless the old version had specific expiration verbage in it then it would still be the one to approve. I commented the other day on finding out there was a 27th Amendment to the Constitution, and it took a few hundred years to get sufficient state approval.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Well, when originally passed in 1972, there was a 7 year deadline set on ratification, later extended to 1982. It's a somewhat open question on what parts of this were constitutional. Can Congress put a time limit on ratification without directly inserting it into the text of the amendment? If so, was the original extension constitutional? Would a new extension be valid? What about states that have since stated that their ratification was no longer valid/rescinded? It's not a clear situation.

17 lawhawk  Mon, May 7, 2012 11:58:54am

re: #7 Simply Sarah

Looks like they're referring to the version that has been under consideration for 80+ years.

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

As originally enacted by Congress, it had a ratification deadline date, which expired before 38 states could approve (35 did). It's since been reintroduced in Congress at each session, but Congress would have to first enact it as law before it can go to the states for ratification. Under this version, there would be no ratification date limitation - it would remain awaiting ratification until it got to 38.

18 JamesB  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:01:22pm

The original ERA passed both houses of Congress in 1972. However it failed to get enough state ratifications by 1979 to pass. There was an extension attempt to extend the deadline to 1982 but it's legality was questioned. Even under the revised deadline it did not get enough ratifications so the Supreme Court did not have to rule on it.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

19 Kragar  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:04:06pm

I dont see any way it could get the necessary state ratifications today.

20 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:04:20pm

Offtopic: I need to choose a horror / thriller to watch and it needs to be not extremely gory (no Hostel or Saw) and not pervert-y (no Human Centipedes). Recommends?

21 Kragar  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:05:51pm

re: #20 May Day! May Day!

Offtopic: I need to choose a horror / thriller to watch and it needs to be not extremely gory (no Hostel or Saw) and not pervert-y (no Human Centipedes). Recommends?

Dark City.

22 CuriousLurker  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:10:05pm

Sorry for going interrupting & going OT, but if you have pets please be aware of this recall (product numbers, states affected, etc. at the link):

UPDATED: CORRECT PRODUCTION CODE INFORMATION

Diamond Pet Foods Expands Voluntary Recall of Dry Pet Food Due to Potential Salmonella Contamination

Batches of the brands manufactured between December 9, 2011 and April 7, 2012 are affected

Consumer Contact:[no phone numbers allowed]
Media Contact:[no phone numbers allowed]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – May 5, 2012

Diamond Pet Foods today announced that it is expanding a voluntary recall to include batches of nine brands of dry pet food formulas manufactured between December 9, 2011 and April 7, 2012 due to potential Salmonella contamination.

Brands included in the recall include:

Chicken Soup for the Pet Lover’s Soul
Country Value
Diamond
Diamond Naturals
Premium Edge
Professional
4Health
Taste of the Wild

More info at Diamond Pet Foods...

Not staying—later, everyone.

23 Simply Sarah  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:10:12pm

re: #17 lawhawk

Looks like they're referring to the version that has been under consideration for 80+ years.

As originally enacted by Congress, it had a ratification deadline date, which expired before 38 states could approve (35 did). It's since been reintroduced in Congress at each session, but Congress would have to first enact it as law before it can go to the states for ratification. Under this version, there would be no ratification date limitation - it would remain awaiting ratification until it got to 38.

Well, that's what I was wondering about. I know there has been a bit of a movement to try and ratify the original ERA from 1972, hence my legal concerns over trying that.

As for going with the same language as the 1972 version, I just cannot sign on. If something is going to be an Equal Rights Amendment, it needs to be a broad one. Granted, I know that has no chance right now for several reason. The 1972 ERA has had enough trouble as it is. Imagine the difficulty with an ERA that would include protections for sexual orientation, which would without question result in any bans on same-sex marriage being ruled unconstitutional.

24 Kragar  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:12:50pm

re: #20 May Day! May Day!

Offtopic: I need to choose a horror / thriller to watch and it needs to be not extremely gory (no Hostel or Saw) and not pervert-y (no Human Centipedes). Recommends?

Also, the original 1982 version of "The Thing".

25 Gus  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:14:38pm

re: #9 HappyWarrior

Clearly Walker's a Communist right Washington Times? Oh wait, red baiting is only for Obama and Democrats.

Indeed the only way to halt this forward progression of world communism is to indeed go backwards. Think of it like a set of dominoes that have fallen being re-righted into their previous position before they fell. A reverse domino-theory. Backwards.

//

26 HappyWarrior  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:14:53pm

re: #24 Kragar

Also, the original 1982 version of "The Thing".

My favorite horror/sci-fi film ever.

27 ArchangelMichael  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:15:20pm

re: #20 May Day! May Day!

Offtopic: I need to choose a horror / thriller to watch and it needs to be not extremely gory (no Hostel or Saw) and not pervert-y (no Human Centipedes). Recommends?

The original Poltergeist. The only gory part is the guy hallucinating ripping his face off in the mirror for about 5 seconds.

28 Shropshire_Slasher  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:15:27pm

re: #20 May Day! May Day!
Event Horizon, but I think you have seen it.

29 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:16:37pm

re: #28 Tommy's cone of shame

Alas.

30 Shropshire_Slasher  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:17:19pm

re: #29 May Day! May Day!

Lifeforce, a little dated and cheesy

31 dragonath  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:17:27pm

This is why I can never vote Republican. I cannot imagine voting for the guys that aided and abetted the kind of bigotry Phyllis Schlafy stands for.

32 Gus  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:17:48pm

re: #29 May Day! May Day!

Alas.

Poor Yorick.

33 CuriousLurker  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:18:03pm

re: #20 May Day! May Day!

Offtopic: I need to choose a horror / thriller to watch and it needs to be not extremely gory (no Hostel or Saw) and not pervert-y (no Human Centipedes). Recommends?

The Orphanage

Really leaving this time. I mean it.

34 Kragar  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:18:32pm

re: #30 Tommy's cone of shame

Lifeforce, a little dated and cheesy

The aliens were supposed to be giant fungal squids in the original story.

35 Shropshire_Slasher  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:19:05pm

re: #34 Kragar

Turned out they were HOT!

36 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:19:58pm

re: #33 CuriousLurker

The Orphanage

Really leaving this time. I mean it.

Wait! I've seen it. Anything else??? ///

37 Kragar  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:20:24pm

re: #35 Tommy's cone of shame

Turned out they were HOT!

Shape changing giant vampiric fungal squids.

38 Kragar  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:21:04pm

re: #36 May Day! May Day!

Wait! I've seen it. Anything else??? ///

Citizen X, with Stephen Rea and Donald Sutherland

39 lawhawk  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:23:27pm

re: #23 Simply Sarah

The language for the ERA is the same, but since the version under consideration died without being ratified, members of Congress have reintroduced it for consideration at each session.


In the current session, these are the four resolutions relating to the ERA:

1. H.J.RES.47 : Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment.
Sponsor: Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] (introduced 3/8/2011) Cosponsors (33)
Committees: House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 3/21/2011 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

2. H.J.RES.69 : Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women.
Sponsor: Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] (introduced 6/22/2011) Cosponsors (185)
Committees: House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 6/22/2011 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

3. S.J.RES.21 : A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women.
Sponsor: Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] (introduced 6/22/2011) Cosponsors (15)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 6/22/2011 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

4. S.J.RES.39 : A joint resolution removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment.
Sponsor: Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] (introduced 3/22/2012) Cosponsors (10)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 3/22/2012 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The language for the joint resolution - SJR21/HJR69 incorporates the same language as the original ERA proposal.

You could make an argument that the ERA doesn't go far enough in protecting rights (prohibiting discrimination against those on grounds of gender, sexual preference, etc.) and that we need to explicitly protect these people. Otherwise we end up having to deal with courts reading rights into the Constitution that aren't explicitly there - along with claims that they're activist jurists, rather than following the Constitution.

An alternative take is that the ERA is unnecessary as the Constitution can and should be read to prohibit discrimination on grounds of gender (that men was meant to describe all persons, not just those with an XY chromosome).

I lean towards having an ERA, precisely because the courts have not been consistent in protecting the rights of women, and that the differing interpretations leaves women in some places without recourse for government-sanctioned discrimination.

40 Decatur Deb  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:23:41pm

re: #24 Kragar

Also, the original 1951 version of "The Thing".

James Arness as the walking carrot.

41 Gus  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:24:48pm

re: #40 Decatur Deb

James Arness as the walking carrot.

Disturbing.

42 Big Joe  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:26:18pm

Lifeforce has a nude female alien-vampire throughout the whole movie. I think that might be classified as pervert-y. She was magnificent.

43 Kragar  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:26:50pm

re: #40 Decatur Deb

James Arness as the walking carrot.

SILENCE!

The 1982 version was a better adaptation of the original source material.

44 Kragar  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:27:49pm

re: #42 Ghost of Tom Joad

Lifeforce has a nude female alien-vampire throughout the whole movie. I think that might be classified as pervert-y. She was magnificent.

Plus it had Patrick Stewart kissing a guy in it.

45 Decatur Deb  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:28:22pm

re: #43 Kragar

SILENCE!

The 1982 version was a better adaptation of the original source material.

Pffftt. Did it earn A MAD Magazine parody?

46 Simply Sarah  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:32:50pm

re: #39 lawhawk

The language for the ERA is the same, but since the version under consideration died without being ratified, members of Congress have reintroduced it for consideration at each session.

In the current session, these are the four resolutions relating to the ERA:

The language for the joint resolution - SJR21/HJR69 incorporates the same language as the original ERA proposal.

You could make an argument that the ERA doesn't go far enough in protecting rights (prohibiting discrimination against those on grounds of gender, sexual preference, etc.) and that we need to explicitly protect these people. Otherwise we end up having to deal with courts reading rights into the Constitution that aren't explicitly there - along with claims that they're activist jurists, rather than following the Constitution.

An alternative take is that the ERA is unnecessary as the Constitution can and should be read to prohibit discrimination on grounds of gender (that men was meant to describe all persons, not just those with an XY chromosome).

I lean towards having an ERA, precisely because the courts have not been consistent in protecting the rights of women, and that the differing interpretations leaves women in some places without recourse for government-sanctioned discrimination.

Oh, I'm not opposed to the ERA. As I said, I'm just worried about starting to enumerate protected classes without including as many as possible. Now, the ERA as currently written would likely be seen as mandating strict scrutiny when dealing with sex (And potentially gender/gender identity/etc. based on the way case law has evolved since Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins), which is a good thing.

My two concerns are that: 1. It still leaves others out in the cold. 2. Courts might use the fact that the ERA was "needed" to justify their view that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment only applies to race.

47 darthstar  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:35:40pm

Romney draws a crowd...leaves room for etch-a-sketching them bigger.

48 Decatur Deb  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:37:15pm

re: #47 darthstar

Romney draws a crowd...leaves room for etch-a-sketching them bigger.

[Embedded content]

Everyone was getting the fresh sample cups back in the deli section.

49 Charles Johnson  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:42:57pm

re: #36 May Day! May Day!

Wait! I've seen it. Anything else??? ///

How about "Let the Right One In"? Very different take on the vampire genre.

50 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:43:20pm

re: #49 Charles Johnson

How about "Let the Right One In"? Very different take on the vampire genre.

Seen both versions :(

51 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:43:30pm

Thinking about [Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

52 Kragar  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:43:42pm

Fake Voter Fraud Filmmaker James O’Keefe Says He Faces Grand Jury Subpoena

Yesterday, O’Keefe revealed that he had cancelled plans to travel to New Hampshire upon learn learning he would be hit with a grand jury subpoena if he did. Speaking, by video, to a local Republican Party fundraiser, he claimed “I’ve been advised that if I appear physically in New Hampshire, I will be hit with a grand jury subpoena,” and expressed defiance. Pledging to continue to employ these controversial — and likely illegal — tactics, O’Keefe said:

I think it’s unfortunate that we live in a country these days where public officials threaten journalists — threaten to put journalists in jail for exposing facts legally. They’ve threatened to do this to me for some time, but we’re not going to stop.

53 Kragar  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:48:03pm

re: #51 May Day! May Day!

Thinking about [Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Shadow of the Vampire with Willem Dafoe and John Malkovitch

54 goddamnedfrank  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:49:00pm

re: #50 May Day! May Day!

Seen both versions :(

How about Trollhunter. Funnier than it is scary, but at least it's a fresh take on the found footage genre.

55 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:50:18pm

re: #54 goddamnedfrank

Seen too.

56 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:50:24pm

bbl

57 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:51:50pm

re: #20 May Day! May Day!

Grave Encounters
Paranormal Activity
Paranormal Entity
Death Of A Ghost Hunter

58 Kragar  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:53:56pm

re: #57 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance

Grave Encounters
Paranormal Activity
Paranormal Entity
Death Of A Ghost Hunter


...

59 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:54:58pm

re: #58 Kragar

bah work filter is blocking it.

60 HappyWarrior  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:55:10pm

re: #52 Kragar

Fake Voter Fraud Filmmaker James O’Keefe Says He Faces Grand Jury Subpoena

Oh spare me the I'm an oppressed journalist crap O'Keefe. You're a professional shit-stirrer who got caught. Own up to it and be a man instead of a little baby.

61 Charles Johnson  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:55:54pm

Jake Tapper, by the way, noticed STLActivist's LGF Page posted this morning and emailed me a statement about it, that I added as an "editor's note."

Here's the Page:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

62 William Barnett-Lewis  Mon, May 7, 2012 12:55:58pm

re: #20 May Day! May Day!

Let the right one in.

Charles beat me to as did you. Alien?

63 Someone Please Beam Me Up!  Mon, May 7, 2012 1:04:25pm

re: #20 May Day! May Day!

Cat People
Curse of the Cat People
I Walked with a Zombie

(The first is the most standard "horror," the third is my favorite and more a riff on the genre than a standard horror movie, and the second... well you'd have to see it.)

64 Mattand  Mon, May 7, 2012 1:05:59pm

re: #61 Charles Johnson

Jake Tapper, by the way, noticed STLActivist's LGF Page posted this morning and emailed me a statement about it, that I added as an "editor's note."

Here's the Page:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Repeating my comment here: There's absolutely nothing confusing about STLActivist's post. Tapper's response kinda sounds like an admission that he barely understands what's going, and that he did almost no research. Not really sure this makes him look better.

65 Gretchen G.Tiger  Mon, May 7, 2012 1:06:45pm

YES, YES, YES, YES, YES!

Occupy? You ain't seen nothin' yet!

"Hell Hath No FURY"

66 sagehen  Mon, May 7, 2012 1:17:38pm

re: #20 May Day! May Day!

Offtopic: I need to choose a horror / thriller to watch and it needs to be not extremely gory (no Hostel or Saw) and not pervert-y (no Human Centipedes). Recommends?

Are you looking for crap or quality?

Consider Hitchcock.

67 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Mon, May 7, 2012 1:22:42pm

re: #53 Kragar

Shadow of the Vampire with Willem Dafoe and John Malkovitch

That was an odd one. I liked it more than my friends did.

68 sunnygal  Mon, May 7, 2012 5:31:27pm

re: #39 lawhawk

The US Supreme Court, back in the early 1970's had an opportunity to declare sex a "suspect class" which would require "strict scrutiny" in evaluating whether an act or law should be upheld. Only a plurality of the Court felt sex was a suspect class. Others felt that, since the ERA was in the process of ratification by the states, declaring sex a suspect class would usurp the constitional process of ratifying the ERA. Only Justice Rehnquist felt that was the basis of the appeal was contitutional.

Since then, no case, to my knowledge, has been brought before the Supremes in which the court felt obliged to determine whether sex was a suspect class and thus deserved the same constitutional protection as race, religion or national origin.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh