Disclaimer: pages.slu.edu is a service of Saint Louis University, Saint Louis University does not control, monitor or guarantee the information contained in these sites. For more information »
Phyllis Schlafly, a conservative political activist and lawyer, actively opposed legal abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). During the 1970's, she resided in Alton, Illinois, a city located across the Mississippi River from St. Louis, and she has since been active in Missouri politics. Schlafly was responsible for preventing the ERA's success. The following article appeared in the December 1974 issue of The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Schlafly's newsletter. She described the ERA as a vehicle to "assure and make permanent their ["women's libbers"] goal of unlimited abortion on demand." Schlafly discussed what she believed to be potential radical outcomes of both legal abortion and the ERA. For example, she claimed "pro-ERA" and "pro-abortion" public policy would "require the public schools to give counseling for abortion." Schlafly contributed to the polarization of the abortion controversy, as well as to the movement against women's liberation, i.e., the anti-feminist movement.
E.R.A.'s Assist to Abortion
The Number One goal of the women's liberationists is -- in the words of Congresswoman Bella Abzug -- "to enforce the constitutional right of females to terminate pregnancies that they do not wish to continue."
There is no such "constitutional right" -- yet. And there won't be so long as the Equal Rights Amendment is not ratified. The current right of abortion is only a "Supreme Court right" -- handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Roe v. Wade on January 22, 1973.
The women's libbers are not satisfied with this because there is nothing in the Constitution or in any Federal law to assure that this Supreme Court right to abortion will be permanent. The Supreme Court decision was a 7-to-2 opinion, and several Justices might change their mind at any time. Or, there might be a change in the personnel of the Supreme Court. Or, Congress might pass a law removing abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. In addition, there are dozens of State laws partially prohibiting or regulating abortion.
The women's libbers expect E.R.A. to be the constitutional means to assure and make permanent their goal of unlimited abortion on demand. As pointed out by Professor Joseph Witherspoon, Professor of Law at the University of Texas Law School and the Texas Director of the National Right to Life Committee:
"It is the hope of the abortionists that E.R.A. will put into the Constitution what they now have only by a split Supreme Court decision."
When the women's libbers held their big rally and march to persuade Missouri to ratify E.R.A., their advertising read: "Saturday, Aug. 25, MARCH FOR OUR RIGHTS: *to ratify the E.R.A. in Mo., *for the right to abortion in Mo. Featured speaker: Congresswoman Martha Griffiths."
The women's libbers believe that the greatest "inequality" between man and woman is that women get pregnant and men do not. They want a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a strict and doctrinaire equality which will permanently protect them against anti-abortion laws.
Schools, Hospitals, and Churches
But abortion-on-demand as a private, individual right is not by any means all they want. They want to make abortion a pervasive fact of life in every aspect of our community. They want a pro-abortion public policy implemented in the following ways:
1) To require the public schools to teach abortion as a method of birth control without parental knowledge or consent (by including this requirement in HEW regulations implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972).
2) To require the public schools to give counseling for abortion.
3) To require private and parochial schools to do both of the above, on the ground that all schools must conform to public policy in order to continue to enjoy a tax-exempt status. In August of 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted such a rule in regard to discrimination on the basis race in denying tax exemption to Bob Jones University. The opinion was written by Justice Harry Blackmun, who also wrote the pro-abortion decision.
4) To require Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, on the ground that they have received grants of Federal money under the Hill-Burton Act. Nearly all Catholic hospitals have received Hill-Burton funds. Public hospitals have already been forced to perform abortions.
5) To deny tax exemption to any church that opposes abortion.
Women's Lib Weapons
These women's lib goals may sound far out, but the women's liberationists are counting on the following to achieve their goals:
1) The very language of E.R.A. -- "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." Since a man obviously has the right NOT to be pregnant, the women's libbers argue that no Federal or State law against abortion would be able to deny to a woman the "equal right" NOT to be pregnant.
2) The aggressive push by the militant women's libbers, such as the National Organization for Women, whose stated goals are (a)ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment and (b)abortion. NOW welcomes lesbians as officers, but prohibits women opposed to abortion from becoming officers of NOW.
3) The high-priced legal talent available through the American Civil Liberties Union and other special-interest groups to initiate and appeal lawsuits until the so-called "equal right" of abortion is permanently recognized by the courts.
4) The immense funding available to push E.R.A. from the Rockefeller Foundation, Playboy Magazine, and other pro-abortion sources. (See page 4.)
In order to try to separate E.R.A. from the abortion issue, E.R.A. proponents in some areas have formed a few little committees under such names as "Life and Equality." Consisting of only a handful of women, these are phony fronts designed to mislead the public, and are generally recognized as such (e.g., by the Missouri Legislators at the 1974 hearing).
In any event, these few people are irrelevant to the fact that E.R.A. will invalidate all Congressional and State laws prohibiting or regulating abortion. Likewise, it makes no difference how many heterosexuals are promoting E.R.A., the fact remains that the best legal opinion is that the E.R.A. will legalize homosexual "marriages" and grant them the legal rights of husbands and wives.
No Arguments for E.R.A.
Since the E.R.A. proponents have now achieved everything they want in employment by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, and everything they want in education by the Education Amendments of 1972 as implemented by the HEW regulations of 1974, only the permanent legalization of abortion and homosexuality could provide the motivating force for the well-financed campaign for E.R.A. E.R.A. makes no sense whatsoever in terms of any of the public statements and literature distributed in behalf of it. Every argument the proponents make can be conclusively demonstrated to be either phony, or rendered obsolete by the passage of existing legislation, or opposed by the majority of Americans.
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer: pages.slu.edu is a service of Saint Louis University, Saint Louis University does not control, monitor or guarantee the information contained in these sites. For more information » |