Removing the Deadline for the Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.

H.J. Res. 17 is not a resolution to revive the equal rights amendment; it is a messaging vehicle. That is why Democrats bypassed the Committee on the Judiciary and brought this resolution directly to the floor, a common theme for this majority. There was no process for this resolution, a resolution that Democrats claim is a priority. We are here today for a headline so the Democrats can say they supported the ERA when it was in the House.

But the fact is, Madam Speaker, that men and women in the United States are already equal under law. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution require as much, guaranteeing equal protection for all under the laws of this country. To me, the ERA is unnecessary, redundant, and divisive. The only thing it will do is empower the far- left special interest groups and lead to activist litigation.

Just last year, the head of Planned Parenthood declared: ``There is no equal rights for women without access to abortion, plain and simple.''

Or according to NARAL Pro-Choice America: ``With its ratification, the ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion.''

Madam Speaker, we should take them at their word.

For years, groups like Planned Parenthood and others have advocated for adoption of the ERA so they can use it to pursue their pro-abortion agendas. If the ERA became law, it would allow these organizations to advance the radical policies through the courts without being in full view of the American people. These groups have hijacked the ERA and are seeking to use it as a tool to challenge States' pro-life laws.

But the reality is that this resolution is unconstitutional. Article V of the Constitution empowers Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution by a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate. After Congress proposes an amendment, the amendment is sent to the States for ratification. Three-fourths of the States must ratify the amendment in order for it to become effective.

The equal rights amendment was proposed in 1972. The amendment set an explicit deadline. It gave the States 7 years, until 1979, for ratification. Setting a deadline for ratification is part of Congress' authority to determine the mode of ratification under Article V.

In 1920, the Supreme Court held in Dillon v. Gloss that there was no doubt that Congress can set a date for ratifying an amendment. The deadline to ratify the ERA has long since passed, and the amendment fell short of the required number of States. When proposing a constitutional amendment, the deadline for ratification is just as important as the substance.

The District Court for D.C., less than 2 weeks ago, denied an effort by Virginia, Nevada, and Illinois to force the adoption of the ERA, despite the 1979 deadline. In denying the effort of those States, the courts said that a deadline for ratification still receives the assent of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, and putting it in the resolving clause does not evade Article V's procedural requirements in any way.

Because setting a deadline takes a two-thirds vote of Congress, it would be absurd to say that changing that deadline requires anything less. If a simple majority of Congress could alter a proposed amendment after it has been sent to the States, the two-thirds requirement of Article V would be meaningless.

A partisan majority cannot rewrite a proposed amendment at will after there has been an agreement in Congress. However, that is just what H.J. Res. 17 and the Democrats propose to do.

The ERA expired in 1979, and this joint resolution is a legal fiction advanced for political purposes.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, some lawmakers continue to ignore, trivialize, or deny the fact that abortion activists plan to aggressively use the Federal ERA--as they have used State ERAs--in a litigation strategy designed to overturn pro-life laws and policies, including restrictions supported by huge majorities of Americans.

As the Marist Poll found recently in January: Seven in 10 Americans, including nearly half who identify as pro-choice, want significant restrictions on abortions. While I fundamentally disagree with abortion activists who refuse to recognize an unborn child's inherent dignity, worth and value, many on both sides now agree that how the ERA is written will be used in court to massively promote abortion.

NARAL Pro-Choice America said the ERA would ``reinforce the constitutional right to abortion'' and ``require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws.''

The National Organization for Women said: ``An ERA--properly interpreted--could negate the hundreds of laws that have been passed restricting access to abortion. . . .''

Those laws include the Hyde amendment, waiting periods, parental involvement statutes, women's right-to-know laws, conscience rights, and late term abortion ban, like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

By now, my colleagues know that the Supreme Court of New Mexico ruled that the State was required--required to fund abortion, based solely on the State ERA.

In like manner, the Supreme Court of Connecticut invalidated its State ban on abortion funding based on its ERA.

Ensuring equal rights for women and serious protections against violence and exploitation requires laws, policies, and spending priorities to achieve those noble and necessary goals, without--I say again, without putting unborn baby girls and boys at risk of death.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Spartz).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I oppose H.J. Res. 17. I believe that the speakers we have had here today on our side have agreed with that and made very, very effective points on why to oppose this resolution.

Men and women are already equal under the Constitution. This legislation would make us no more equal. It is merely a vehicle for the far-left's special interest groups to use to enact their pro-abortion agenda. It is unconstitutional. It is unnecessary. And it should not become law.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source