University of Virginia Library

ERA Vs. State Of Virginia: You've Got A Long Way To Go, Baby

By ELIZABETH JOHNSON

In action today that
all the suspense of the
Republican National
Virginia's House
of Committee on
and Elections is
to kill House Bill
fre it ever reaches the
of the General Assembly.

Citte killings are not
legislative efficiency
demands that bills be screened
by committees before they are
considered by the Assembly as
a whole

Yet H.B. 181 isn't just another
bill. It involves a proposed
amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.

H.B. 181, better known
as the Equal Rights
Amendment (ERA), simply
states "equally of rights under
the law shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States
or by any state on account of
sex."

The fundamental principle
underlying ERA is that sex
should not be a factor in
determining the legal rights of
men and women.

The proposed 27th
Amendment to the
Constitution has had a long and
checkered career. Resolutions
proposing equal rights for men
and women have been
introduced in every Congress
since 1923, shortly after the
ratification of the 19th
Amendment extended the vote
to women.

Endorsement of an equal
rights amendment was in the
platforms of both major
political parties before the
national elections and it has had
the endorsements of Presidents
Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy and
Eisenhower.

In 1971, the resolutions
came one step closer to
becoming reality, when
Congress overwhelmingly
approved ERA. On October
22, the House of
Representatives passed ERA
354-23; Senate approval came
on March 22, 1972, with a vote
of 84-8. Ironically, Virginia
had been instrumental in its
passage, for the bill was
co-sponsored by Rep. Joel T.
Broyhill and the entire Virginia
delegation in both houses
voted for the amendment.

After almost a fifty-year
trek through Congress the bill
was ready for ratification by
the states. Almost immediately
the states began to voice their
support in a flood of approval.
Within two hours of Senate
passage Hawaii ratified it. Since
that time 23 state legislatures
have ratified the amendment.

Slow Start

To become an amendment
ERA must have two-thirds
approval of Congress and
ratification by three-fourths of
the state legislatures (38)
within seven years of
Congressional approval. Six
legislatures have already
rejected the bill, two within
the last month.

A victory for the
amendment in Virginia today
would have provided impetus
to a nationwide campaign for
ratification that is fast
beginning to falter. Instead,
momentum is growing to send

ERA to the graveyard of
unratified bills.

A look at educational and
employment statistics,
however, shows that there is
indeed justification for claims
of discrimination against
women.

Advocates of the
amendment say it is needed
because presently, there exist
many laws which discriminate
against both sexes, mostly to
the disadvantage of women.
Among these are the criminal
laws of several states which
grant women heavier penalties
than men for the same crime.

Other areas where
discrimination is widespread
are the admissions, scholarship
and hiring policies of public
colleges. The
Charlottesville-Albemarle
League of Women Voters, in a
booklet they have prepared
backing ERA, cite several
examples of educational
discrimination.

Perhaps the most startling
of these is the fact that since
1929, women's applications to
medical school have increased
300%, while men's have
increased only 29%; yet
women's admissions to medical
school have declined.

Discrimination also exists in
both private and public
employment. Assembled under
the rubric of protective
employment legislation,
women in 26 states are barred
from certain occupations or
professions open to men, and
in 18 states some women are
not permitted to work at night
except in occupations such as
nurses, telephone operators
and scrub-women.

Government inequality

Government, whose
employees make up 20 per cent
of the labor force, is a major
target of sex bias charges as
well. Women occupy 62 per
cent of the four lowest job
classification grades and only
2.5 per cent of the four highest
grades.

The state figures are just as
damning in Virginia. 12,983
employees earn less than $5000
a year; of these 8,055 are
women. Of 948 state
employees earning over
$20,000, only 58 are women.

The Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission
found that "such laws and
regulations do not take into
account the capacities,
preferences and abilities of
individual females and tend to
discriminate rather than
protect."

Citing such conditions, a
broad coalition of some 60
organizations ranging from the
American Bar Association to
the American Nurses
Association have joined in
support of ERA nationally.

With this kind of support,
ERA seemed assured of
passage. But equal rights
advocates had not counted on
the vocal opposition of a
housewife from Illinois.

Spearheaded by Phyllis
Schlafly, a former Republican
national committeewoman
from Alton, Illinois, the
well-funded and well-organized
STOP ERA campaign has

begun to make its influence
felt.

Mrs. Schlafly is a crusader
with a cause, dashing back and
forth across the country,
entering each state capital
where the amendment is being
considered like a whirlwind
and stuffing legislators'
mailboxes with phamplets and
newsletters against ratification.

"If there ever were an
example," she says, sounding
her clarion call, "of how a tiny
minority can cram its views
down the throat of the
majority, it is ERA. A noisy
claque of women's lib agitators
rammed ERA through
Congress, intimidating the men
into voting for it so they
wouldn't be labeled
"anti-woman."

STOP ERA

Mrs. Schlafly and her
followers contend that the
majority of women do not
want ERA. The amendment,
they say, would wipe out many
rights and privileges women
now enjoy because of their sex
ranging from alimony to
freedom from the draft.

She quotes a 1971 Roper
Poll which states that 77 per
cent of American women are
opposed to equal treatment
under the draft, and a 1972
Harris Poll which shows that
78 per cent of the nation's
women didn't think their life
goals had been hampered by
being a woman.

The STOP ERA
movement has been supported
by many national organizations
including the National Council
of Catholic Women, the
Rabbinical Alliance of
America, the Daughters of the
American Revolution, the
AFL-CIO and the Virginia
Federation of Women's Clubs.

ERA was still riding on the
crest of popular support when
H.B. 181 was introduced on
the opening day of the General
Assembly's session by Del.
Dorothy McDiarmid of
Fairfax. Since that time
unqualified support has begun
to crumble, as all 140
legislators have been showered
by competing messages, letters,
leaflets and petitions.

Last Thursday the intensive
lobbying efforts of both sides
were climaxed at a day-long
joint hearing before the House
and Senate Privileges and
Elections Committee in
Richmond, where over 40
speakers gave their opinions. It
was one of the most chaotic
legislative hearings ever held in
Virginia with nearly 1000
women jamming the state
highway department
auditorium, the largest meeting
place available.

On the right side of the aisle
dressed primarily in red, white
and blue sat the opponents of
the bill wearing octagonal
badges with "STOP ERA"
emblazoned upon them. The
proponents, sporting a large
variety of badges, some
flower-shaped, secured the left
side of the aisle.

Both sides delivered two
hours of testimony each. Amid
cheers, boos and shouts,
Del. McDiarmid opened
the hearing for the proponents
and Phyllis Schlafly was there
to sound the alarm against the
amendment.

Professors Testify

Among those testifying in
favor of the amendment were
five from Charlottesville,
University of Virginia Law
Professors Walter Wadlington
and Brock Hornby, City
Councilwoman Jill Rinehart,
Elizabeth (Buffy) Scott of the
Virginia League of Women
Voters and attorney Anne
Whittemore of the Virginia
Women's National Caucus.

Del. McDiarmid blasted
Mrs. Schlafly saying that when
she had introduced the bill she
believed it would pass with
little trouble, but due to the
"fanning of fears" by Mrs.
Schalfly, "through her unfactual
and misinforming newsletter,"
the current uproar had
resulted.

Mrs. Schlafly, who spoke
later, outlined a long list of
dire predictions of what would
befall women if the bill were
ratified. The amendment
would be "depriving the wife
of her full right to be fully
supported by her husband,"
she said. Warning that women's
dower rights would be
abolished and all women would
be subjected to the draft, she
called for the death of ERA.

Rights of Women

"There are a few women
who want to be treated like
men, but most women don't,"
she said. "We protest for our
right to be women," she cried,
to the cheers of her supporters.

Mr. Wadlington spoke for
the amendment, testifying that
regardless of whether ERA is
ratified, there will be litigation
on women's rights. However,
he pointed out, "It is far more
satisfactory and orderly from a
legal point of view to do it
under a separate amendment
with a separate legal history."

Mr. Hornby affirmed the
need for a new amendment.
"The 14th amendment is not
up to the task and should not
be forced into dealing with sex
discrimination. The U.S.
Constitution's equal protection
guarantee was devised for racial
discrimination and should not
be applied to sex
discrimination."

Religious Sentiments

If appeals to feminine
sentiments weren't enough,
Presbyterian minister Paul
Doepke put the opponents of
ERA on God's side. "A truly
Christian woman could care
less about equality. She is her
husband's helpmate. He is her
pride and joy.

"To be in favor of ERA is
to reject God," he proclaimed.

Throughout the
emotion-charged testimony
most of the all-male committee
listened straight-faced,
although several had smirks on
their faces. At one point Del.
A.L. Phlipott gof Bassett even
remarked "Why don't these
ladies get up and let the
gentlemen sit down?"

Today the House Privileges
and Elections committee will
meet to take action on H.B.
181. The legislators seem
determined to defeat the
proposal. Only one committee
member, Carrington Williams,
has since expressed his support
for the amendment. Another,
D. French Slaughter, refused to
commit himself, but indicated
that the amendment could be
depriving women of rights such
as child support laws and
protective legislation. Mr.
Phlipott would say only that
he was opposed and would give
no reason.

Schlafly Campaign

Though the effects of Mrs.
Schlafly's lobbying last week
are difficult to determine, in at
least two other states where
she has campaigned, the
amendment has been defeated.
From all indications, the same
fate awaits ERA in the
committee. Legislators, even
those favoring it, confidently
predict that ERA will never
reach the floor of the
Assembly.

Opponents of ERA need
only defeat the bill in seven
other states before Mrs.
Schlafly will taste victory. But
for the time being she cannot
claim Virginia as a final defeat.
The bill can and probably will
appear before the Assembly
again, even though killed in
committee this week. At least
for this year, though, equal
rights has become a dead issue
in Virginia.