University of Virginia Library

E.R.A. Equal Rights Or Necessary Evil? STOP NOW E.R.A.

In principle the Equal
Rights Amendment (ERA)
would require that the law
treat men and women equally.
But the definition of "equally"
is controversial,and exactly
what the amendment means
will ultimately be determined
by the courts if it is ratified.
Owing to speculation on the
legal implications of the
amendment, both sides of the
women's rights debate have
found arguments to support
their positions.

While proponents of the
amendment have figures such
as University law professors D.
Brock Hornby and Walter J.
Wadlington backing their side,
anti-ERA lobbyist Phyllis
Schlafly has mustered her
support from the distinguished
law schools of Harvard and the
University of Chicago.

Some of the issues
frequently open to debate are
the effects of ERA on the
draft, the responsibility for
family financial support, a
woman's right to privacy, and
criminal and protective labor
laws. Opponents also question
whether there is even a need
for the amendment. Below,
some of the issues will be
examined.

Female Draft

There is really no legal
question about the draft. Both
sides agree that if ERA were
ratified women would be
eligible for the draft. The issue
seems, rather,to be that of values
and priorities.

The prospect of military
conscription for females is a
feature of the amendment that
many women, and men, find
particularly appalling. Mrs.
Schlafly argues that ERA "will
make women subject to the
draft and to combat duty
equally with men; a woman
will register for the draft at the
age of eighteen as a man does
now."

She defends her statements
by quoting(and misquoting)
the April 1971 edition of the
Yale Law Journal. "Women
are physically as able as men to
perform many jobs classified as
combat duty, such as piloting
n airplane or engaging in naval
operations," the article claims.

One quote Mrs. Schlafly did
not get quite right, though,
reads, "Deferment policy could
provide that one, but not both
of the parents would be
deferred," the Journal
explains. "For example,
whichever was called first
might be eligible for service."
Mrs. Schlafly neglected,
however, to mention the
several other alternatives listed
in the article.

Supporters of ERA concede
that women will be subject to
combat service. Groups like
Northern Virginia's chapter of
NOW (National Organization
of Women) contend that
regardless of the merits of
military conscription, women
as citizens should share in the
defense of the country.

The Charlottesville-Albemarle
League of Women Voters say
that "equal rights cannot come
without equal responsibility."

"The picture of mothers
being torn from their children
is not a realistic one,"
according to a League
spokesman. "ERA will not
require all women to serve in
the military, any more than all
men do today. Congress has
the power to create
exemptions which may apply
equally to men and women."

These groups emphasize the
fact that by serving in the
military equally with men,
women will be eligible for the
benefits which are part of
military service.

With President Nixon's
halting of the draft, however,
this issue has slipped from its
position of major importance.
Women regard it as a less
realistic threat.

Divorce Court

Perhaps the most controversial
question to take its place
concerns family law. This issue
involves alimony, child custody
and support and the financial
obligation of a husband to his
child and family. While
opponents opt for the status
quo, proponents believe that
one's function in the family
decides what he should
contribute.

Mrs. Schlafly argues that
ERA will wipe out the
financial obligation of a
husband and father to support
his wife and children-"the most
important of all women's
rights." Other opponents say
that in weakening a man's
obligations to support the
family, the family will itself be
weakened.

Kathleen Teague,
co-chairman of the Virginia
Stop ERA group, asserts that
the bill "will take away
privileges from housewives and
working women." A woman's
present freedom of choice "to
get a job or be a homemaker,"
she says, "will be wiped out."

The Northern Virginian
chapter of NOW claims that
ERA would not require
mathematically equal
contributions to family
support from husband and wife
in any given family.

Instead, it says, a
"functional definition based on
contributions to family welfare
would be permissible."

Proponents also cite
Congresswoman Francis Dwyer
(R-NJ.) who has said "it
would not take women out of
the home; it would not
downgrade the roles of mother
and housewife. It would give
new dignity to these important
roles. The role of housewife
would become a position
accepted by women as
equals-not a role imposed on
them as inferiors."

Alimony and child support
in divorce cases would also be
determined by the needs of the
individuals and not arbitrarily
assigned by sex, says the
Virginia League of Women
Voters. "Both parents have the
responsibility to support
themselves and their children
to the extent that they are
able. This ability will largely be
determined by the function of
each in the family."

According to this view
alimony could be awarded to
the husband in a divorce case,
if he were economically
dependent on the wife. In a
child support case the
responsibility would be equally
divided between the parents if
both have earning capacities.

Right To Privacy

Though not as contested as
the questions concerning
family law, the issue that has
perhaps caused the greatest
furor is the possible collapse of
the woman's right to privacy.

The "Schlaflyites" as they
are sometimes called by critics,
claim that "ERA will wipe out
a woman's right to privacy." In
the May 1972 Phyllis Schlafly
Report the testimony of
Professor Paul Freund of the
Harvard Law School is quoted
in opposition to ERA.
According to his report ERA
"would require that there be
no segregation of the sexes in
prison, reform schools, public
restrooms and other public
facilities."

The Charlottesville-Albemarle
League of Women Voters
contend that two legal
principles prevent this stripping
of privacy. They claim that the
power of the state to regulate
cohabitation among unmarried
persons and the constitutional
right to privacy as spelled out
by the Supreme Court in 1965
provide ample protection of
women's privacy.

Some opponents of ERA in
Virginia have expressed
satisfaction with Virginia's
version of women's equal rights
as found in the new state
constitution. They claim that
the state constitution which
contains the clause, "Except
that the mere separation of the
sexes shall not be considered