Equal Rights Amendment is the 28th amendment to the constitution, as of...two days ago?
Well, in theory. It depends on if you follow the constitution or the DOJ memo from 2020.
According to the constitution, as soon as 2/3rds of states ratify, it becomes an amendment. (well, in this particular case, it was written to take effect two years after ratification, and the 2/3rds threshold was passed Jan 27th, 2020)
But the DOJ under Trump argued that the constitution isn't entirely correct, because there needs to be a time limit for that ratification to take place. So I guess no 28th amendment. Ish. Vaguely based on a SCOTUS case from, I wanna say, the 1920s, in which they said time limits for ratification make sense. Ish.
But at the same time, the 27th amendment was officially added 50ish years ago, even though it took damn near 200 years to get it ratified (being that it was one of the original 12 amendments, of which ten became the Bill of Rights). So that SCOTUS precedent is out the window. Ish.
Of course, the problem here is that the ERA will lead to a lot of complications when it comes to banning abortion and birth control. We would have to limit the rights of men if we were to limit the rights of women, so...Maybe the constitution should sit this one out, right? I mean, yeah, the first and the second amendments are important, and Article II, but like, some of those other rights? Right to privacy, ways in which amendments are added, those are...less convenient.
What do you guys think? Should we follow the constitution or the Trump DOJ? Which one is more correct? I think the majority of cows would rather the constitution sit this one out.
|
Is anyone actually talking about banning birth control? Bunch of fucking Catholics.
I think you made some interesting points in the 2nd to last paragraph, but my sleeping pill is kicking in.
-------------------- "The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
Hobby Lobby argued in 2014 that some forms of contraception are actually abortion. Science may disagree, but legally, IUDs and such are considered to induce abortions. These would also be targeted by fetal personhood laws.
Amy Coney Barret also refused to comment of Griswold, which established the right to birth control in the US.
Anti-abortion activists don't really like to talk specifically about their future goals, and I suspect that is because their future goals are unpopular.
EDIT: Oh, and same sex marriage is probably on the chopping block too. Followed by homosexual sex in general, and potentially interracial marriage. A lot of those rights are rooted in the right to privacy and the right to, essentially, live as you want to.
Either way, it would be idiotic to assume that anti abortion activists will consider their mission accomplished and quietly disband once Roe is overturned. I expect a large number of them to continue to push for nationwide abortion bans by law and then by constitutional amendment, and a small but growing contingent to target contraception.
Edited by Kryptos (01/31/22 11:45 AM)
|