New Yorkers are so smart

jillinnjMarch 22, 2012

As the only Republican Congressman at a rally for the Equal Rights Amendment on Thursday, Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) gave women an unexpected piece of advice: Give your money to Democrats.

"I think these are very precarious times for women, it seems. So many of your rights are under assault," he told the crowd of mostly women. "I'll tell you this: Contribute your money to people who speak out on your behalf, because the other side -- my side -- has a lot of it. And you need to send your own message. You need to remind people that you vote, you matter, and that they can't succeed without your help."

...

Hanna, a pro-choice Republican and co-sponsor of the Equal Rights Amendment, acknowledged that women's continuing fight for equality is meeting some resistance among his Republican colleagues. He urged women to become more politically active on their own behalf.

"This is a dogfight, it's a fistfight, and you have all the cards," he said. "I can only tell you to get out there and use them. Tell the other women, the other 51 percent of the population, to kick in a few of their bucks. Make it matter, get out there, get on TV, advertise, talk about this. The fact that you want [the ERA] is evidence that you deserve it and you need it."

Good for him! Nice to know there is at least 1 republican willing to stand up for what is right.

Here is a link that might be useful: NY Republican

Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mylab123(z5NW)

Oh poo, no good upstanding conservative woman would ever listen to the likes of *him*!

He's nothing but a big ole' stinking RINO who won't survive the next election due to this treasonous statement, you mark my words.

    Bookmark   March 22, 2012 at 8:49PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jerzeegirl(9)

We always suspected there were some reasonable republicans out there and this proves it.

    Bookmark   March 22, 2012 at 9:05PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
esh_ga

I hope elvis reads this.

    Bookmark   March 22, 2012 at 9:12PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dockside_gw

Why shouldn't there be an Equal Rights Amendment? Why would anyone be against women having equal rights under the Constitution?

An ERA has been introduced every year since it didn't get ratified in 1982, but never passed. Can anyone tell me the reasoning behind the failure to acknowledge women are entitled to equality? And, I'm not referring to the REAL reason - men afraid of losing control but the reason these men give.

    Bookmark   March 22, 2012 at 9:32PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jodik_gw

Everyone should be equal under the law... we shouldn't even need a special Amendment. It should already be part of our Constitution.

    Bookmark   March 23, 2012 at 7:54AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jerzeegirl(9)

When our Constitution was written women did not have the rights they have today, so the ERA definitely should be added to it to ensure women have equal protection under the Constitution. The proof that it needs to be added is all the BS going on today about trying to control women's reproductive rights.

    Bookmark   March 23, 2012 at 8:14AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
maggie2094

I was curious so I looked him up to see what part of NY he repped - Utica area. Found another interesting bit of info:

  • He is one of only six House Republicans in the 112th Congress who have not signed Grover Norquist's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge," with a spokesman explaining that "Rep. Hanna is focusing on the pledges he has made to his wife, the Constitution of the United States and the people of upstate New York."

One of 6 that did't make a pledge to one citizen of our country and hold to it above their constituents. Wow...

    Bookmark   March 23, 2012 at 9:06AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
labrea_gw

But why do they need equal rights whats wrong with the rights? What don't they have now? Wasn't Lilly Ledbetter enough already next you'll be usurping the states rights by demanding special rights for Lesbians. Why can't they just stay hot fantasizes like they have always been rather than these well you know? Women who have to stir all these boycotts up & infringe on religious freedom. Why can't they just stop focusing on their vaginas for more than 2 minutes at a time?

    Bookmark   March 23, 2012 at 9:08AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

"And, I'm not referring to the REAL reason - men afraid of losing control but the reason these men give."

Men?

When I scanned the Wiki Article on ERA I get the impression that the opposition to its passage came from all sorts of people. But I have to say, too, that I got a little dizzy reading all that was going on with it over the years.

Unions, Democrats, Catholics,... the usual mess.

Someone sort it out for me. Who was really for it? Who was really against it?

Men? Really?

I haven't followed the issue at all, but, vaguely in the back of my mind, I thought that women and their supporters felt that we might be putting women alongside men in the foxholes..., that sort of thing.

Do women get special treatment that they'd be losing?

"The ERA was strongly opposed by the American Federation of Labor and other labor unions, who feared the amendment would invalidate protective labor legislation for women. ERA was also opposed by Eleanor Roosevelt and most New Dealers,"

Sounds like "progressives" to me.

Educate me.

Who really was against its passage?

Hay

    Bookmark   March 23, 2012 at 9:14AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Top o' the morning, Hay. Well...Phyllis Schlafly. But that's new thread fodder, and would be an absolute hoot~~

A real hoot. Might do it.

    Bookmark   March 23, 2012 at 9:42AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
maddie_athome

Rep. Hanna gets it. Kudos to him for speaking up!

I vividly remember that heinious Schlafly and her ilk, concerned uptight "women" blahlahwhatever back then.

But why do they need equal rights whats wrong with the rights? What don't they have now? Wasn't Lilly Ledbetter enough already next you'll be usurping the states rights by demanding special rights for Lesbians. Why can't they just stay hot fantasizes like they have always been rather than these well you know? Women who have to stir all these boycotts up & infringe on religious freedom. Why can't they just stop focusing on their vaginas for more than 2 minutes at a time?

You know, Joe, what's going on right now--that's what you have to put up with all the time. Floaters, all of them!

    Bookmark   March 23, 2012 at 9:42AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
kingturtle(Zone 7 GA)

Eleanor Roosevelt?

    Bookmark   March 23, 2012 at 9:42AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
kingturtle(Zone 7 GA)

I'm waiting for a Republican to stand up and say "If God intended for women to be equal to men, he would have made them men to start with."

    Bookmark   March 23, 2012 at 10:54AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jerzeegirl(9)

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Just think about it, Hay. It will preserve equal rights for men in case the discrimination against them that you are so worried about gets to be too much.

    Bookmark   March 23, 2012 at 11:01AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
sweeby

we shouldn't even need a special Amendment. It should already be part of our Constitution.

That's the only opposition I've ever heard -- That we don't need it so we shouldn't have it... Same logic they give for not prohibiting discrimination based on LGBT basis -- we don't need it so we shouldn't have it.

    Bookmark   March 23, 2012 at 1:00PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jodik_gw

What I meant, Sweeby, is that this should have been included and passed decades ago... so that all these wars against everyone... women, minorities, same-sex marriage and adoption, etc... could not be divisive issues brought by the politically bigoted and followers.

You must know by now that I'm a liberal, atheist, all-inclusive, environmentally protective person... and now a very pissed off female.

    Bookmark   March 23, 2012 at 1:17PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

"...could not be divisive issues brought by the politically bigoted and followers..." - jodik

Jodik, you are presumably speaking about others, but you do realize you are also speaking about yourself?

Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance and animosity toward members of a group. Bigotry may be directed towards those of a differing SEX or sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, nationality, region, language, RELIGIOUS OR SPIRITUAL BELIEF, POLITICAL ALIGNMENT, age, economic status or medical disability.

Emphasis added by way of capitalization.

Perhaps you want to avoid this word.

    Bookmark   March 23, 2012 at 3:19PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mylab123(z5NW)

Elvis, I think you make a good point.

Almost all of us on this forum could be considered a bigot regarding some specific issues or groups we have remarked upon. That's an idea which can't be denied.

It's an interesting thought.

    Bookmark   March 23, 2012 at 3:43PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dockside_gw

The main reason we need an ERA:

The Supreme Court has not held that sex is a "suspect class", under the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment, which means that a state or governmental entity can discriminate against someone (usually a woman) because of his/her sex as long as the discrimination bears a rational relationship to the purpose of the law. However, when discrimination is alleged against a member of a "suspect class" of people (people who have immutable characteristics such as race, alienae or national origin) there must be a strict scrutiny of the reason(s) for the discrimination, and most often, a court will not be able to find a valid reason for the discrimination. The case where a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court decided to not extend the "suspect" class designation to sex was decided when the ERA was up for ratification and the Court felt that it should not usurp the constitutional process of adding the ERA.

Since the ERA did not pass, we cannot rely on courts to protect the rights of anyone on the basis of sex like the rights of others are protected on the basis of race, national origin, etc. Women are still second-class citizens when it comes to equal protection under the U.S. Constitution. It would be funny, if it wasn't so outrageous, to read the backflips some judges do to say why sex, an immutable characteristic, shouldn't be considered an immutable charateristic like race.

THAT is why we need an ERA. And, the fears that women would lose some of the "protective legislation" accorded them in the workplace are no longer operative. In the 60's and 70's, those laws were often used to keep women from working as many hours as men, thus lowering their incomes. And, women have advanced so far in holding different jobs, which were "protected" that I don't believe anyone would still try to "protect" them from those jobs that might require them to stand on their feet, work longer hours, lift heavy items, etc. Women are already doing that. Of, course, there will still be some people who have the "potty excuse." Anything to stay in control or remain controlled, for some people.

I quote from my law casebook (from 1974) on Sex and Discrimination (one of the authors was Justice Ginsburg):

"In sum, the (ERA) amendment would eliminate the historical impediments to unqualified judifical recognition of equal rights and responsibilities for men and women as constitutional principle; it would end legislative inertia that keeps discriminatory laws on the books despite the counsel of amendment opponents that removal or revision of these laws is "the way"; and it would serve as a clear statement of the nation's moral and legal commitment to a system in which women and men stand as full and equal individuals before the law."

    Bookmark   March 23, 2012 at 5:21PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jodik_gw

I'm beginning to suspect that there's a great big spoon just stirring and stirring...

    Bookmark   March 23, 2012 at 5:55PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Thanks, ML. I'm surprised that as yet no one has gone ballistic because I pointed this out. There's bound to be some mighty interesting excuses for this behavior. Wonder what they are?

    Bookmark   March 23, 2012 at 7:32PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jodik_gw

That's what I was trying to say earlier, Dockside... there's no reason this should not be "a system in which women and men stand as full and equal individuals before the law". Though, I would probably add "regardless of..." and add a few things that are still points of prejudice/discrimination within our nation.

    Bookmark   March 24, 2012 at 12:40AM
Sign Up to comment
More Discussions
WTF?? Where is the seed exchange???
Is it gone because it's free?
sammymocha
Right Wing Nut Job David Barton
Does not believe there will be a vaccine for HIV because...
labrea_gw
Boris Nemtsov Assasinated
Shot a few days before he was to lead a peace March!...
labrea_gw
Alabama again Ho Hum
"The Alabama supreme court has ordered the state’s...
labrea_gw
A Court decision gutting ACA could be a lot worse than you think
A Court decision gutting ACA could be a lot worse than...
momj47
People viewed this after searching for:
© 2015 Houzz Inc. Houzz® The new way to design your home™