1/7) On the floor of the House of Representatives on February 13, 2020, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "This [the ERA] has nothing to do with the abortion issue." This week arrived yet another proof that Pelosi's statement was utterly false.
#eranow
2/7) On 10-13-21, Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers filed a brief at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the state law that limits Medicaid funding of abortion to cases of life of the mother, rape, and incest.
3/7) In the new brief, Planned Parenthood and its allied attorneys at the Women's Law Project argue that the state law violates the Pennsylvania ERA, adopted in 1971 (when Pennsylvania law prohibited abortion, except to save the life of the mother).
4/7) They assert that a policy that excludes a sex-linked procedure (abortion) is sex-based discrimination and absolutely impermissible under the state ERA (while implying that the same would be true at the federal level, if there were a federal ERA).
5/7) They urge the Penn. Supreme Court to follow the lead of the New Mexico Supreme Court, which in 1998 unanimously ruled that the NM ERA did not permit exclusion of abortion from the state Medicaid program. Both the PA and NM ERAs are very similar to the 1972 federal ERA.
6/7) A 1985 Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling (Fischer) that upheld the same state law, and rejected the ERA-abortion argument, was wrong, is old hat, and should be overturned, the abortion providers assert.
7/7) The case is Allegheny Reproductive Health Center vs. Pennsylvania Dept. of Human Services.

For more illustrations of the long-evident ERA-abortion connection (which until recently was denied by many ERA proponents), see our previous thread:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with ERA_No_Shortcuts

ERA_No_Shortcuts Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ERANoShortcuts

17 Mar
NRLC on today's House ERA tally, 222-204: "This was ERA’s poorest showing in the House in 50 years...Today’s tally was 62 votes below the 2/3 margin that the Constitution requires to perform grown-up constitutional amending, as opposed to today’s cheap political theater.”
#eranow
Read 4 tweets
16 Mar
"The Equal Rights Amendment 2021" is a great show. There is a lot happening-- Congress, Executive Branch, federal courts, state legislatures, the media. But where is all this going? Much of what you now see is political theater. To understand this better, we must go back... Image
ERAs have proposed in Congress since 1923. But for many decades, they were unable to surmount the high hurdles found in Article V of the Constitution. Article V succinctly spells out how the Constitution may be amended. To protect the text of the Constitution, Image
the Framers required extraordinarily levels of political consensus to amend. Two methods were provided, but only one has been employed-- Congress, by 2/3 votes, proposes an amendment, but it only becomes part of the Constitution if 3/4 of state legislatures (now, 38) ratify it. Image
Read 44 tweets
15 Mar
ERA MEDIA WATCH: @USATODAY piece by @mgroppe, "Biden Taking Hands-Off Approach to DOJ Barrier on ERA." Quotes unnamed Administration official saying Biden won't tell DOJ whether to rescind the Jan. 2020 OLC opinion that said the ERA had expired.

usatoday.com/story/news/pol…
The Administration official, responding on the condition of anonymity, said Biden remains committed to the ERA, but respects the independence of the Justice Department. An upcoming vote in the U.S. House of Representatives is "the appropriate next step," the official said. ImageImage
The House will vote March 17 on a resolution (H.J.Res. 17) that purports to retroactively remove the 1979 ERA deadline; quotes Douglas D. Johnson, director of NRLC's ERA Project, as saying Congress is powerless to time travel back to 1972 to resuscitate a long-dead amendment. ImageImage
Read 5 tweets
8 Mar
ABORTION AND THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT:
A THREAD

With the U.S. House of Representatives slated to vote on an ERA "deadline removal" measure (H.J.Res. 17) the week of March 15, 2021, it is timely to review one of the main reasons the level of support for
#equalrightsamendment
the language of the 1972 ERA has dropped so precipitously in the "People's House"--the house that is apportioned on the basis of population, and in which every member stands for election every 2 years. In 1971, 94% of House members voted for the ERA Resolution (H.J.Res. 208).
But when the House Democratic majority leadership attempted a "start-over" ERA (same language) in 1983, it failed on the House floor (11-15-83), drawing 65% support, short of 2/3 needed (14 cosponsors nay). Single biggest reason: the ERA-abortion link had become evident to many.
Read 25 tweets
7 Mar
Step right up! See the wondrous transformation of the ERA resolution (H.J.Res.17)! Introduced Jan. 21 under Congress's Article V powers, properly crafted by congressional attorneys to require 2/3 vote in each house. But now, in dead of night, in the blink of an eye-- transformed! Image
Here you see the original H.J. Res. 17, as introduced with trumpets Jan. 21, 2021. We invite you to carefully examine the "Resolved" clause-- drafted by congressional staff specialists, initiates in their arcane craft, to properly reflect the Article V requirement for 2/3 votes. ImageImage
Now, do not blink... shazam! H.J. Res. 17, transformed! The number, the date, they've not changed--and yet, the pesky constitutional 2/3 requirement is no more! Only the tiny star, barely noticeable, conveying meaning only to initiates, reveals the visit of the stealthy magician! ImageImage
Read 5 tweets
6 Mar
In new CNN piece @VeronicaStrac, sharply contrasting assessments of the 3-5-21 ERA deadline ruling by Judge Rudolph Contreras. CNN says the judge "dealt a blow to advocates of the ERA" by upholding the deadline and rejecting late actions by VA, IL, and NV.
cnn.com/2021/03/06/pol…
Douglas Johnson of National Right to Life said Democrats in Congress & state AGs are on "a political-pressure campaign to intimidate the federal courts into permitting them to air-drop the long-expired ERA into the Constitution, [but] a federal judge appointed by President Obama ImageImage
ignored the political pressures and unflinchingly enforced the Constitution." But Katherine Franke of the ERA Project at Columbia Law School said, "Yesterday's ruling is not really a setback for sex equality or the ERA, rather it renews our focus on the bill Image
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(