Skip to main content
The largest online newspaper by Ancestryprint logo
The Republic from Columbus, Indiana • Page 5
A Publisher Extra® Newspaper

The Republic from Columbus, Indiana • Page 5

The Republici
Columbus, Indiana
Issue Date:
Extracted Article Text (OCR)

THE REPUBLIC. COLUMBUS. INDIANA, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 1973 Phyllis Schlgfly Inaccurate Effects on ERA Yale Law Writer Misquoted LV. ation would prevail with respect to alimony. From the viewpoint of fairness to all, including the children, it is hard to see how reasonable objection can be made to such recipro- city.

Actually many of these changes in support and alimony laws have already been put into effect in some states. Moreover, the uniform Marriage and Divorce law, drafted by the Commissioners of Uniform State Laws, also embodies the principles of the Equal Rights amendment. Finally, there has been a general criticism of the Equal Rights amendment on the ground that it would entail many unforeseen changes in state and federal laws, beyond the capacity of the legislatures and courts to sus- tain. After a careful analysis of the impact of the Equal Rights amendment upon four major areas of the law, a study published recently, in which I participated, concluded that this would not be the case. 'Forgive them Miss Farraday wherever you are!" a la.

i Hi Jwrk mA.VMK III MO' IWSI IF EDITOR'S NOTE: Charging that opponent! of the Equal Rights mendment have misquoted and uted itatementi out of context from Yale Law Journal article, a second of the artlcle'i four co-authors has urged Indiana legislators to adopt the amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Thomas Emerson, who Is the Lines professor of law at Yale university in Con-. nectlcut, testified last week at a state Senate hearing on the ERA. Another of the co-authors earlier wrote a Letter to the Editor which appeared In the Indianapolis Star.

The Republic earlier reprinted the erroneous statements about the article as they appeared in literature distributed by Phyllis Schlafly to oppose ERA. Here are excerpts from Emerson's testimony correcting the Yale Law Journal's viewpoint on ERA. I am particularly glad to be here because my views about the Equal Rights amendment have, in some quarters, been grossly distorted or totally misrepresented. I confess that, if some of the things which have been said about the Equal Rights amendment were true, I would not be for it either. But they are not true.

They are wild imaginings or deliberate deceptions. It is not true, as has been charged, that the Equal Rights amendment will wipe out laws against prostitution, rape, sodomy, and other sex offenses. The Equal Rights amendment requires only that such laws apply equally to both sexes. If the law makes prostitution a crime for women it must also make it a crime for men. It is not true that the Equal Rights amendment will wipe out the right of the mother to keep her children in case of divorce.

If the mother is the preferable custodian she will be awarded custody of the children. But she will not be given an automatic preference over the father purely because of her sex. It is not true that the Equal Rights amendment will wipe out women rights to privacy. The constitutional right to privacy and that includes privacy in restrooms, dressing rooms, sleeping quarters and the like remains untouched by the Equal Rights amendment. I feel particularly distressed about these, and numerous other, misconceptions concerning the Equal Rights amendment because many of them rely for support upon an article which I and three co-authors published in the Yale Law Journal.

The article was a strong defense of the Equal Rights amendment but it has been turned upside down by some people in an effort to show that the Equal Rights amendment is both foolish and destructive of American values. The reason this has happened is that few of those opponents of the Equal Rights amendment who quote the article have ever actually read it. Rather they rely upon extracts which have been pulled out of context, omit Important passages, involve sheer mis- quotation, or are otherwise rigged so as not to convey the meaning plainly intended by the authors. I strongly support the Equal Rights amendment and urge this committee to consider it favorably. The Equal Rights amendment is a moral and social reform in the best traditions of American society.

It is long overdue. Moreover, the language of the Amendment itself represents a carefully considered, responsible, and thoroughly workmanlike way of embodying that reform in our constitutional law. The basic principle of the Equal Rights amendment is that the legal rights and obligations of each citizen shall be determined upon the basis of his or her own individual qualifications or function, not on the basis of a general grouping by sex. In other words, to put the matter in legal terms, sex is not a permissible classification; it cannot be used to decide automatically, without consideration of individual characteristics, what the law prohibits or permits a person to do. I am sure that all of us agree with the principle as a general proposition.

None of us would say that, assuming men on the average make better lawyers, therefore no woman should be admitted to the bar. Or, assuming that women on the average make better doctors, no man should be allowed to practice medicine. If we try to think of all other possible applications of this principle, even the right to join the armed forces, I think we would come to the same conclusion. The reason is that the idea is embedded in our moral and philosophical attitudes. All of us, I am sure, are firmly committed to the proposition that women should not be relegated to an inferior status in American society.

Paul Harvey News If Some Paid What The amendment Would not be effective until two years after ratification. This will give legislatures ample time to make the necessary adjustments. The role of the courts in applying the Equal Rights amendment will be no different than their function with respect to due process, equal protection, the First Amendment, or any other basic provision of the Constitution. Decision of issues on a case-by-case basis is a traditional method of effectuating legal change. Nothing in the Equal Rights amendment indicates that the problems of transition will be any more difficult than those our legislatures and courts constantly face.

In conclusion, let me emphasize that the Equal Rights amendment is not an Irresponsible or extremist measure, dreamed up by a few militants. It is a carefully formulated, workable proposal, well within the tradition of our legal and constitutional structure. It is responsive to a great and urgent need. CENTER Your Friendlv Druo Stnre, 'All of us feel strongly; that each person should be allowed to develop his own Eotential and live his own life be Judged by is own traits and accomplishments without being held down by Inclusion in a general class based upon race, religion, national origin, or sex. These values can be embodied in our law only if.

sex, like race, is a forbidden legal classification. The Equal Rights amendment does not, of course, eliminate sex from American life. What it does is to guarantee "equality of rights under the law." The amendment does not af- feet relations between the sexes except in so far as it establishes the basic legal rules by which our group life is governed Moreover, the Equal Rights amendment is not Intended to override the constitutional right to privacy. This is completely clear from the legislative history of the amendment during its passage through Congress. Hence the fuss that has been made about the amendment requiring the sexes to share private facilities is entirely without foundation.

Opposition to the Equal Rights amendment has largely centered around three or four issues. Permit me to state my conclusions about these matters briefly. One major source of concern has been the fear that ratification of the Equal Rights amendment would eliminate legislation designed to protect working women. This protective legislation is the product of hard-fought battles, mostly in the early years of this century, and is not to be lightly thrust aside. I share the view that at one time these laws served a very useful purpose and marked important progress.

We cannot, however, avoid the fact that times have changed. The vast increase in the number of women in the labor force, and different conditions of working life, have deprived most of these laws of any significance as a protection to women. As a matter of fact some of them now operate to restrict opportunities for women, and one may suspect that some of the support for their retention is pure male piggishness. In any event, all protective labor laws that still serve a useful function, such as minimum hours and rest periods, can and should be retained and extended to men. Furthermore, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

prohibiting discrimination in employment on account of race, color or sex, already has been construed to nullify virtually all these laws which discriminate for or against women. In light of Title VII, the issue of maintaining protective labor legislation is largely academic. Events have moved us to another era. A second source of concern over the effect of the Equal Rights amendment involves the question of military service. On this issue emotions, especially those of men, run high.

Womep themselves, I feel, are less upset. In any event, if one examines the problem rationally, it is hard to aee why women ihould be exempt from advantages and disadvantages of serving in the armed forces. As a matter of fact women have for a long time been admitted to the military, both in this country and abroad, in substantial numbers. There is nothing in the Equal Rights amendment which prohibits them from being assigned, as are individual men, only to sucn duties as they are capable of performing. But the Equal Rights amendment would eliminate the discrimination which they now suffer in what is still considered by some, though it no longer can be, an exclusively male enclave.

I feel that the issue of combat service for women has been vastly overdramatized. Whether and to what extent the military would find women qualified to engage in combat duty is highly speculative. Very possibly it would never occur. Nevertheless, opponents of the Amendment, such as Senator Ervin, recoil from the prospect that "their fair bodies will be shat tered into fragments by the bombs and shells of the enemy. So do I.

And I recoil equally from the thought that the "strong bodies" of our young men are subject to such dangers. But as between maiming or killing our young men, and maiming or killing our young women, I see little to choose. In any event abandonment of the draft would seem to make this problem largely academic too. A third area of concern is, I think, a quite unnecessary one. That is the effect of the Equal Rights amendment upon family sup- Krt.

The Amendment does not change the oblation of the husband and father to support his wife and children. The only difference under the Equal Rights amendment would be that the State would have to require a reciprocal obligation on the part of the wife and mother, so far as she would be able to provide it. The same situ- They Owe Us. paid by Morocco, Spain and Italy In part. But so far we have neither the money nor the promise of as much as 100 million dollars from nations known to owe us more than 46 billion! The subcommittee is urginjr our diplomats in France ana West Germany to press claims on those countries but without effect.

what they owe The multiplicity of currencies involved in any international monetary consideration confound most of us. But shucked down to the cob, as they say in Alexander's Ozarks, the present pressure on the American dollar results from too few of 'em over here and too many of 'em over there. Our huge Investments in and purchases from other countries turned world trade upside down. Further devaluation of the American dollar is not a medi were almost pressure got' cough up 35 mil we have only money. cine, it's a narcotic; ultimately it undermines the system.

have been Win 0nly IwM jz ttteffl SH0UlDERS vqManbv WpoBBp uCjtly I Shampoo Js flS Oft RITK-WAT COUPON ilAW 01, 8Q thru) A i ei nfti 100 Sq rt' Jumbo Ron lS) Urjl CLEARASIL Vo'u u. i A RAIN ooooooooocooocoo i Xgft 7 A Hair Spray 00 COUPON 1 plH 65 KOTEX- i nA hTvJ 3 1 Feminine fVS Fl I KA I I I 5sL Limif on. coupon p.r prelu. 0 I NSv alconephrin-1 2 OOttOOOOCOCOOCCCO I XVXKV Tablets NOSE hLn 1 I vvTkvC 30 count boby'. fSssmtiJiY iftmmfflw i I I -1 sZX I fllBffljh- Cleanser ,1 IfSj I value EDGE 0" W3 jfi.

LjMr, stkk UQmjjf Deodorant S. 1 1 I Ai Soo Through liCn BUBBLE UMBRELLA ft)? ZJ ALUMINUM )V GILLEnETRACni3FOIL flff Vl' (P)CSl CHLORASEPTIC PISTACHIO NUTSpFl iii69ifa (p)( is Wrl FIXODENT FASTEETH 3K rSw UPTON ILjey'L Denture Denture StmVll li aj'M jXMzJn Adhesive Adhesive IlTnumtt 1 IV Bas I 1 Vj Cram 2 OX' PWd'r 1 1 00 Count Bex SB iNksii V( 25th St. Center By PAUL HARVEY CHICAGO First aid for the American dollar is not enough. Our foreign involvement and our trade imbalance have flooded other nations with Yankee dollars, and all those other nations know to suggest is revaluation for us U.S. Isn't anybody going to suggest that they pay us what they owe lecting tO'pay us us? Somebody is.

4 Arkansas' Rep. Bill Alexander of that congressional subcom I don't know how much money mittee has persistently insisted that collection efforts be increased. They were. That com other countries owe us; appar -entry nobody does. My files say mittee's efforts 138 billion dollars.

Out House subcommittee on foreign operations set out two solely responsible diplomatic talks for initiating with Russia on this subject. But Russia agreed to pay us only 732 million dollars vears aeo to find out ana an they've found out is that it's on a multibillion-dollaf obligation, arid, solar, has paid only 12 million. Subcommittee Iran to agree to "something In excess of 46 billion." If that were all, that's a pile of money. While neighbor nations owe us that much, what's the big idea of them buying up gold, Jewels and real estate In the United States because they mistrust our dollar while at the same time neg- ITEMS ON SALE TODAY THRU SATURDAY Wl RIIIRVI THI RIOHT TO UMIT. QUANTUM.

PtlAM HO PHONI OSDIRI. SHOPPING "thST. lion owed for surplus property provided after the second world H0UDAY Su" 6 SHOPPING CENTER I war. But so far Iran's word and no Delinquent debts i in liiirftniiT ftw sV I.

Clipped articles people have found on this page

Get access to

  • The largest online newspaper archive
  • 300+ newspapers from the 1700's - 2000's
  • Millions of additional pages added every month

Publisher Extra® Newspapers

  • Exclusive licensed content from premium publishers like the The Republic
  • Archives through last month
  • Continually updated

About The Republic Archive

Pages Available:
Years Available: