Hardin Stockton Realtors Lois Hillmer 8613 Barkley Overland Park Kans 66212 (Handwritten) Personal Senator Bob Dole Room 2327 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 7301 MISSION ROAD, PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KANSAS, 66207 (Handwritten) Equal rt December 19, 1974 Mr. Glenn Tuttle Route 2, Box 102 Ulysses, Kansas Dear Mr. Tuttle: This is to acknowledge and thank you for your letter opposing the Equal Rights Amendment. This Amendment was passed by Congress some time ago. This being a Constitutional Amendment, the states are required to ratify it before it can have the affect of law. At last count, all but five states of the two-thirds necessary for ratification, had voted for ratification. Many feel that it may be a - may be a long while and perhaps never, before five more do ratify the Amendment. Under the circumstances, the issue is up to the legislature of the States and I have no further vote on the matter. Appreciate hearing from you. If I may be of assistance at any time, do not hesitate to let me know. Sincerely, BOB DOLE United States Senator BD:el (Stamped) SENATOR BOB DOLE RECIEVED DEC 14, 1974 Rt box 102 Ulysses, Kansas Dec. 11, 1974 Robert Dole House of Representatives Suite 2327 Senate Office Bldg. Washington, D.C., 20510 Dear Mr. Dole, We would like to urge you to vote against (Underlined) the Equal Rights amendment as we feel women will be losing rights instead of gaining them. We believe in equal pay for men and women but believe much more is involved and women will eventually loose their womanhood if this amendment is left as it is now stated. Thank you, The Glenn Tuttle family December 16, 1974 (Handwritten) equal rt Mary L. Whipple State Legislation Chairman Veterans of Foreign Wars Auxiliary 8814 Kessler Lane Overland, Park, Kansas 66212 Dear Mrs. Whipple: As a follow-up to my interim acknowledgement of November 2, let me thank you again for your letter requesting a clarification of the probable impact of the Equal Rights Amendment. Many of the ramifications which you cited could, in a technical sense, be possible if such an Amendment were ultimately ratified. From a practical standpoint, however, it would be unrealistic to expect that all of them would come about. The only real concern which states considering this issue have expressed is that women might be required to serve in combat. But even that eventuality is not very reasonable when viewing this measure in its proper perspective. I am enclosing for your information an "issue brief" which discusses the intended impact of the Equal rights proposition. I think you will find from reading it that the measure does not contemplate quite the dramatic effects which have been suggested during the approval process. I apologize for my inability to get this material to you sooner, but hope you can still find it useful at this time. Please let me know, after reading it, whether I can provide any additional assistance to you in your study of this matter. I appreciate your having taken the time to write, and look forward to hearing from you again whenever I may be responsive to your needs and requests. Sincerely yours, BOB DOLE United States Senate BD:kbt Enclosure Ladies Auxiliary Department of Kansas Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States Senator Bob Dole Ramada Inn Kansas City, Kansas August 23, 1974 Dear Senator Dole, I have received some radical literature put out by an organization "Women Who Want To Be Women" citing many drastic things that will happen to women if the Equal Rights Amendment is ratified. Among the points: the wife will be forced to provide half the family income; to do so the children will be put in a day care center: divorced women will have to pay child support if the husband wins custody: wife and children will not have to take the father's name: no segregation of sexes in any public facility: women subject to the draft as men: no protection against rape crimes: etc., etc. This information was received from an Auxiliary member in Osborne who is most upset about it and in turn, is alarming others. Can you tell me, or tell me where to find out, in simple terms what the Equal Rights Amendment will really mean? I realize with the election so near this is an inconvenient time for you. I won't require an answer until November 1Oth or l1th, which will give me few days to pass it on to the V.F.W. Auxiliary members in the state of Kansas. I hope to stop this thing before it snowballs further. Thank you for your consideration... Sincerely, Mrs. R.R. Whipple State Legislation Chairman Veterans of Foreign Wars Auxiliary 8814 Kessler Lane Overland Park, Kansas (Handwritten) 66212 (Handwritten) Equal rt December 5, 1974 Mrs. Larry Anderson Box 611 Ulysses, Kansas Dear Mrs. Anderson: This is to acknowledge and thank you for your recent letter. The Equal Rights Amendment was passed by Congress some time ago. This being a Constitutional Amendment, the states are required to ratify it before it can have the affect of law. At last count, all but five states of the two-thirds necessary for ratification, had voted for ratification. Many feel that it may be a long while before five more do ratify the Amendment. Under the circumstances, the issue is up to the legislatures of the states and I have no further vote on the matter. You may wish to contact the State of Kansas legislature, although the state of Kansas has ratified it. The State of Nebraska has rescinded their ratification. Appreciate hearing from you. If I may be of assistance at any time do not hesitate to let me know. Sincerely, BOB DOLE United States Senator BD:el Dec 2, 1974 Robert Dole House of Representatives Suite 2327 Dickinson Senate Office Building Washington DC (Stamped) SENATOR BOB DOLE RECIEVED DEC 5 WASHINGTON DC 20510 Dear Sir: I would like to have my feelings on "The Equal Rights amendment" known to you. As I understand it, there is already a law for equal pay for equal work and that is how it should be, but God created men and women different, and they should be treated different. I am a mother of four sons and I do not want them to lose their respect and protective feelings towards women now or in the future, and I believe this amendment would gradually do this to all our sons. This amendment will cause a breakdown in the structure of the home and eventually the nation. There is nothing to be gained by it, and a very lot to be lost by it. Mrs. Larry Anderson Box 611 Ulysses, KS November 18, 1974 (Handwritten) equal rt Mrs. J.W. Sommers Towanda, Kansas 67144 Dear Mrs. Sommers: This is to acknowledge and thank you for your recent letter. which has been forwarded to me in Washington from the Topeka office. Congress has passed the Equal Rights Amendment and now it is up to two thirds of the states to ratify it for it to become a law. Kansas has ratified the Amendment. Do believe that the statements on the pink sheet are very much exaggerated. You might contact the State legislature if you care to. Appreciate hearing from you. If I may be of assistance at any time, do not hesitate to let me know. Sincerely, BOB DOLE United States Senator BD:el Towanda Kansas Oct 18, 1974 Bob Dole US Senator Dear Mr. Dole: Since I don't know your Washington address I'm sending this to your Topeka address and hope you get it soon. I'm writing to you in the interest of the United Methodist Women’s' Unit in the Towanda church. We received a pink sheet informing us of all the things the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) stands for! It is very misleading and we are very concerned for the future of all women if it passes. It states that 27 states have ratified it and it becomes a law if 38 states ratify it. Can you tell us how Kansas stands on it? We sincerely hope that you are against it. If it passes women will no longer be respected but will be treated much as they are in Russia and other Communist Countries. I would appreciate your prompt reply to this as our ladies meet the first Wed. in Nov Sincerely, Mrs. J.W. Sommers Towanda Kansas. 67144 RRI (Handwritten) equal rt November 8, 1974 Mrs. L.T. Thomas 307 E. Blunt Downs, Kansas 67437 Dear Mrs. Thomas: Thank you for your letter expressing your concern about the Equal Rights Amendment. I voted in favor of this amendment when it came before the Senate in March, 1972. Because I feel that you may have some misunderstanding of this proposal, I am enclosing a copy of the amendment with this letter. Also, although Nebraska and Tennessee attempted to rescind their ratifications, this action has been judged illegal. A similar attempt to rescind ratification in Kansas failed in 1973. The Equal Rights Amendment simply allows women to participate in society without suffering discrimination solely on account of sex. It does not force a woman to do anything she does not wish to do. It simply allows her to make her own decisions as to the type of occupation she wishes to pursue. I do not believe that passage of the E.R.A. will result in increased immorality. Equality and immorality are simply not synonymous. Perhaps this is best pointed out in Galatians (3:28): “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Again, thanks for writing. Please let me know whenever I may be of assistance to you. Sincerely yours, BOB DOLE United States Senate BD:shz Enclosure October 30, 1974 Senator Bob Dole c/o U.S. Senate Washington, D.C. 200 Dear Congressman I am writing to you concerning the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) that The U. S. Congress passed on March 22, 1972. I am afraid that I, along with too many other ladies have been keeping our heads hid in the sand like an ostrich and letting a few like the NOW group do our thinking and voting for us. It is only recently that I have been made aware what ERA really was. I understand that Kansas has already ratified this but I also understand that Kansas can rescind this ratification as Nebraska and Tennessee have done so. I don't think the ladies in Kansas are ready for this and I know I don't want to be this "liberated" ever. Everything in this bill is against what the Bible teaches and will only encourage more immorality that really does not need encouraging. The history of the downfall of every nation has been its immorality. Is this what you congressman are for -- the downfall of our great and mighty nation? Let us return to God and bring back the principles that our nation was founded on. Sincerely (Signature) Mrs. L. T. Thomas 307 E. Blunt Downs, Kansas 67437 November 4, 1974 Rev. E. J. Watson Faith Baptist School Rte. 2, Box 347 Olathe, Kansas 66061 Dear Rev. Watson: Thank you for your recent letter and the article you enclosed concerning the Equal Rights Amendment. Since the Amendment has already passed Congress, I have no say in the matter now. I would suggest that you contact your State Representatives and Governor, if you would like to have the matter rescinded by the States of Kansas. It has already been approved there too. Sorry that as a United States Senator I have no say in the matter. Appreciate hearing from you. If I may be of assistance at any time, do not hesitate to let me know. Sincerely, BOB DOLE United States Senator BD:el October 22, 1974 Bob Dole United States Senate Washington, D.C. (Stamped) RECIEVED OCT 29 1974 SENATOR BOB DOLE WASHINGTON D.C. 20510 Dear Mr. Dole: Thank you for responding to the petition opposing the Equal Rights Amendment. Enclosed are copies of several articles for your consideration. I agree that if a woman does the same job as a man, and does it as well, then she is entitled to the same pay. However, I feel this amendment is in effect trying to legislate men and women the same. The real danger in this amendment is in what it does not say. It leaves itself open for broad interpretation and thus constitutes a potential threat to privacy & moral standards. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely (signature) Rev. E.J.Watson EJW/jb The mini-amendment with maxi-consequences by Beneth Jones This is the day of "minis"—the mini-camera, the mini-computer. Almost everything mini is in some way a marvel, packing tremendous capability into a tiny amount of space. Now we have the mini-amendment. And it, too, is a marvel—for it is actually a deadly mini- bomb—short, general, and innocuous-sounding, but dangerous. That is the ERA, the so-called “Equal Rights Amendment.” Here are its 24 words: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. The ERA has been approved by both houses of Congress, and as of March, 1974, 33 states ratified the amendment. Approval by only five more states will make the ERA the law of the land. Supporters feel that Illinois, Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Missouri will soon ratify. The mini-bomb is about to go off. The marching, shrieking women-libbers are more a nuisance than a danger. They can be laughed at, or ignored. But the ERA is not just another "women's libstunt." As a national law, it could have dangerous implications for women and men. The phrase "equality of rights" will allow the courts broad interpretation- which could bring surprising results even to ERA's most vocal supporters. A Christian, who understands the privileges and duties for each sex outlined in God's Word, should fight this attack that seeks bludgeon male and female into "equality." You need to know the meaning behind those 24 words before you can begin to help defeat the ERA. Both friends and foes recognize an article in the Yale Law Journal of April, 1971, as an accurate analysis of the amendment's consequences. The article points out that, under ERA, a state would not be able to require a husband to support his wife. Instead, the mate with the highest earning power would be the family breadwinner, regardless of sex. ERA supporters say the husband's legal responsibility only has "psychological value," since the law is enforced only when a partner files for divorce or sues for non-support. But "psychological value" changed to a grim economic reality when a Washington judge awarded a husband in a divorce case the custody of his three children and ordered the mother to pay child support. The judge explained his decision by "the improved economic position of women generally in our society." The laws for protection of women would be changed as drastically as those for their support. The Journal says that ERA would not permit "seduction [laws], statutory rape laws, laws prohibiting obscene language in the presence of women...prostitution and manifest danger laws." In other words, the ERA views sex crimes in sex-neutral terms, a practice already written into Illinois law. Men have traditionally fought their country's wars while women have remained on the home front. The ERA would end this distinction by requiring women as well as men to register with Selective Service Boards. But "equality" of treatment by the Armed Forces would only begin with registration. In case the draft is renewed, a wife and mother would not be automatically deferred. The parent called first would be drafted. Once she joined the service, a woman would have to take the same physical tests as men. According to the journal, "neither the right to privacy nor any unique physical characteristics justifies different treatment of the sexes with respect to voluntary or involuntary service." Pregnant women would receive "only slightly different conditions of service." Women could even be put on the front battle lines, because "women are physically as able as men to perform many jobs classified as combat duty, such as piloting an airplane or engaging in naval operations." Presently there are many state laws protecting women on the job. Some are especially appreciated by female factory workers, such as those requiring seats and rest periods. Women are allowed to work only a certain number of hours or lift a certain maximum weight; they cannot hold some jobs such as mining. ERA would remove this protective legislation. Supporters say that only "discriminatory" laws would be annulled, and that protective legislation would simply be extended to male workers. But labor leaders point out that courts would be "far more hesitant to extend to the male majority a law originally passed to 'protect' a minority of female employees than to eliminate the 'benefit' for the women." You may not care if the courts invalidate weight-lifting regulations for women. But note this New York Times description of "equal rights" in the Soviet Union: "Women make up 50 percent of the work force. Many typically female jobs are the least attractive: paving streets, picking up garbage, digging holes." Obviously, the exchange of protection for "equality" often results in exploitation. The Senate's hearings on the ERA brought out of the amendment's threat to the constitutional right of privacy. Professor Paul Freund of Harvard Law School testified that the ERA "Would require that there be no segregation of the sexes in prison, reform schools, public restrooms, and other public facilities." Senator FAITH JULY/AUGUST 1974 17 continued Mini-amendment Sam Ervin of North Carolina questioned Phil Kurland, editor of the Supreme Court Review and professor of law at the University of Chicago: Senator Ervin: The Law which exists in North Carolina and in virtually every other state of the Union which requires separate restrooms for boys and girls in public schools would be nullified, would it not? Professor Kurland: That is right, unless the separate but equal doctrine is revived. Ervin described other ways privacy would be affected by ERA. Members of either sex will be able to perform police searches involving removal of clothing, no matter who is being searched. Sleeping quarters in hospitals, prisons, and the armed forces would not be segregated by sex. Already the San Quentin prison in California has hired women guards to supervise male inmates. The women perform a guard's normal duties including supervising showers and making body searches. The strongest supporters of the ERA show us how really dangerous the amendment is. A New York Times News Service article describes ERA's attack on the home: "To give women full participation in society, they say, it is necessary to overthrow... institutional marriage, which, they assert, enslaves women for economic reasons." The article also implied that ERA supporters hope the new law lays the groundwork for the repeal of all abortion laws. But the most frightening implications of ERA are its designs on the church. A 32 year-old Roman Catholic nun claims: "Religious women are beginning to learn that God is not necessarily male, that Jesus wasn't a male chauvinist, and that Saint Paul's hang-ups about women are no more to be tolerated than those of Hugh Hefner." The women's liberationists are angered by the refusal of some religious leaders to bow to their demands. Thus, they are trying to convert the woman in the pew to their viewpoint. Some reformers, such as Kenneth Woodward, religion editor of Newsweek, believe female church-goers are too complacent about "the second-class status that male-dominated religion assigns to them." To achieve "true liberation" feminists must cut through the sexually charged myths of the Judeo-Christian tradition." In opposing Christianity, the liberationists are attacking the one influence which has allowed women to be treated with kindness and dignity Do you hear the ticking of the mini-bomb? You should- and you should start immediately to help block ratification of this amendment. Christians must pray earnestly and specially against the ERA, believing God's promise: "If my people, which are called by my name, will humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land" (II Chronicles 7:14) In addition, Christians need to learn about the ERA. Ignorance is not neutrality; it can only help ERA's supporters. A good strategy is to look into the mind of the enemy itself. To start, go to your library and ask for the June, 1971, issue of McCall's, and read the Betty Friedan article topped by the picture of a raised, clenched fist. An excellent source for anti-ERA materials is the Phyllis Schlafly Report (Box 618, Alton Illinois 62002). Mrs. Schlafly is chairman of the national STOP ERA campaign. Her monthly newsletter gives a clear analysis of the effects ERA could have, including testimonies by labor leaders and law professors. The report occasionally includes a column on "equal rights in action," sample cases in states that have already passed the amendment. Once you understand your opponent, you'll be able to intelligently talk and write against the ERA. Let your state and federal congressmen know -repeatedly- that you are against ratification. You need to make your voice heard over those who convinced Congress to pass ERA. One Republican Senator said: I voted for it to get those militant women off my back, and I figured I'd leave it up to the states to decide." You can also participate in campaigns to oppose passage planned at state fairs this summer. If your state has already ratified the amendment, urge a movement to rescind. Nebraska has already rescinded, and 14 other states have introduced measures to do so (See box below) Whether you are a man or a woman, ERA could drastically change your life. It threatens your privacy, your home, and your church. The threat will become a reality, unless you act now to retain your God-given position over "equality of rights" (Box) *The following states have ratified the Equal Rights Amendment. Christians should help start a move to rescind the amendment as soon as possible. Alaska Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Hawaii Idaho Iowa Kansas Kentucky Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Montana New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Dakota Tennessee Texas Vermont Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Beneth Jones, a native of Olympia, Washington, holds a master of arts degree in speech interpretation from Bob Jones University. A popular speaker for women's gatherings, she meets her listeners' need with both warmth and clarity. She always points out dangers of the "women's lib" movement and then illuminates the Christian woman's stance in the light of the Scriptures. The Phyllis Schlafly Report VOL.7, NO.11, SECTION 2 Box 618, ALTON, ILLINOIS 62002 JUNE, 1974 Why Virginia Rejected FRA The Legislature of the State of Virginia, prior to voting on the Equal Rights Amendment, set up a Task Force of prominent lawyers to study the effect of ERA on Virginia laws. The members of the Task Force were distinguished law professors from various law schools in Virginia, including the law schools of the University of Virginia, the University of Richmond, Washington and Lee University, and William and Mary College. At the time of their appointment, the majority of the Task Force members were in favor of ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. The 97-page Task Force Report was presented on January 15, 1974 to the, Privileges and Elections Committee of the Virginia Legislature. This Report is the most comprehensive analysis of the effect of the Equal Rights Amendment yet made, and it constituted the evidence on which the Privileges and Elections Committee rejected the Equal Rights Amendment. The Privileges and Elections Committee of the Virginia Legislature took its constitutional ratification obligations seriously, made a deep study of ERA, examined all the available evidence, and concluded that ERA “‘is not in the best interest of the United States.” The majority members of this Committee are glad to share with any other State Legislator considering ERA the documentary evidence on which the decision to reject in Virginia was based. The 97-page Virginia Task Force Report proves that there is nothing whatever ERA will do to benefit women in Virginia, and that there are no Virginia laws which adversely discriminate against women which ERA will remedy. The Task Force Report shows that ERA will not give women more employment rights, more property rights, more marital rights, or more family rights. ERA will not help women with respect to jobs or home. The Task Force Report proves that there are no advantages for women in ERA, and many disadvantages. Obligations, Not Rights In the area of domestic relations, the Task Force Report concludes that ERA would require amendments to Virginia law which “would impose further obligations on women, rather than accord them further rights.” In the area of employment, the Task Force concludes: “The passage of the ERA would apparently have little impact on Virginia law pertaining to labor and employment.”’ In the area of property rights, the Task Force Report concludes that Virginia statutes are already “worded so as to insure a policy of equal rights for women in the area of property law.” In the area of criminal law, the Task Force Report states that ERA will require Virginia ‘to integrate the sexes in its prison system.” In the military area, the Task Force Report states that ERA would require that "the draft be applied to men and women," and that duty assignments, including combat, be made "on a sex-neutral basis." Virginia Military Institute would be required to become sex-neutral. The Task Force Report shows that ERA will cause women to suffer a significant loss of rights, or at least to be placed in jeopardy of losing rights by judicial interpretation, in the following areas: 1. Women will no longer have the right “to exempt themselves from jury service in certain circumstances.” 2. The Virginia law (Section 40.1-34) which requires that employers provide suitable restrooms or seating facilities for females whose jobs require them to stand while working “would be invalid under ERA.” 3. The Virginia law (Section 40. 1-39) which requires an employer of four or more persons of both sexes to provide separate toilet facilities “would be suspect under the kind of strict standard of review which ERA is likely to create.” Effect on Wives’ Support 4. The Task Force Report quotes Va. Code Ann, No. 20-61 which requires a husband to support his wife, and then explains that “the statute imposes a lesser obligation of support upon a wife than upon a husband, manifestly because one is a woman and one, a man. The Equal Rights Amendment would require that this be changed. The obligation to support could not be imposed because of sex. ... Language would have to be revised to assure that the partner in the marriage who works outside the home will see to the financial sustenance of the partner whose duties lie within the home and in the care of the children.” It is thus clear that the present law which now makes it mandatory on the husband to support his wife would be invalidated, and ERA would impose an equal obligation on the wife to go to work and support her husband if he chooses to remain in the home. In other words, the wife would lose her present absolute legal rights, and would retain a right of support only if she could persuade her husband to allow her to stay at home instead of him. Effect on Support of Children 5. The Task Force Report states that the obligation to support the children has been interpreted by Virginia case law as "imposing the primary duty of support upon the father," and no case could be found imposing a joint legal duty of support of children on the mother so long as the father is living. The Task Force Report concludes that, while such an interpretation is valid under the Virginia Constitution, “it would not be under the Equal Rights Amendment.” 6. The Task Force Report points out that present Virginia law subjects a man to being sent to the road force, workhouse, city farm or work squad, or prison work release program, for non-support of his wife or children, whereas a woman is not. The ERA would make a woman subject to the same punishment. Effect on Divorce 7. The Task Force Report cites Va. Code Ann. No. 20-103 which imposes obligations on the husband "to pay any sums necessary" for his wife to enable her to carry on a divorce suit, with no concurrent obligation on the wife. This would be invalidated by ERA. 8. The Task Force Report states that the present Virginia law and Virginia case law which view alimony as granted only to the wife “is certainly discriminatory,” and. “would not stand under the Equal Rights Amendment.” ERA would thus require alimony to be available to husbands as well as to wives. Effect on Children 9. The Task Force Report states that the ERA likewise “would require that the obligation of support of minor children be imposed on either party.” 10. The Task Force Report states that the present Virginia law which requires children 17 or over to support their aged mother regardless of her age or capabilities, but a father only when incapacitated, is unequal and therefore would be invalidated by ERA. 11. The Task Force Report cited a recent case in Pennsylvania (Wiegand v. Wiegand) which has a state ERA of the precise language of the proposed Federal ERA, which indicates that the usual statutory rights of the wife in regard to alimony pendente lite, counsel fees, and court costs in a divorce action, “would be unconstitutional if the Amendment were ratified.” Effect on Sex Crimes 12. The Task Force Report states that the following Virginia criminal laws “‘could well be invalidated”: rape, statutory rape, seduction, and the laws prohibiting a man from defaming a virtuous woman or using “grossly insulting language” to a woman of good character. Effect on Prisons 13. The Task Force Report states that “‘the major impact ERA will have on the prison system is to prohibit separate institutions and the concomitant discrepancy in treatment, facilities and programs which are attendant to such segregation.” The Report explains that there is no guarantee in the U.S. Constitution to the right of privacy, and that the Griswold v. Connecticut case is irrelevant to the prison question because prisoners have been denied privacy by the very nature of the penal institution (including regimentation, forced exposure, and constant surveillance). The Task Force states: "The right of privacy claimed by advocates of the ERA is not a reflection of existing law and may or may not be accurate prophecy." In an addendum, the author of the section on prison integration indicated that he could not forecast how far the courts would compel sex integration, but the basic fact that integration of the prisons would be required could not be disputed. Effect on the Military 14. The Task Force Report states that, if the military draft is established, it "would have to apply equally." Thus, women would lose their present right to be exempt from the military draft. 15. The Task Force Report states that the military “will have to accommodate women in all duty assignments on a basis equal with men,” and eliminate separate corps such as the WACs. The Task Force Report states that, in regard to privacy in the military, “the same rationale applies” as in the discussion about prisons. ERA would require the military to open all occupational classifications to women and eliminate the present exclusion of women from combat. The problem of “‘living conditions (sleeping and toilet facilities)” is raised by the Task Force Report. All service academies would have to accept women on an equal basis, including Virginia Military Institute. Women could not be discharged for pregnancy. Virginia Women’s Clubs Among the many organizations which testified against ERA in Virginia was the Virginia Federation of Women’s Clubs. Here was the official resolution presented to the Virginia Legislature: Whereas, the Congress of the United States has approved a Constitutional Amendment known as the Equal Rights Amendment which states, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex”, and Whereas, the Constitution of Virginia adopted in 1971, Article 1, Section 11, states, ‘““The right to be free from any governmental discrimination upon the basis of religious conviction, race, color, sex or national origin shall not be abridged, except that the mere separation of the sexes shall not be considered discrimination’, and Whereas, the Constitution of Virginia guarantees equality under the law regardless of sex and avoids some of the possible disadvantages of the Equal Rights Amendment, therefore Resolved, that the Virginia Federation of Women’s Clubs believes that the best interests of women will not be served by the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment and urges the General Assembly not to ratify the Amendment. The Phyllis Schlafly Report VOL.6, NO.9, SECTION 2 Box 618, ALTON, ILLINOIS 62002 APRIL, 1973 How Will ERA Change State Laws? How many disasters could be avoided if only we could look into the future and get a preview of the consequences of our actions! Would Congress have passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution if it had been able to look through a magic window and see the consequences of that vote? Would states have ratified the income tax amendment -- or the prohibition amendment -- if a magic window had afforded them a look into the future? Would President Eisenhower have appointed -- or the Senate confirmed -- Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court if we had known what radical changes in our laws Warren would prescribe? The answer to all of those questions is "probably no." There were gloomy Cassandras who predicted exactly what the consequences of those actions would be, but their forecasts were swallowed up by the overwhelming majorities who laughed at the dire predictions and enthusiastically voted aye. Gloomy forecasters who have predicted unfortunate consequences for the Equal Rights Amendment have been generally treated with the same scorn as were the tiny minority who opposed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, the income tax amendment, or Earl Warren’s appointment. The predictions sounded too incredible to believe! Yet, informed scholars believe that the Equal Rights Amendment will cause every bit as radical a change as the earlier historical events cited above. Dr. Jonathan H. Pincus, Professor of Neurology at the Yale Medical School, specifically phrased it this way to the Senate Judiciary Committee: “Is the Equal Rights Amendment to be the Tonkin Gulf Resolution of the American social structure?’ He answered his own question in the affirmative. Starting from the premise that "a solid happy family life is the foundation of mental health and happiness," Dr. Pincus stated: "I would predict that the Equal Rights Amendment and many of the other goals of its proponents will bring social disruption, unhappiness and increasing. rates of divorce and desertion. Weakening of family ties may also lead to increased rates of alcoholism, suicide and, possibly sexual deviation." What Happened in Maryland Fortunately, in the case of the Equal Rights Amendment, we have a magic window to look into the future -- the experience of the state of Maryland. What has happened in Maryland is a microcosm-in-action of what is in store for us nationally if the Equal Rights Amendment becomes the 27th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Maryland has shown us specifically how the Equal Rights Amendment will mandate changes in state laws. Nationally, there has been considerable debate about what effect the Equal Rights Amendment will have on state laws and what changes will be required. Section 3 of ERA gives the state legislatures two years to bring themselves into conformity with the Equal Rights Amendment, if it is ratified. It is generally admitted that each state legislature will be required to amend 150 to 250 state laws in order to bring them into compliance with the new constitutional principle of "equal rights." Technically, this often means changing the words man, woman, boy, girl, male and female, to "person" and changing husband and wife to "spouse." That may sound simple, or just a matter of semantics, but the actual results would be radical and sweeping in substance. The reason why Maryland’s experience is important is that, in the November 1972 election, Maryland voters approved an amendment to the Maryland Constitution which has the same wording as the Federal ERA: ‘Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied because of sex.” This state amendment was vigorously promoted by all the feminist groups, by the Maryland Commission on the Status of Women, by the usual groups supporting ERA nationally, and by major segments of the media. There was plenty of evidence available about the consequences of a state ERA. The Maryland Attorney General drew up a list of 227 state laws which would be affected by passage of the Maryland ERA. The Maryland Department of Legislative Reference stated: “The adoption of the amendment to the State Constitution as well as the adoption of the amendment to the Federal Constitution, either or both, would require the review and probable repeal of a wide variety of State statutes now making some distinction between the sexes and perhaps would modify court rulings throughout the entire area of family and domestic relations laws.” The voters ignored these warnings and passed the Maryland ERA. After the new Legislature convened in January 1973, the chickens came home to roost. Senator Newton I. Steers, Jr. introduced 82 bills into the General Assembly to bring Maryland’s laws into conformity with the new Maryland ERA. Then, a remarkable thing happened! When a hearing was held on these bills, the same groups which had demanded adoption of ERA attended the hearing and pleaded with the legislators not to go too far too fast! They voiced concern that women might have to pay alimony and lose other rights that women now enjoy. The women’s liberationists were suddenly unwilling to assume responsibility for the equality they had been so militantly demanding. One witness was Ellen Luff, legislative representative for the Women’s Law Center of Baltimore, who testified: "There is no attempt on our part to avoid women losing some of their rights, but we think it ought to be done in a thoughtful manner." Ms. Luff argued that Senator Steer's bills could lead to a situation in which a 50-year old woman could be required in a divorce case to go out and seek work after spending 30 years providing a home for her husband. Acting largely on the advice of Ms. Luff and the Women’s Law Center, the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Subcommittee decided to be more “thoughtful” about depriving women of the rights they now possess, and buried the bills “for further study.” The Barbara Morris Report The individual who deserves the credit for exposing the truth about what has happened in Maryland is Barbara Morris, a dedicated patriot who writes and publishes The Barbara Morris Report. Mrs. Morris did a valiant job of trying to alert Maryland citizens before they voted on the state ERA. After the hearing on Senator Steers’ bills, she issued a press release, saying: ‘“‘It would appear there is a determined effort to temporarily sweep these bills under the rug. As a result of the first hearing, bills were sent to a subcommittee for further study because ‘libbers’ were supposedly concerned about the effects of some bills. “These people knew that passage of the Equal Rights Amendment would adversely affect laws relating to women, and I think their recent concern is phony. “I believe there is a deliberate effort to hold off action on the worst of these bills so that states that have not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment cannot see the detrimental results of passage of the measure. I think they are waiting for a more opportune time to work for passage of the more obnoxious bills.”’ Mrs. Morris publicly called for hearings "on the worst of these bills." “We want them exposed to the public for what they are,” she added. "We want the ‘lib’ groups and any tax-supported agency that promoted the Equal Rights Amendment to publicly defend these bills." We are all indebted to Barbara Morris for her courage and careful research in making the Maryland story available to the rest of the country while there is still time to stop ratification of the Federal Equal Rights Amendment. On the next page is a summary of the most obnoxious of the Maryland bills, and below is a news account from the Washington Post on the Maryland hearing. Women’s Rights Measures in Trouble Maryland: Thoughtful Look By Richard M. Cohen Washington Post Staff Writer 1973 ANNAPOLIS, Feb. 1— Representatives of several women’s rights organizations warned a male-dominated Senate committee today that in their efforts to legislate equality for men and women they were overlooking some differences between the sexes. Testifying on a group of bills introduced by Sen. Newton J. Steers Jr. (R-Montgomery), they cautioned the Maryland Senate to slow the rush of equality measures until they could be studied for their impact. The testimony was somewhat of a surprise for the male legislators, who over the years have learned to stifle their giggles as women have come before them to advance the cause of women’s liberation. So surprised were they by the presentation of one witness, that they sat silently for a moment and then complimented her on her testimony. Steers’ bills, all 82 of them, were introduced following an attorney general’s opinion saying that 227 Maryland laws had to be amended if the state was to conform to its own equal rights amendment. ‘The State constitutional amendment was approved by Maryland voters last November. State Attorney General Francis B. Burch, in perusing the law, said that such legal relics as a law that prohibits any “female from using a musical instrument to solicit money” and others referring to sex crimes like rape would have to be amended to include men as well as women. “There is no attempt on our part to avoid women losing some of their rights,” said Ellen Luff, legislative representative for the Women’s Law Center of Baltimore. “But we think it ought to be done in a thoughtful manner.” For instance, Miss Luff implied that Steers had neglected some fundamental differences in a bill that would make the rape laws apply equ- ally to woman as well as men While she did not question that at some time, in some place some woman might have raped some man, she doubted she said, that it was much of a problem. In addition, she said, “There is a lot of discussion about the whole concept of rape. There are many women who feel that the crime should be abolished and made aggravated assault to make it easier to get a conviction." The answer to the problem, she said, was not Steers's bill but a long range study of the law. Other bills under consideration, she said, ignored the roles that men and women usually have in society. For instance, she said, a proposal to have alimony laws apply equally to men as well as women ignores the fact that women generally earn less than men and are less able to provide for their children. Other Witnesses representing the Maryland Commission on the Status of Women, the Women's Political Caucus of Montgomery County, the State Federation of Business and Professional Women's Lobby Inc., generally supported the thrust of Steer's bill but also cautioned him not to proceed too far, too fast. Steers, a little taken aback by some of the warning, told the committee, "I might say that some of the ladies, women, females, persons don't agree with each other. I think that's healthy. It shows they're getting more like men every day." A hiss was heard from the back of the room. Summaries of the Maryland Bills Equality in Family Support S.B. 353 A bill to make a wife criminally liable for the support of her husband (just as a husband is criminally liable for the support of his wife). No exemption is provided for the wife if her husband is just lazy and doesn't want to work. S.B. 355 A bill to make a wife liable for her husband's debts (just as a husband is liable for his wife's debts). No provision is made to exempt a wife from her husband's debts even if he has deserted her and she has children to support. S.B. 396 A bill to delete the present protection of a wife's property from the debts of her husband. S.B. 343 A bill to equalize alimony so that a wife can be required to pay alimony to her husband. S.B. 293 A bill authorizing the court to require a wife to make weekly support payments to her husband and children (just as the court is now empowered to require this of a husband). S.B. 420 A bill which provides that a wife who is jailed for failure to support her husband, children or destitute parents may be released from jail in order to work at gainful employment under supervision of the Division of Parole and Probation. Equality In The State Militia S.B. 287 A bill to make women automatically part of the State Militia. No exemptions are provided for pregnant women or women with small children. No provision is made for separate barracks and facilities. Equality In Mental Institutions S.B. 357 A bill which eliminates the right of a female mental patient to be accompanied by a woman when transported to or from any facility. Equality For Prisoners S.B. 397 A bill which eliminates the right of female prisoners to have separate facilities in county jails, correction or detention houses, and reformatories. S.B. 304 A bill to integrate male and female criminals of all ages in state prisons. No provision is made for separate sleeping and other facilities. S.B. 327 A bill to integrate boys and girls in state training and rehabilitation institutions. No provision is made for separate sleeping and other facilities. S.B. 457 A bill to authorize the use of women prisoners (as well as men Prisoners) for labor on public roads if they are "physically able to work." No criteria are established for determining what is "physically able." S.B. 324 A bill to authorize payments for work on public roads or bridges to a convict's "spouse or children." Present law specifies a convict's "wife or children." This change would authorize the use of women prisoners for road work. S.B. 325 A bill providing for the State Roads Commission to make payments for convict road work to "the spouse ... " Present law specifies "the wife ... " This change would authorize the use of women prisoners for road work. Other Kinds of Equality S.B. 282 A bill to eliminate preferential life insurance premium rates permitted for women. Present law permits the rates for women to be calculated as though they were three years younger -- a provision based on longer life expectancy for women. S.B. 320 A bill to "equalize" the laws against forced prostitution. S.B. 432 A bill to repeal certain protective labor legislation and equalize the compulsory work law.