ERA: 3 Years and 3 States

They said it couldn't be done. Opponents of the ERA said its ratification deadline would never be extended past March 22, 1979.

Anti-ERA legislators bottled up extending legislation in committee. Sen. Jake Garn (R-Utah) threatened defeat by filibuster. Right-wing spokeswoman Phyllis Schlafly traveled the country denouncing ERA supporters as "trying to change the rules in the middle of the game".

But the growing resurgence of activism in support of the ERA delivered a major defeat to such tactics, resulting in an Oct. 6 Senate vote of 60-36 to extend the deadline to June 30, 1982. The extension was approved by the House in August.

The new legislation, which has been endorsed by President Jimmy Carter, will allow 39 extra months for the ERA to be approved by the three additional states required to attach it to the Constitution. It was passed after a series of Senate votes defeated several crippling amendments, including one that would have allowed states that have passed the ERA to reverse their decisions. Without the deadline extension, hopes for passage of the amendment would have been lost.

The heightened conciousness of the unfair practices of ERA opponents helped force concession on the ratification deadline by some key influence holders, including the editors of the Washington Post, which reversed its earlier stand against the extension. The ERA "has been subjected to an unprecedented outpouring of deceitful or untrue propaganda," an Oct. 6 Post editorial explains, adding: "The ERA has never been given fair consideration in several state legislatures where internal politics or procedural games have taken precedence over honest consideration.'

In approving the extension of the ratification deadline, Congress left aside the question of whether a state that has already ratified the ERA can now change its vote. The August House decision on the extension defeated a motion to attach a rider permitting such action, and the Senate followed suit last week.

The issue has now been turned over to the justice department for a determination when the required 38 states have ratified and Congress is asked to declare the ERA part of the constitution.

The G-year struggle for ratification, particularly the year-long battle to win the extension, has also spurred women's rights groups to reevaluate their strategies. The rapid growth in recent years of a well-organized, well-heeled right-wing movement, specifically targeting women's rights issues, brought the ERA ratification to a grinding halt. NOW responded with an intensive election campaign strategy--only to see its favored candidates turn their backs once in office. It launched a nationwide convention boycott (joined by almost 200 other groups) against unratified states--only to be slapped with two expensive."Anti-trust" lawsuits.

In the last 12 months, however, a new strategy has begun to emerge: forging alliances with the labor and civil rights movements, and using those alliances to stage mass mobilizations. NOW's courtship of trade unions has succeeded in garnering ERA support from almost two dozen major unions; and its Oct. 8 convention decision to actively support federal representation for the District of Columbia is sure to win some allies in the black community.

Where now for the ERA drive? Procedurally, it's back to state legislatures in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia. The ERA must be considered and approved by three of these states by June 1982 to become law.

But the real political power remains with the masses of women and their allies. Their collective strength is the only guarantee of winning the fundamental democratic right of protection from discrimination by sex.

by Donna Lamb excerpted from The Guardian October 18, 1978

Organized Opposition to S.1437

(LNS) Perhaps you've been wondering what's been happening with S.1487, the Senate's "born again" version of the S.1 law that progressive forces have been fighting since the Nixon-Mitchell days. If so,

In times like these, we have to PROTECT the rights of American citizens by

TAKING THEM AWAY...

UBERATION NEWS SERVICE

pes avery/Peoples Alliance the answer is something good: on October 4, the House Judiciary Committee issued a statement in which its members unanimously rejected the Senate bill. The message was, in effect, that with virtually no grass roots support and wide and vocal grass

roots opposition, the omnibus bill is clearly something for which they're unwilling to risk their political necks.

What next for the bill? According to the Sept. 28 issue of WIN magazine, the House itself has written up a mild alternative to S.1437. The feared effect of that would be "a compromise between an innocuous House bill and a monstrous Senate one, or

ז་

something "half monstrous." But the strong

rejection of S.1437 by the House Committee, according to an ACLU lawyer, makes it less likely than it was that the Senate bill will be a negotiating position."

In theory S.1 and its step-child, S.1437, sound defensible enough: an effort to reorganize and rationalize the federal criminal laws strewn between some 50 and 60 volumes. But S.1437, sponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy and supported by the Carter Administration, contains broad provisions which threaten union members, labor organizers, protest. ers against the government, even innocent by. standers.

The House committee's rejection of S.1437 should be regarded as a victory for those who organized opposition to the bill though not as a signal to ignore what happens to it. For just as S.1 gave birth to a still-dangerous S. 1437, new versions of the legislation are sure to surface in Congress and will have to be countered with continued pressure.

BITS & Pieces

(Her Say)--The Vice, President of the National Organization for Women says it is time for women seriously to consider starting a third party.

Arlie Scott, who directed the 1972 California campaign for Shirley Chisholm, says that women have time and time again been sold out by male politicians on women's issues: "Until women feel that their issues abortion, economic equality, day care and the ERA are the number one priorities, and start voting on these issues alone, nothing will be done.

Scott stresses that her ideas about a third party candidate and possibly even a strong feminist party in the United States are strictly her own, and not the official NOW platform.

Peoples History

for muì friend, Vanessa Mankiller.

November 20,1969 Indians of All Tribes occupy Alcatraz Island for preservation of Indian culture; stay 19 months.

pag avoid ÜBERATION, NEWS SERVICE

(Her Say). Over 200 Native American women from 23 tribes have formed a women's political organization designed to fight for the rights of the Indian people. "Women of All Red Nations'' (WARN) will function as a sister organization to the International Indian Treaty Council which was recognized by the U.N. in 1977 as the representative of Indian nations in both North and South America.

WARN organizers say they will concentrate on issues of Indian sovereignty and violations of treaty and human rights, including forced sterilization of Indian women, confiscation of Indian land and resources, imprisonment of Native American leaders, child abuse and child-theft. For more information, call Area Code 605, 867-5429.

(Her Say) Idalia Mejia, from Tulare County. California, had been charged with murdering her husband after suffering 14 years of abuse. Last week she was acquitted by a jury of nine women and three men. Two previous trials for the murder of Rafael Mejia ended when neither jury was able to

reach a verdict.

The 31-year-old mother of four children admitted shooting her husband, but only after he had pulled her hair, thrown her against a wall and bitten her, She claimed such treatment by her husband was common during their years of marriage.

What has been called the strongest gay rights bill ever enacted in the country was passed unanimously by the Berkeley, California City Council on September 19.

The bill outlaws discrimination against gays in employment, housing, education, public accommodation and city services and facilities. It provides for $200 to $400 in penalties for each violation of the order, in addition to legal expenses and damages.

--The Guardian October 11, 1978

November, 1978/ What She Wants/Page 7