ERA [Equal Rights Amendment]

Audience is invited to telephone your questions and comments to 277-4806 or 277-4807. Good evening. My name is Ralph Green and I'm in the studios of KUNM with my co-host Maurice and representatives of both equal rights positions. In the frantic last moments before this program was to go on the air, we had a double reverse and Joe Carrero, owner of Carrero's Pizza, graciously accepted our last minute invitation to join us on our panel. He has a baccalaureate degree from the University of New Mexico and a degree from the New York Institute of Finance and is currently enrolled at the University of New Mexico. His position is to rescind the federal equal rights position, he speaks for himself, as a private citizen and not as a member of any organization. Her other guest is Sarah Bradley, who is an attorney and private practice in Albuquerque. She was reared here and attended the University of New Mexico, both as an undergraduate and

as a law student. Prior to entering private practice, she was a clerk with Judge Meacham. She participated in the 1972 equal rights amendment efforts, but she does not act as a spokeswoman for any particular organization. To open the live portion of tonight's public affairs program, we have a telephone call. Yes. This is Ralph Green. Hello? Would you like to ask your question? I would like to ask the panel that on the preceding program, there was no discussion made up to things which concerned our family essentially, number one, the abortion issue and number two, the conscience clause, which affects hospital personnel, who are unwilling to participate in abortion, will the equal rights amendment remove the conscience clause, and

will it remove the state restrictions that prohibit abortion that now have emanated and been liberalized by the Supreme Court's decision? This question seems to have been evaded. Thank you very much, sir. The question was pertinent to the matter of abortion. The caller was asking, will the equal rights amendment allow abortion to continue in New Mexico, or will it alter, will it remove the conscience clause? Are you familiar with that, Sarah? Yes, the equal rights amendment, neither the federal equal rights amendment nor the state equal rights amendment, is going to have any effect on the abortion issue. The decisions that you speak of that from the Supreme Court recently were the row and no decisions which allowed for abortions with some limitations, but the equal rights amendment

is absolutely unconnected with the abortion issue in any way. It will neither allow for more abortions nor eliminate abortions. There is a move now in Congress to pass an amendment which would do away with allowing abortions, and if such an amendment is passed, then I believe that that would have a distinct effect, of course, on the right of abortions, but this again is not affected, any new amendment which specifically spoke to the question of abortions would not be affected by the equal rights amendment. So I think this is as far as equal rights amendment, totally unrelated topic. Joe, do you have a reaction to that? Yes, the equal rights amendment, we have to keep in mind, is only one sentence long. It's not what it says, I think it's what it implies.

When we talk about the abortion issue, I think we can go to an organization that supports the equal rights amendment. That's the national organization of women. They have a platform of principles that was set forth entitled Revolution Tomorrow Is Now. Number four of that, the platform of principles, it states that they are looking for after the equal rights amendment is ratified, free abortion, sterilization, and contraception. So it is an abortion issue. Once the federal amendment is ratified, abortion state laws regarding abortion or the Supreme Court decision would kind of be out of hand as far as fighting it goes, as far as anti-abortion groups are concerned. So what we're talking about is a federal, fighting a federal amendment rather than a state law.

I believe the equal rights amendment should be kept on a state level. I'd like to clarify the point between the difference between the state and federal. I personally am against the federal equal rights amendment. I am for the state's equal rights. I want to keep it on a state level. Hello, this is Ralph Green. Yes. Is it true that socialist communist in this country are backing ERA? Okay. Thank you very much. The question is, is it true that socialists and communists are backing the equal rights amendment in the United States? No. I believe that it's people that believe that both men and women are equal, that they should be granted equal rights, meaning both benefits and the privileges, the benefits, and the responsibilities. And it's a very large group of individuals in the United States, which have always fought for equality, not only of sexes, but race and various other areas that back the equal

rights amendment. I know of no personal knowledge of any communist groups backing, either for that matter, backing the attempts to rescind the equal rights amendment. Well as far as my information goes, I've studied this, and I've looked into it. This is one reason why I've gone anti-equal rights amendment. I looked at the supporters. It is funded by the Playboy Foundation. It is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. It has received in the past two months a five-page spread in the People's Daily and the West Coast. That is a communist newspaper. The Rockefeller Foundation is supportive of abortions on demand, and the Playboy Foundation has been noted for its exploitation of women. This is why I support an anti-ERA movement. We have another phone call.

Hello? First of all, I'd like to say if it's sponsored by the Communist who cares anyway, I'd like to address my further comments to the gentleman on your panel. He made a very accurate statement in that the RA is only one sentence long. However, I think it's unfair to make some kind of an assumption about what's going to happen if the RA does pass. I think it's more accurate to say that if the RA does pass, then it will at least have an opportunity to work from legislation where more avenues of equality can be legislated from that one basic premise. Another item, I guess this refers to the tape earlier, to entertain some kind of comments on that. I didn't like to go fight in the war, but I did, and the woman that was scared to go, maybe if we had women as equally vulnerable to that kind of a draft, we wouldn't have to worry about drafts because we have a more substantial power base to do away with that kind of a question. That's all I've got to say.

Thank you very much, sir. The question was addressed to you, Joe, and the question began by saying, well, if the Equal Rights Amendment is sponsored by the Communist Party, who cares? Then he went on to say, in the first part of his two-part question, that if what's wrong with having the Equal Rights Amendment tacked on to the Constitution and having it decided in the courts on its legal merits, and then you heard, of course, the second part. I first of all, I disagree with what's wrong with it being sponsored by the Communist. I think that we have to look at who supports it, look at the political views and the people who supports it. I myself am concerned with the Republic, the democracy I live in, and I would look twice at something that's supported by Communists, and I'm not saying it is a primary area of support by the Communist, I just said that it was mentioned in the People's Daily and

the West Coast, favorable mention was given to it. As far as the other part of the question, the gentleman mentioned that he would welcome fighting alongside women in a war, well, I guess I would, too, in a lot of ways. There are exceptional women, there are women who could be drafted, who could fight just as well as any man could fight, but these are the exceptions rather than the rule. I think a woman should have a choice as to whether or not she should be drafted because of her difference between a man and a woman, and this is my concern. As far as the federal amendment being fought in the courts, yes, it could be fought in the courts, it could be fought for years in the courts. One problem we have is that it takes time to do these things, but it only takes one individual to cause chaos in the courts.

As we could see with the prayer issue, it was one individual that caused prayers in the schools to be declared unconstitutional. This is my concern. It's sort of a many phased question. First perhaps I'll direct myself to the issue of the draft, which was a specific issue raised by the caller. Yes, I think the Equal Rights Amendment would allow for drafting of women. I think that women, if they are going to accept the equality and the benefits, also have to accept certain responsibilities. I really question whether anyone, for instance, that had twins, 18 years old, 5'9", 45 pounds. One happens to be a male and one happens to be female. The distinction between drafting the male and not drafting the female, there are in effect now certain requirements, physical requirements, and mental requirements, prior to a person's

being drafted, and I think that the jobs to which one is assigned when you are drafted is based in a large degree upon your background, your training, and your physical capabilities. The fact that women would be subject to the draft, if the draft is reinstated, does not necessarily mean that all women will be on the front lines. It may mean that some would be, but it would be on a personal basis rather than on a broad classification. Each individual would be looked at, and those with the capabilities would be assigned to jobs on that basis, rather than strictly on a basis of sex, and I really feel that, as I say, there are certain responsibilities that go with a broadening of equality and granting of certain rights, and that women are ready, both to accept the responsibilities and the benefits of the Equal Rights Amendment.

Thank you, Ms. Bradley. This is KUNM, Albuquerque, New Mexico. The time is 7.34 and you're listening to our Public Affairs program. This evening's topic is the Equal Rights Amendment. We have two guests in our studios, Mrs. Sarah Bradley, a practicing attorney in Albuquerque and Mr. Joe Carrero, who is a restaurant owner in Albuquerque. We have two calls on the line. Let's take the first of these. Yes? Yes. I am wondering how anyone can tie in slander of an organization, and I'm talking about the National Organization for Women. I have been a national board member, and I've served three terms of the National Board. I would like to know where Mr. Carrero gets his information about the National Organization for Women when he says that now has number four of a program, which we do not. We have number four of our goals, our educational opportunities. And I would like to know if he took his information from the only paper I have seen stating what

he just stated, which is a filler shaftly report called Are You Paying for Women's Lib and the ERA, which is supported by the John Birch Society, and this paper, it's a two-page paper in which she sets out to write out the commissions on the status of women, which they call S-O-W-S-O's, and they slander now. And I would like to know if this is where he got his information, because he did not get it from now on material. Thank you very much, ma'am. Joe the caller addressed her phone call to you, and she is a member of the National Organization of Women and wondered about the statement that you made. She wondered the source of it, number four of the programs. She says that she's only seen that information, which directly contradicts the information she has as a national board member of the National Organization of Women. She says that was from the Phyllis Shaftley report, which is a John Birch report.

Would you like to address your remarks to that? Yes, apparently she caught me. I did have the Phyllis Shaftley report right in front of me. It is not a John Birch Society report at all. It is not affiliated with at all. I did get this information from here, and also from a sheet put out at a university law school meeting, a fact sheet on now that said that they would repeal all abortion laws. This is local. This is not national. It is not from Phyllis Shaftley. I have heard people mention this to me, members of now. This is not slander at all. I feel that this is the truth. This is why I am speaking out. I wouldn't have said it if I used to be pro-ERA two weeks ago until I saw the deception being brought about by these pro-ERA people. This is what I am concerned with. I am concerned with why they would state something and then fatically deny it and call it slander. This is the concern, I think.

This should be the concern of students on this university campus who should be concerned with what, finding out what is the truth. Mrs. Bradley, do you have a comment? If not, we have another telephone call. I think perhaps we are getting a little far-of-field. There are many organizations supporting the Equal Rights Amendment and several opposed to it and I think that the information, what we are here for tonight is to try and get some information out on the reasons that we support the Equal Rights Amendment and perhaps the reasons against it. I think perhaps it would be best just to move on rather than getting tied up in discussing one particular organization and what their charter does or does not say. I'd like to remind our audience that our number is 277-4806. We have two callers on the line. Let's take the first of those. Good evening, Mrs. Ralph Green. I'm a teacher at Sandy and we had a discussion in our class today and I would like to address two questions to the woman-law professor and see if she could clear us up so that I

could report this back to my class tomorrow. Question number one, is it true that Ann Binghamund has taken a leave as professor of law at University of New Mexico to write a book entitled How the ERA will affect women? That's question number one. Does she have a special interest in the passage of this bill in New Mexico? Question number two, is it proper for an appointed official of Governor Apataca, namely Grace Oliveras, who is now Director of the Office of Planning? Is it proper for that person who is paid by all of the taxpayers to be lobbying for a special interest group in Santa Fe? Would you ask the law professor to address herself to this, please? Thank you very much, sir. First, let me explain, I am not a law professor, I am a lawyer practicing here in Albuquerque.

As far as Ann Binghamund, she is on leave of absence from the University, my understanding is that she is working on two separate projects and I couldn't tell you precisely what they are. She does have a special interest in the equal rights amendment as I do and that interest is in seeing that women are granted the rights for some examples of equal management and control over their property, which one of the benefits of the equal management of property has been in New Mexico the establishing of a credit history for women prior to the passage of the state equal rights amendment. When married women in particular were virtually disallowed any credit in their own names, with the passage of the equal rights amendment they are because they have now the right to well away their portion of the community property, a right of equal control over the community

property and equal control over the management of the community itself, that is the property owned by husband and wife, they have been able to establish credit in their own names. This has been one of the benefits of the equal rights amendment and in that respect, yes Ann Binghamund does have a special interest in getting it passed, but no more so than the rest of us that are working in support of the equal rights amendment. As to your second question, I am unaware of Grace Olivares lobbying in Santa Fe. It is not, however, this is not a political question in the sense of being a partisan political question. This is not a democratic versus republican. This is people who believe in equality versus people who don't believe in equality and in that respect, I think everyone who is being affected should have the opportunity to present their views.

Joe, I don't suppose that you can respond to the first, but let me let me make an observation that you are addressing yourself to college students and I might say that I don't think if I can judge by the sound of the voices, that as many college students are responding as you would imagine that they seem to be a more mature audience. But if you do have remarks to make, I think that's a shame. I don't think it's a shame that we have mature people commenting, but I think it's a shame that we are more college students kind of, let me let me display myself and there have been college students, but what I'm trying to point out is that we do have a broad spectrum in our audience to see, that's very good. Going back to the first part of the question, I think we should all think about the kind of impact and Bigamon's book on the ERA would have if this amendment is not ratified. I doubt very seriously that anyone would pay any attention to it, but if it is ratified,

it would become a classic in its field. So I think we have to keep this in mind when thinking of what and Bigamon's intentions are in this cause. I'd like to remind our audience that we have our lines jammed full right now, but do call us, we're at 277-4806, we'll take the first of three telephone calls now. Good evening. This is KUNM. Yes, I'd like to address this question to Mr. Joe Cabero, is it? Carrero. Carrero. Yes, I'd like to know if he can tell me I'm a little up, have my information all distorted, have there been any states that have resented, and how many have not voted for it at all? How do the figures stand? Thank you very much, Ma'am. Joe, the question was addressed to you. The woman was asking how many states thus far have voted to resend the Federal Equal Rights

Amendment? Secondly, how many states have not voted at all? All right, I have a list here, fortunately, that lists these states that have rejected and never ratified the Equal Rights Amendment. I'll read them rather quickly. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia. Two states have ratified it, but have now rescinded it. They aren't Nebraska and Tennessee. If I can break in here a minute, I believe that North Dakota ratified earlier this year. I don't know. Yeah, I think they ratified it, anyway, just a month ago. A very recent development. Yes. All right. Good evening. This is K-Y-O-N-M.

Yes. This is Melissa Norland. I'd like to correct two erroneous statements that were just made. The first one is that Ann Binghamon's book deals with community property laws and their effect by the ERA. It's important to realize that community property laws are state laws. They are not federal laws. Therefore, they are not directly affected by the Equal Rights Amendment on the federal level. New Mexico and nine other states in this country have their own Equal Rights Amendment. Therefore, their community property laws are now being affected by the ERA. That is the subject of Ann Binghamon's research. The second thing I'd like to point out is that when Dr. Olivottis testified in Santa Fe last week in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment, she was upholding her duty as an executive officer of the state of New Mexico. One of the things that those officers have to do is to uphold the law. And the Equal Rights Amendment is the law in New Mexico right now.

Thank you very much, Melissa Norland. I don't know how we can respond to that, except that that does bring a question to my mind, Ms. Bradley, and that is in regard to the community property law. I understand that there are attorneys who are concerned about the effects of Equal Rights Amendment on community property and property laws in general, the long range effects that they may take. Could you address your remarks to that? Yes, there are going to be, well, and there have been some revisions made in New Mexico. Some 40 laws have been rewritten, speaking now of the state Equal Rights Amendment. And several state laws have been rewritten as a result of the passage of the state Equal Rights Amendment. Foremost was a rewriting of the community property laws, just to give some examples of laws that were changed, perhaps one of the first was the fact that previously only men could

well away their portion of the community property. Women's portion automatically on their death went to the husband, but the husband on the other hand, if he died first, could well away one half of the community property. This has now been corrected so that each individual has the right if they so desire to well their portion of the community property to someone else. This can gain benefits in many different ways. There are tax benefits if you want to, for instance, pass the property at that point to your children or your grandchildren. There are various, as I say, beneficial effects which will come out of this, but the emphasis is that it is equalizing the rights of the two members of the community. I mentioned earlier that because of some of these changes, that one in particular, the now both husband and wife have joint management responsibilities.

And therefore, women have been allowed to get credit in their own name. This is another of the benefits which we see. There are several other changes which have been made in the community property laws, which were very—the biggest emphasis is that previously the husband was complete manager. He could dispose of property without the wife's consent. The wife could not do likewise. Now it takes a joint effort. It is truly a community now joining husband and the wife in decisions. This is probably the major overall effect of the state equal rights amendment on New Mexico's community property laws. Joe, I realize you can't respond to that as a lawyer, and I guess that you don't want to respond to it personally either. No, I don't think I'd be there at this point. Okay, we have another phone call. Just to remind our listeners again, it's hard to find in the telephone books, so let me tell you. Our telephone number is 277-4806. This is Keigo and I'm public affairs.

I called earlier, and apparently the question that I asked was multifaceted and I got lost in the translation. I addressed my statement to those who are opposed to ERA, but in answering this question, I'd like to make a statement as I understand ERA, but I'd like for the lawyer to hear it. That is. Just in my will have to jack up our monitors. Okay. Go ahead. Okay. Now the people that are opposed to ERA seem to be making the number of assumptions about what's going to happen immediately after its passage. Now here's the statement I make, and I'd like you to comment on it. It is not an accurate assessment of ERA that, when it's passed, changes will immediately occur. Is it not more accurate to say that following the passage of ERA, legislative adjustment regarding sex bias will be mandated, and that over a given period of time, the legislatures and the courts will be able to work out the issues raised by its passage. Thank you very much for calling back, sir, and for your eloquence.

Mrs. Bradley? Yes. What he says is very definitely true. The Equal Rights Amendment, for instance, in New Mexico, was passed in 1972. And over the two years, there have been some laws which have been rewritten. There are others that are still being revised. It is a long-term process, both on a state level and on a federal level. It is not going to be something, well, as we saw in New Mexico, that is passed one day, and the next day, everything is in complete turmoil. It is a slow process. It is a process of attempting to revise those laws which are not equal, which favor one sex over the other, and to eliminate any discrimination based on sex. And it will take some time. And it is something that is not mandated to happen overnight, but it is recognized that it is going to take a long time, both in the legislative process and possibly in the courts, to reach all of the decisions and to equalize all of the laws.

Well, if I could comment, I think that this is, I think maybe I'll become a lawyer. I think that lawyers will have a heyday, make a fortune in this. The Equal Rights Amendment, as far as I'm concerned, is unnecessary. The Federal Equal Rights Amendment. Women have equal rights according to constitutional law, the 14th Amendment Equal Opportunities Act, what we're talking about is equal obligation. These equal rights are something that everybody should have, human beings that exist, should all have the same rights, be able to do the same things that they're physically capable of doing. Men and women are different, there's a real difference. I know it's been suggested to me that they're not.

I as a man have always seen a difference in a woman. I feel that the Equal Rights Amendment is saying that men and women are the same, they're identical. I feel that it's unjust for most women. I think it's saying that women should have the same equal obligations. I don't agree where different people, men can't have the same equal obligations as a woman. I think we should look at something such as, what if a case came up where a man applied for maternity leave or another woman said that one woman shouldn't have maternity leave because women aren't equal to men. What are the rights and obligations in this case? I don't think we should look at what will or would happen, but what could happen. Lawyers should make a lot of money out of this. They could, they would, and they will.

I must interject that I was speaking with Senator Eddie Barboa, one of the sponsors in the State Senate this afternoon, and regrettably we couldn't get him on tape for this program. But he in effect said that so many of the people in Santa Fe at his public works hearing, public affairs, thank you Joe, hearing, were pro-ERA people who were along with Mrs. Bingman and other University of New Mexico female attorney or law school professors, and I can only interject that for what it's worth. Sarah, I see that you've been writing on your pad. Would you like to address yourself to Joe now or shall we take another telephone call first? No, I would really like to address myself to some of the comments made by Mr. Carrero at this time. I think we're beginning to get into the real issue of the equal rights amendment. I feel that perhaps we're not as far apart as we thought. I'm the last one to ever state that men and women are identical. No one is trying to say that, no one has said that.

What we are saying is that women should have an equal opportunity and equal responsibilities. As far as the laws which are on the books now allegedly to protect women, among those were laws restricting the hours that women can work. These laws have been used not for the protection of women, but rather to keep women out of certain types of jobs, for instance, managerial jobs, several jobs requiring that women travel out of town thereby working more than 40 hours a week. The same is true of the laws which restricted the weight that could be lifted. Some of these were at a level saying that no one could or women cannot lift anything over 15 pounds. If there happened to be some item that perhaps once a month might have to be moved that weighed 16 pounds, then what employer is going to hire a woman and have the possibility of being involved in a lawsuit or having funding taken away from him because he has

hired someone who perhaps does act in contrary to a particular restriction when he can hire a man whom he is not going to have any problem with. That's the problem with these laws that have allegedly protected women. They have often been used to keep them out of certain types of positions and certain types of employment as to the difference between the federal equal rights amendment and the state equal rights amendment and the reason that both are needed. It would be ideal if all states would pass a state equal rights amendment. That's what we are hoping for. It has not been done to date. In fact, I think that probably many of the states have not passed them assuming that the federal law is going to go into effect within the very near future and therefore they do not need to go through the legislative process in their own state.

But there is a difference between the two and there are areas that can be reached by the federal equal rights amendment that cannot be reached by the state equal rights amendment and these include, for instance, the Social Security Laws and the Selective Service Laws just to mention two. Now there are many discriminatory aspects of Social Security. Perhaps one example that I can mention is that a husband and wife who have worked all their lives, they retire at the same time, the wife only draws half as much money as she would draw if she was single. This is not true of the man. This is just one of many of the Social Security Laws that operate to take away benefits from the wife and that these should be equalized. The same is true, perhaps, of Social Security Laws affecting men differently from women. Men are going to pick up some benefits and women are going to pick up benefits. The real essence of the argument is that both should be treated the same. And as to the Selective Service, the draft, we have addressed ourselves to the draft

question previously, but there also seems to be a point that's overlooked by the opposition and this is that there are many benefits which are crude to those that are in the service. You've got training which is offered by the service. You've got educational benefits for those who have served. You've got veterans' benefits at the veterans' hospitals, their pension plans, their several benefits which in the past have been virtually restricted to men. Before we take the next call, I wanted to mention that this is KUNM in Albuquerque and this is a public affairs program about the Equal Rights Amendment. Good evening, this is KUNM. I called in earlier to see which states had rescinded and which had not voted for the ERA and Mr. Cavero said that two, I believe it was two, had rescinded. Well, I'd like to know perhaps the lawyer can answer this. Why, I think it was the attorney with Tony and Nia had said that New Mexico cannot receive. I failed to understand what's happening here, perhaps she could elaborate on that or Mr. Cavero, what is the answer?

Thank you very much for calling back. Yes, what Tony and I as opinion states is that although New Mexico might attempt to rescind that the rescission will not be effective insofar as the federal ratification is concerned, today 34 states have ratified, it is necessary for 38 to ratify on a federal level. There is no decision, no case to date that has specifically answered this question, but there were two challenges to the 14th Amendment ratification. Many years ago, and this was mentioned I believe in the introduction to this program, and it was on the basis of those decisions in which the states attempted after once ratifying to then later rescind and the courts held that once a state has acted, a state may ratify or it may refuse to ratify, but once it has taken action, it loses its power to thereafter take any further action on a measure. This is the basis of Tony and I as opinion, now two states may have passed a resolution that they are going to rescind or may have indeed attempted to rescind.

The question is whether that attempt has any effect on the earlier action of the state, and it appears from the legal cases that we have to work from that that type of a rescission is not effective, and that in fact the earlier action of the state is going to be looked to by the federal government insofar as looking toward the 38 states which are necessary to ratify the federal legal rights amendment. I'd like to point out here, as we said in the tape before, that the ruling on that by the Supreme Court in 1934 was that whether a state could rescind or not was a political question and that the only body that could decide it would be Congress and that that would be done on a case-by-case basis. So the two that Ms. Bradley recommended, I mean, mentioned, were decided by the Congress that the states who rescinded that they would not count that they would count the states as ratifying, but it's not known that Congress could decide another way and nobody knows until they do it. Joe, I think we have to keep in mind Ms. Bradley mentioned that there were 34 states that ratified, that's correct. Two rescinders, that leaves 32.

That means that 19 have either rescinded or rejected the equal rights amendment. As far as Attorney General Tony and I statement, the Attorney General of Nebraska and Attorney General of Tennessee said that their states could rescind the equal rights amendment. I think we have to keep in mind, this is Tony and I as opinion, and I guess it would depend on the your opinion of Tony and I. We have one more question on the line, and unless there's a flood of telephone calls, we think we'll wrap it up after this question. Yes, this is K-1M. I have a question for Mr. Corral. Mr. Corral, how would you feel if the shoe was on the other foot? And the question for Ms. Bradley, will there be any loss of benefits to men that could be construed as a threat to men? Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Joe, I believe you heard that question, though. No. The question from a male caller was to the effect of how would you feel if your position was reversed with that of Mrs. Bradley, and it was the men that were going to be deprived of certain benefits such as if you were a house husband as it were and would only receive half the Social Security benefits. If you were pro forma denied, veterans benefits, etc. I think we have to keep in mind as far as veteran benefits go. Women are allowed in the armed forces. We're not talking about all of a sudden allowing women in. We're talking about drafting women in. As far as Social Security benefits go, Ms. Bradley is absolutely right. But let's look at it from the other point of view. What are the women who works for 20 or 30 years as a chairperson of a household? She works in the kitchen. She mines the kids every day and does an awful lot of work at home, sure we'll all admit.

What would this law leave her with? Now she does receive Social Security benefits. What would happen if this woman, if the equal rights amendment has passed, what would happen to this woman? She would not get Social Security benefits. I shouldn't say she could not get. There is a possibility. That's what we're talking about in equal rights. She has to go out and work for it. Unless, of course, there is an alternative. A husband give her a paycheck every week, take out the FICA, federal and state taxes. Then she can receive Social Security. I'm placing a rather difficult position because I am a man. But I am concerned because I had a mother, I have a sister, and I'm concerned with women's rights. As far as equal rights amendment, I do not think that it's looking after the rights of all women.

Do you want to respond, Mrs. Bradley? Yes. First, I suppose I would say that the equal rights amendment is not going to force all women to work. In fact, that is one of the elements of the equal rights amendment is that it is going to guarantee that women are going to receive recognition for working in the home. I think all of us recognize that that's as hard work as going out to a job where you receive a paycheck every week. The equal rights amendment is not going to take away benefits for those women who choose to stay home or choose to raise children. That is just not the case. I don't recall what the second point that he made on the armed forces. Again, I would just like to emphasize, look at West Point, Annapolis, the Air Force Academy.

This is certainly a benefit that has been granted only to men, and one must admit that four years of education is a benefit, and this has been restricted. The equal rights amendment would require that women be also allowed to attend the educational institutions. As I say, the equal rights amendment is not going to interfere with a homemaker's right to stay home. In fact, it is helping to protect those women and grant them equality over the control of the home. New Mexico has had a law on the book since 1907 that both spouses have the responsibility and the duty to support each other. It has been recognized in several states, and in many well-recognized law review articles by constitutional experts, that a means of support does not necessarily mean working and getting a paycheck that equal amount of support is working in the home, that that is an equal contribution. Therefore, the equal rights amendment is not going to have any effect on forcing women out of the home.

If I could just comment, it is amazing how close Ms. Bradley and I are. We're both going towards the same goal, I guess, in a different way. When she talked about the Annapolis West Point, things of this nature, I think she's right. But I think that what we have to do is we have to look at the laws that now exist and enforce these laws. These laws haven't been enforced. Women still aren't getting paid what they should get paid. They aren't getting paid as much as men are getting paid for equal work. There's a law. I think we should make sure that this law is enforced. But I don't think equal rights is the answer. I think that's what we differ. Equal rights amendment, I'm sorry. This program should go on all evening and out of deference to our guest, I'm sure we should close it off. However, in deference to our listeners, we have several more telephone calls. So we take two more and cut it off.

Let's do that. Joe has pointed out that Archbishop Sanchez has been quoted in the papers as coming out in favor of retaining the equal rights amendment. I believe you think otherwise. Is that not so, Joe? Yes. We visited with Archbishop Sanchez today. I was very surprised when I read this because of Archbishop Sanchez is the spiritual leader of quite a few Catholics in the Mexico. Catholics who respect his opinion and who I think would follow his advice. Today he said that the statement that he made to the papers was one that stated the Catholic Church respects human rights for all people, including the unborn. He did not mention the words ERA and he will be giving a statement to the press shortly to correct the error that was made. Thank you, Joe. Now let's take the first of our last two calls. Good evening. This is KUNM.

Hello. On that last comment, I would like to point out that father Eragon, he's the leader of the Padres is supporting the ERA and the Padres are supporting the ERA. Oh, thank you. I have another comment, but I originally called for it. Yes, go right ahead. I would like everyone who's listening to Norfolk, Mr. Joker, our final words were in his testimony that he gave up in Santa Fe Friday. It was Viva LeBroad. LeBroad, get that. And I think that pretty well says what his real opinion of women is. Thank you. Thank you. What was it? Joe, she quotes your last words in testimony in Santa Fe on Friday as Viva LeBroad. You can see what I'm dealing with out there. My final words were Viva LeBroad, not Viva LeBroad. Well, I'm sure you're happy to make that correction. Let's take the last call. This is KUNM. Okay, yeah, I wanted to ask Mr. Carrero specifically, as a man, I really can't see him representing women on that.

But he mentioned that there were specific things that ERA proponents had proposed and then denied. And I'd like to know more specifically what he had in mind. And secondly, considering what Mrs. Bradley has said about the negative aspects of President legislation, I want to know why he thinks that there shouldn't be just one broad-based single sentence constitutional amendments. Take care about that. Thank you very much for calling. Did you hear that, Joe? No. To paraphrase the caller, she asked how you feel that a single sentence amendment could cause so much problem. I'm sorry, I was saying about two things at the same time, and have garbled at message considerably. But she was concerned about you're speaking for women. My speaking for women?

Yes, that was her introductory, probably Mark. Did you catch that Murray so? I apologize to the listener that made that tell her to call. And she would like to call back, I'll happily. I speak for myself, I give my own opinions. Like I said, before we start the show, I don't speak for any particular group. As Mrs. Bradley states, she doesn't speak for any particular group. I think what we're doing is we're trying to state our own opinions. If there are some women who have ideas against or pro ERA that are members of groups, they should come forward. I was asked to come here at the last minute, so I am speaking for myself. A lot of the women I have talked to have expressed exactly the same ideas. These are women who are housewives, mechanics, whatever. I've talked just about everyone, pizza cooks. I think we're both expressing other people's opinions as our own, because it is such a controversial issue. Of course, it's going to be people on both sides of the fence that agree with us.

And there are lots of people out there that are still calling in, and it puts us on a very delicate balance. I'm more than willing to stay. We have two calls waiting, so how about if we take them and ask hopefully maybe they will be stating opinions that other people who are out there chewing on their fingernails will also want to stay. And we can get everything wrapped up, so if you'd like to take that call. Marie, let me let you take this call, because my mind is slipping away from you for repeating these questions. Hi, can I help you? This is K-1 in public affairs. This is a personal. Oh, welcome. We have another call. We got our phone people back confused. Okay, I guess we didn't have another call. We do have another call. Hello, are you there? Okay, I guess we've got it straightened out now. Now, if you would like to state your question, we can... Okay. Okay. So, let me state it again to Mr. Carell.

I asked that considering what Mrs. Bradley has said about the negative aspects of present legislation, why should such legislation not be overridden by one broad-based single-sentent constitutional amendment? Okay, I think we've got it this time. Thank you very much for calling back. This was the same caller who called before who we did not quite get organized. What she wanted to know was considering what Mrs. Bradley had to say about the negative aspects of the current legislation that is on the books, why not override all of that legislation with the one bill that is the equal rights amendment? And she was addressing herself to you, Mr. Carell, so if you'd like to... Why not override all the legislation that is on the board? In other words, if the legislation that is now has negative effects for women, why not pass the ERA, which will take precedence over all of those little individual laws. That I believe that was her question. Yeah, okay. Why not change all the little laws? When we talk about law, when we talk about states rights versus federal rights, we're talking about specific versus the general.

If we talk federal law, we're talking about national ways to change it. We're not talking about going to our legislature and changing it. I guess it's a proponent of states rights. I believe that keeping things at home, keeping things where they can be changed easily, providing that the majority will rule. So I am for states rights, and I guess I'm for majority rule, and I think the best way to handle that is within the states. Okay, I think... Do we have any more collars waiting? No more collars waiting. Okay, I would like to ask each of our people here if they would like to make a final statement possibly drawing some of this all together into coherency, maybe. Would you like to start, Ms. Bradley? Certainly. One of the problems I think that we have had this evening is the fact that Mr. Guerrero states that he supports the state equal rights amendment.

This has also been the position of several of those who are pushing for a recision of the federal equal rights amendment. They say that they favor the state equal rights amendment but are opposed to the federal. First, I would like to address myself to that specific issue. There are only ten states now that have state equal rights amendments, and New Mexico has had it for approximately two years, and we are in the process of rewriting several of the discriminatory laws. Now, in addition, we need a federal equal rights amendment because there are areas in addition to those areas covered by the state equal rights amendment which can only be covered by a federal act. These, as I mentioned earlier, include social security and include selective service will also include future acts to come out of Congress. That is the reason, primarily, that a federal equal rights amendment is needed. In addition, a federal equal rights amendment, I believe, is needed

because many states are waiting for the federal act, and for that reason, have held up on state action in passing state equal rights amendments. They have a legislative process which they must go through and in anticipation of the passage of the federal equal rights amendment, several states, if you'll, have held off on presenting an amendment to their states for ratification. Now, these are two reasons that a federal equal rights amendment, in addition to a state equal rights amendment, are necessary. Now, you get to the question of why an equal rights amendment is necessary at all. And as the equal rights amendment states, it is equality of rights under the law, shall not be denied on the basis of sex. Now, there's a slight difference in wording in the state and the federal equal rights amendments, but essentially, it is stating that equality of rights under the law shall not be denied.

Now, this is not going to affect a change on private lives and on private institutions. It is affecting public laws. And it's these laws which have been in the past, many of them passed for the protection allegedly of women and in fact, have ended up being discriminatory towards women. All the equal rights amendment is attempting to do is to allow for an individual to have equal rights irrespective of their sex, be their men, or be their women. They should have an equal opportunity in all facets of society. And as I stated before, this may mean additional responsibilities. I think women are not only ready and willing, but are anxious to accept those responsibilities. And they are going to gain many benefits that go along with the responsibilities. It is not going to change any traditional roles.

If, indeed, there are traditional roles in society, it's just going to allow people to do what they want to do and allow them to get equal pay, equal status, control, equal responsibility in all areas of our society. And I don't see how anyone can say that spreading around the responsibility for the control and management of society can do anything but help benefit society as a whole. Thank you very much, Ms. Bradley. Jill? All right, well, I don't have anything prepared, but if I could comment on some of the things Ms. Bradley said, she mentioned that equal rights amendment will only affect public laws. Public laws do affect individuals. As far as providing equal opportunity, equal rights, we have laws on the books already that have to be enforced. We have equal pay for equal work guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Subchapter 6, Equal Employment Opportunities.

The Equal Rights Amendment, I'm talking about the Federal Equal Rights Amendment now, at one time had a modification called the Hayden Modification. The provisions of this article shall not be construed to impair any rights, benefits, or exemptions conferred by law upon persons of the female sex. If possibly this modification would have stayed on the amendment, it is very possible and very probable that I would be on the same side Ms. Bradley is now. This modification was dropped. It was dropped because, I believe, the proponents of the Equal Rights Amendment on the federal level thought they could get it through without it. Well, why not have the Hayden Modification on it? Why not have something that's going to provide so that the rights will not be impaired or the benefits or exemptions will not be impaired. The benefits that were conferred by law on persons of the female sex.

The Federal Rights Amendment with the Hayden Modification becomes a women's rights amendment. Making women equal with men as far as rights are concerned. This modification was left off. I think the Equal Rights Amendment on the federal level is poor law. I am not a lawyer. I'm an individual, a citizen of New Mexico. I've talked before the State Senate. I've said what I've had to say as far as the law is concerned, and I think it's going to have to be up to them. We're going to have to decide what the majority wants. Our whole country is based on that. The legislators are going to have to vote on the federal amendment, according to what the majority wants. How they can do it, how they can decide that's going to be up to them. But last Friday when I was up in Santa Fe, I say it was probably split 50-50 as the number of people up there.

So it's going to be a difficult decision to make. But a federal rights amendment, once it is made, is going to be awfully hard to rescind. So I suggest they give it very, very careful thought before they pass on any legislation of this magnanimous attitude. Thank you, Joe, and I would like to thank both of our guests to eloquent spokesman for their varying viewpoints. Sarah Bradley is an elder curfew attorney. And Joe Carrero, a businessman, both accepted our invitation at the last moment, literally this afternoon, and we especially appreciate that. We also appreciate the many collars that we had to take the trouble to call in to our public affairs program. We have a public affairs program on KUNM, on local topics, each and every Monday.

I would also like to thank my co-host, who produced this show, Maurice. My name is Ralph Green, 4KUNM News, and good evening.