thumbnail of Debate 1980, ERA (Equal Rights Amendment); Phyllis Schlafly and Peg Anderson
Transcript
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
7:00 p.m.. This is an IPB public affairs special report. The E.R. a debate between Phyllis Schlafly national chairman of stop ya ray and Peg Anderson chairperson of the Iowa E.R. a coalition here a sort of fresher. Anything. He. Writes in that. I am I say I am leaving women and thereby preserving democracy. But I and I and there's a and then there would be limits and I think as much as I would like the social fabric of this nation. That. Means of course. That I am the rhetoric. Of the. Ring and. The society.
I see some men. Caring. For. The future. History. A woman machinist a skilled worker in what has traditionally been a man's job. In 1923 when a woman named Alice Paul penned the first Equal Rights Amendment and submitted it to Congress. A scene like this would have been unthinkable and indeed it is still unthinkable to many people today which is perhaps why after 57 years of trying to put women in the United States Constitution adoption of the Equal Rights Amendment has reached an impasse. Passed by the Congress in 1982 following years of debate testimony and hearings the
amendment simply states a quality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. The amendment would also give the federal government the power to enforce that principle. Within two years 30 of the necessary 38 states had ratified the fourth state to do so. But after that initial sweep the opposition began to marshal its forces and the drive for ratification ground as it faced determined resistance. The question is Why should such a seemingly basic measure is a quality for women such dogged opposition. Well for one thing there is legitimate disagreement over how the amendment would be interpreted. But the issue goes further than that. At the heart of the matter is a battle over who women are how they perceive themselves and their place in society. In short at stake is a question of
identity. No small matter and bound to generate what sometimes seems a battle to the death. That battle has been conducted primarily in state legislatures like Illinois where the EIA was recently defeated in the house for the seventh time despite popular polls that indicate support of the measure. And despite the fact that the Illinois state constitution already contains a similar provision for military duty roam it is also an Eleanor that a pro a lobbyist has been indicted for trying to bribe a state legislator or. True or not. The nature of the charge indicates just how high the stakes are. The battle over the E R A is also being waged in an Idaho court where a suit has been filed charging that the congressional extension of the seven year deadline for ratification from March 979 to June 1982 is illegal.
This is a lawsuit that is much the result of that challenge could also determine whether the efforts by four states to reverse their approval of the amendment will be legal or not. And then there is the battle in the political arena where candidates can expect considerable pressure from the two opposing camps. For example opponents of the amendment charged that the Carter administration has put too much public money into government sanctioned events like the International Women's Year conference and the White House conference on families both of which they say were stacked with so-called liberal leftist leaning supporters of the E.R. A. Question of. Would you please run. On the other side supporters of the Amendment like the National Organization of Women have chastised the administration for not adequately backing the amendment for not putting its money or its political clout
where its mouth is. It is a tangled web of politics and legalities and emotions and that tangled web has made the future of the federal Equal Rights Amendment uncertain. And because of that some states have opted to place equal rights amendments in their state constitutions. In Iowa just such a measure will be on the ballot in November. And while the polls indicate that a majority of Iowans favor the change in the state's constitution neither side is taking anything for granted. Already 11 organizations have registered with the state's finance disclosure commission. As political action committees lobbying for or against the way. For other people putting on the pressure. At this time. We ask that you would give us your divine wisdom and understanding and be in our thoughts and our. Hearts in Jesus. Opposing both the state and the federal amendment. Are women likely members of
stopping ERISA. According to them the E R A is anti family anti God a government intrusion that will remove the legal protections that have shaped women's laws for centuries. A government intrusion that will destroy the American family. On the opposite side the advocates of the race say that those fears are unfounded and that while women may have had certain legal protections over the years they were protections that shaped their lives in very narrow ways. And while they acknowledge that many federal and state laws have been made sex neutral already opening mall turn it is to women until women's equality is assured under the constitution government bodies would not be prevented from acting discriminatory measures again in the future. The future and what it would hold if there were a federal or a state is the issue being debated all over the country at this debate. Speaking against the Phyllis
Schlafly national chairman of stop a national president of the Eagle Forum. Speaking for the amendment is pagan Anderson the state chairperson of the aisle what a coalition and a member of the I will commission on the status of women. Here is moderator Diane McCumber. Welcome to the I want Manufacturers Association debate on the Equal Rights Amendment. We will begin with a 10 minute opening statement by each participant. They will then be asked to respond to specific questions that have been submitted to them in advance. We will close with three minute summary statements from each debater. As determined earlier by a flip of the coin. Peg Anderson will be given. Mrs. Anderson. Thank you. I'm awfully glad to have this opportunity to visit with you this morning about an issue that is a very great importance to all the voters of Iowa in this election year of 1980. Because when we go to the polls in November to vote for
president and Senator and congressmen and state legislators We will also have the opportunity to vote on whether or not the state of Iowa is shell of mend its constitution to provide for equal treatment under the law for the men and women of Iowa. Now I want to share with you a little secret this morning. My favorite feminist writer. Is not Betty free Dan or Gloria Stein. My favorite feminist writer is Erma Bombeck. Anybody that has survived for teenagers all at one time and has successfully raised four children two from productive adulthood knows what I mean when I say Obama is my favorite writer. Well Arnold was in the state a couple of weeks ago when she was speaking up for the Equal Rights Amendment and at that time she said that the Equal Rights Amendment was the 24 most misunderstood words since one size fits all.
I I hope I hope this morning. That I can clear up some of that misunderstanding and bring some clarity to this issue. We will be talking this morning about both the state and the federal Equal Rights Amendment and what we will be voting on in November is a state Equal Rights Amendment. The principle behind these issues is the same. And that is exactly what this is. It is a legal principle. It is the attempt to incorporate into the basic law of our land the Constitution the principle that men and women should be treated equally under the law. The Constitution and its amendments are a framework for our laws and a standard against which to judge governmental action. And just as the First Amendment tells the government not to interfere in the we're freedom in the rights of freedom of religion or freedom of speech. So the Equal Rights Amendment tells the government
not dude not to deny or abridge rights on the basis of sex. It is a conservative statement in the most positive sense. It is a clear message to government to allow people to grow and function as individuals. It prohibits government from interfering in that basic right. The Equal Rights Amendment is a legal principle that limits the intrusion of government into our lives. And it isn't a legal principle. It is not a person no it does not have anything to do with personal and social relationships. How I relate to my husband in my marriage will not be affected by the Equal Rights Amendment. It's a matter of fact it would take more than an amendment to the Constitution to change that after 30 years of marriage. But. It is important to remember that we will still have all of our own personal choices as women as an end as men as to whether we will work
in the home or out the home or a combination of those things the Equal Rights Amendment will not affect that in any way. This issue has a long history from the time the Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced into Congress in 1923. It was a direct outgrowth of that very courageous struggle of men and women to gain for us the right to vote which was finally achieved with the 19th Amendment in 1920. By the way if the 14th Amendment had covered women there would have been no need for the 19th Amendment to get us the right to vote. Now it's interesting to note that many of the same arguments were used during that struggle to get the right to vote for some mystical reason the right to vote was going to cause women to abandon their families and reject their wifely responsibilities. Well 74 72 years old men and women fought for fraud against these unreasonable and unfounded arguments. And finally secured for us
today that right which we take so for granted. It's in that same democratic tradition of securing basic rights for all citizens that Congress finally passed the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972 after many months of debate in both the Judiciary Committee in the Judiciary Committees of both houses of a great deal of testimony in those committees and deliberations in the Congress. The vote was overwhelmingly in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment. In the house. The vote was three hundred fifty four to 24. And in the hot in the Senate it was a vote of 84 to 8 a very overwhelming majority which by the way there was an overwhelming majority of Illinois just two weeks ago that vote was a hundred to 71. The problem is Illinois requires a three fifths vote. Anyway during that in during the congressional debate the Senate majority report and the statements made by the prevailing
side in that debate became the legislative history of the Equal Rights Amendment against which the courts will judge this issue. Any interpretations by people outside of that of the Congress and in the minority side do not have validity in terms of court decisions. Because of the recognize clear need for a clear and unambiguous statement of equality of rights under the law for men and women most political problem leaders in this country have supported this issue for a long time. All of the last seven presidents have supported it dating all the way back to Eisenhower. Both political parties have supported it has been in the Republican platform which it was in first since 1940. And just yesterday Governor Ray once again reaffirmed his strong support for this state Equal Rights Amendment in his press conference yesterday morning. The churches most all of the mainline churches have endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment Methodists Presbyterians of his
companions etc. who are Lutherans. A large long list of them many many organizations including the League of Women Voters the American Association of University Women business and professional professional women. And last year the American virus or this year the American Bar Association has made the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment its top priority for the year. The Iowa Bar Association endorsed it a year ago. Recently a businessman's Council for the Equal Rights Amendment has been formed with Cory Eklund the president of Equitable Life Assurance and William Agee the chairman of the board of Bendix corporation as the cochairman. Poll over 60 percent of the people and polls show that they do support the Equal Rights Amendment. These people know that this issue is clearly in the tradition of our democratic and Judeo-Christian values of concern for the individual and support for human rights. They also know that the
arguments against the Equal Rights Amendment are demonstrably not true. And I say demonstrably because we can look at the states that already have an Equal Rights Amendment. And there are six states that have equal rights amendments that are the same as the one being proposed for Iowa and the same as the federal Equal Rights Amendment. And those six states are Colorado Pennsylvania Maryland Hawaii New Mexico and Washington. And I suggest to you that you all have friends and relatives business acquaintances business associates in those states and you need only to check with those people in those states to know that the horror stories that have been put out about the Equal Rights Amendment just have not happened. Because the arguments against the Equal Rights Amendment have proved. To be without merit. Simply a smokescreen to hide. They are they proved to be just a smokescreen to hide the real reason why there is opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment. And that really gives a lot of belief
in a very basic value of this country. The real issue. That we are dealing with here. Both on the federal level and on the state level. Is whether we do or do not believe that the Constitution of this country and of this state should clearly reflect the value that all citizens whether male or female should have equal treatment under the law. That is the question we will be voting on in November. And I believe that the voters of Iowa do believe in that value and will vote yes on November 4th. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much Mrs. Anderson. And just lastly you have 10 minutes. Just suppose your favorite football team were winning the game and in the last
quarter the losing coach demanded that a fifth quarter be played to give them time to catch up. And furthermore demanded that in that extended time period only the losing team would be permitted to carry the ball. Now I live in a home of football fans and I know that even the losing fans would not go for that kind of rule chicanery. It goes against every notion of fairness. A man in the United States Constitution is not a game. It is not just something so minor as a sport. It is the most serious sacred document of our land and whatever rules of fairness ought to apply to games ought to apply a thousand times over to the Constitution. The E.R. Ayers had been there seven years which they were given in the original resolution. The average time for ratification of all constitutional amendments ever ratified is one year and four months. There has to be something the matter with one that can't make it in seven years. But they got Congress to vote them an unfair crooked time
extension only for states to switch from no to yes but not for states from switch to switch from yes the No. And then their plan is very simple. They want to use the power of the prestige the money and the pressure of the executive branch of the federal government to force states like Illinois to vote again and again and again until they switch from no to yes at the same time that the Justice Department is in court trying to get a court to hold that states that ratified quickly have no right to switch from yes to no. This is the federal pressure that's in and when we voted in Illinois about a week ago for the 15th time the only reason they got as many votes as they did is because President Carter called to Chicago legislators and offered them a federal housing project for their districts if they would vote yes. We know that previously has even threatened off the threat of the cut off of federal funds from the city of Chicago. If they did not switch from no to yes jobs were offered bribes were offered this is the only way they got
as many votes as they received. Even the Department of Energy some months ago put out a memorandum ordering a boycott of an ratified state's department of energy meetings. This is the type of federal pressure we have been under in the UN ratified states and still we're voting no. Why is it they want it. It's because of Section 2 of the Equal Rights Amendment which gives the total enforcement power to the federal government. It would be the biggest grab for power for federal power in the history of our land. I too think Erma Bombeck is delightful. I think she's very funny. But when you need advice on a legal subject you don't go to a comedian and you know if she takes it to equal rights and that not only has 24 words she doesn't even know about Section 2 which gives the total enforcement power to the federal government. Sen. Sam Ervin said that section 2 would give the federal government 70 percent of the powers that are still in state and local hands.
It would give them power over all those areas of law which have traditionally made a difference of treatment on account of sex such as marriage divorce adoptions child custody prison regulations homosexual laws and insurance rates. Why would anybody want to give the federal government all that new jurisdiction. They're having a dreadful time solving the problems of inflation national defense and the hostages and they're not doing such a good job on that. Why would we want to give them that whole new. Grant of federal power a grab of federal power that is larger than the Commerce Clause larger than the Necessary and Proper Clause or any other grant of power to the federal government. How do we know that would be the result. Because there are seven other amendments to the Constitution which have that identical language and there have been many Supreme Court decisions interpreted in that very language. We know that under that language it not only gives the power of enforcement to the federal government but it also gives the power to preempt state laws. That is even though your state laws
may be constitutional. They can just substitute their federal judgment for your state judgment. And we don't need that. There's also Section 1 of the Equal Rights Amendment which denies us our right ever again to make any reasonable differences of treatment between men and women. Now we are a will not solve all your personal problems. It will not make your husband pay his child support payments and will not make your husband do the diapers in the dishes it will not get you a job and a promotion. What he already will do is to make every law federal and state and every regulation and everything about the school system treat males and females the same. Now you have a perfect example of what that would do in the draft registration bill which has just been voted by the Congress. This draft registration bill calls for the draft registration of 19 and 20 year old men. Not women. The proposal to include women was defeated by an overwhelming vote in both
houses of Congress. Now aren't we lucky that we don't have the Equal Rights Amendment else that would have to apply to women and women would have to be treated equally in registration in the draft and in combat and in everything to do with the military since the military is all a matter of federal law. I ask you to consider for a minute what Presidents Carter President Carter's plan was he proposed a sex neutral draft registration plan which would have taken our 19 and 20 year old girls and boys. And it would have allowed all the tens of millions of men in this country aged 21 and older to avoid military duty while they send their younger sisters their wives and their daughters out to do their fighting for them. That is exactly what sex equality means. And during the hearings on this bill the senator asked the president's witness and said What if the 20 year old woman is a mother with a 6 month old baby and her number comes up on the lottery. And the answer was she goes that's sex
equality. We do not believe in same treatment for men and women in the military. We do not believe in same treatment for wives and husbands for mothers and fathers. This is utterly irrational and the obviously the American people don't want it. It's contrary to common sense contrary to national defense to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the American people. The Senator Sam Ervin proposed two separate qualifying clauses one E R A was going through the Congress one would have exempted women from the draft one from combat. And those were overwhelmingly rejected on a roll call vote because they either are or they are said they want sameness of treatment. That's not what the American people want and that is why the E R A is be rejected across the country. Just remember what E.R. A will do. It will require every law to be sex neutral. That means you can never again have a law that says husband must support his wife. What's the matter with that law. It's a good law. It's society's answer to the fact that women have babies
and men don't have rabies and there are differences. But it's sex discriminatory because a husband is a man. And we do not want a constitutional amendment to deprive us of our right to have such laws as that ERISA would also make it impossible to have any all girls schools or all boy schools are separate activities in the school system because you all know under Supreme Court decisions that separate but equal is not equal. So everything that is touched by the law by right regulations of government are by the school system would have to be fully sex integrated and would deprive us of our choices in all of those areas. E r a. Beyond that is a blank check to the federal courts. It asks the court to tell us what it means after it's ratified. You know a Ouray does not put women in the Constitution it doesn't mention women it doesn't mention jobs all it does is put sets in the Constitution. And sex is a word of a number of different meanings. He or I would be a blank check to the court to tell us what it
means nor under the American Bar Association is for it. It would be a great day for lawyers. The litigation would be immense and we would move into a system where we would have judicial legislation in all of these sensitive areas that are important to men and women. It would deny us our right to have differences reasonable differences of treatment even say in the insurance industry. It would take away the right of the present right of young women to have lower automobile accident insurance rates and women to have lower life insurance rates. It would deprive us in many areas of our right to make reasonable sensible differences of treatment between men and women. We think that's the only commonsense way to approach life and law and schools and society because there are fundamental differences and there are no exceptions in ERISA. It would be a rigid absolute mandate with total federal enforcement. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you very much Mrs. flashlight. Will you please now at this section of the program hold your applause until the end of the program. We have come to the portion of the debate where we will be addressing six specific issues. The first question is. What is the difference between the federal Equal Rights Amendment. And the state Equal Rights Amendment as it will appear on the ballot in Iowa in November. Mrs. Schlafly you have two minutes. The state equal rights amendment you would not give you the effects of section 2 of the federal A Nor would it govern federal law. But I agree with my opponent that the principle is the same and the Stadio are a what have all the other effects of Section 1. In other words it would forbid you to have any difference of treatment between men and women no matter how reasonable it would not even permit you
to have any separations between men and women in anything that is touched by the government or any schools that have any government money. For example you could never again have any all girls schools are all boys schools are sex separate activities on the school campuses such as the basketball the football and so forth. We know this because of court decisions in the states that have had that have stayed IAR raise where it has been specifically held in court decisions that girls must be admitted to the football and wrestling teams. You could never again have a law that says husband must support his wife. You could not have any sex used as a criterion in any of the insurance. A recent estimate showed that if you remove sex as a criterion a women's automobile accident rates will be increased by 29 percent. And so the more it would be a blank check to the courts for unlimited nonsense. Last week a court in California under the equal rights law held that a restaurant had to pay
$18000 to a two man whom it had denied or whom it had required to put on neckties when they went into a restaurant. They said that was sex discriminatory because women were not required to wear neckties. And Pennsylvania under the state the wives have lost their traditional rights. The Albert Einstein Medical Center versus Nathan said that in Pennsylvania under the ERISA a husband cannot even be required to pay for his wife's hospital bill. The same thing has been true in Maryland and in other state cases. E.R. a would be a blank check to the courts. Thank you Mr. Schlafly. This is Anderson the question is what is the difference between the federal Equal Rights Amendment and the state Equal Rights Amendment as it will appear on the ballot in Iowa in November. The Iowa legislature ratified the federal Equal rights of evident 1972. So the question of ratification of the federal Equal Rights Amendment is not an issue in Iowa. The question that we have before us is whether we shall
amend our state constitution. As you notice a great number of the arguments have been used against the Equal Rights Amendment have to do with the federal government's encroachment upon the states rights and other things that come to strictly under the jurisdiction of the federal government. It's very important to point out that the question of the draft is simply not relevant to the Equal Rights Amendment question we do not draft people in Iowa. Only those things that come under the jurisdiction of the state of Iowa would be affected. And the very things that have been said would be taken away by the federal actually come under the state Equal Rights Amendment. Domestic law those kinds of things. This is Iowa doing for its own people providing a protection in the state for the people of Iowa a guarantee for Iowa men and women that they shall have equal treatment under the law. All it is a states rights issue and it is interesting that those who oppose the federal Equal Rights Amendment ought to be concerned about that because that really is a primary.
In some ways they say they are concerned about the states being able to handle those issues. But it is it is also interesting that here in Iowa our leadership for promotion of the state Equal Rights Amendment has come out come entirely out of Iowa people we have prepared our own materials and we have developed our own coalition both of the state both the state Republican and Democratic parties are members of that coalition. So regardless of what happens to the federal Equal Rights Amendment if we pass the Iowa equal rights amendment we will be providing a very important protection for the citizens of Iowa in the terms of discrimination on the basis of sex. Thank you Mrs. Anderson. The second question. Will be addressed to Mrs. Anderson first and it is what will be the effect of the Equal Rights Amendment on the family. This is Anderson. Well. I care very much about the family the family has. My family has been the center of my
life for 30 years and I have a very real concern about what the future holds for family life in this country. I think the Equal Rights Amendment ought to be called the pro-family a member. It is a very I think anything that contributes to fairness and justice in our society will contribute to a healthy family a sense of respect for each individual as an individual able to develop their own potential and develop their own God given gifts can only be contribute to a healthy family. In specific terms the Equal Rights Amendment will cause the recognition of the value of the work of the woman in the home. An extremely important principle in our society we have given lip service to that for a long time but we have never had a clear recognition of that very important principle that the woman's work in the home does have an economic value. This is a very important principle because it would affect inheritance taxes for instance and estate taxes especially here in Iowa where are women in Iowa have contributed so
much to the farm economy to to do to the development of agriculture and work besides our husband and I often work and we're had to pay inheritance tax on the whole property because they could not claim part ownership under an Equal Rights Amendment that right would be guaranteed that a woman could record that her work would be recognized and she could claim half ownership of the property. It's also interesting also important to remember that Ron out of eight families in this country are headed by a woman alone. Those families need the protection of knowing that those women can compete equally with men in society to earn the money necessary to support those families. Thank you Mrs. Sanderson. Mrs. Schlafly. The question again is what will be the effect of the Equal Rights Amendment. On the family. If you are looking to the Equal Rights Amendment to lower taxes make your husband respect you make him
send his support payments or get you a husband it won't do any of those things. What E.R. aid does is to make the laws sex neutral. Several years ago at the Drake law school there was quite a study made of E R A. And the conclusion was that if you are a would degrade the homemaker role and result in forcing wives out of the home to seek careers why. Because you are a makes it impossible to have a law or a rule that the husband must support his wife because that is sex discriminatory. Now we think those are good laws. But if you are a makes them constitutionally impossible. That has been exactly what has happened in the states that have state raids in Pennsylvania there have been several cases as I mentioned before the Albert Einstein case held that the husband doesn't even have to pay for his wife's hospital bill. You call one vs. Maryland and Maryland decided the same thing. In Pennsylvania the courts decided under the Stadio re that the husband cannot be held for the primary financial responsibility of his minor children. But at the same time in using
the word sex would give homosexuals the right to get marriage licenses. The RIAA says you cannot deny or abridge any rights on account of sex. And if the city clerk denies a marriage license to two men she is obviously denied a right on account of sex. So this one little word that sounds so simple. Both at the same time takes away traditional rights of wives and gives them to homosexuals. It would also give rights for abortion funding the powerful legal argument zation of the American Civil Liberties Union has already argued in a brief in court that the Equal Rights Amendment requires the payment of funds for abortion because to deny them would be sex discrimination under ERISA. We don't need all this attack on the family that is involved in the IRA. Thank you Mr. Schlafly. The next question is what would be the effect of the Equal Rights Amendment on employment and on equal pay for equal work. Mr. SLACK what. Is.
The biggest myth connected with the Equal Rights Amendment is that it has something to do with equal pay for equal work. It doesn't go back and read the language of it. It does not prohibit discrimination by private industry. It doesn't say anything about jobs. What it does is to prohibit discrimination by the United States or by any state. And so the only thing that I would do in the employment field is to make sure that the laws are sex equal. Now the employment laws are already sex equal. We have the Equal Pay Act we have the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 972 which prohibits discrimination in the job market on account of sex. And this applies to hiring to pay and to promotions. There's a whole Federal Bureau enforcing this it's called the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and there are forces enforcing that so aggressively that they're even requiring businesses to give women the benefit of affirmative action. And there are many cases on record where they have required businesses to give the job to the less well qualified woman in preference to the more qualified man
in order to achieve their affirmative action quota. They have got an enormous multimillion dollar settlements against the biggest companies in our land. Thirty eight million dollars against AT&T. Thirty million dollars against the steel companies. Now there may be some people who violate the law. I'm sure there will always be. But if you are a doesn't have anything to do with enforcement it's just like we have laws in every state against crime and crimes still take place. Nobody says that if we put in a constitutional amendment against crime that would solve the crime problem. You have to differentiate between the law and enforcement of the existing laws applied to all governmental entity as they apply to the private industry. They are very aggressively enforce and E.R. a adds nothing to it. So if you think he has something to do with giving you a break in a job or promotion you are chasing an illusion that cannot possibly come true. Thank you Mrs Schlafly. This is Anderson the question is what would be the effect of the Equal Rights Amendment on employment and on equal pay
for equal work. At the present time only about 61 percent of the jobs in this country are covered by the equal of Equal Pay Act. There are many government jobs that are not covered. The Equal Rights Amendment will affect those government jobs that are not now covered by the Equal Pay Act also the Equal Rights Amendment in regard to all of the laws has a sense of reinforcing the principle that is behind those laws. It recked gives recognition to the fact that the society does mean in fact that we shall not differentiate and distinguish and discriminate on the basis of sex in the areas of jobs and employment and opportunity. It does not cause those laws to. It does not interfere in the private sector that is correct but it gives a psychological and philosophical basis for the other laws that are involved with the private sector. The equal pay an equal in the other war. Laws dealing in this area that are in the area of government would
be reinforced by the Equal Rights Amendment. I think it. Is one of the things that we have to recognize in Iowa is that we do have many very fine laws in Iowa. We have had a progressive legislature in the last forty eight years that have done a great deal about removing discrimination from our laws. But the Equal Rights Amendment will give a permanence to that it will guarantee for the future the principles that have been passed in those laws now without an Equal Rights Amendment there is no guarantee for our sons and daughters of the IE quality of rights that are that we want for them now. Thank you Mr. Sanderson. The next question is how will equal rights amendment affect men. Mrs. Anderson. I think that the Equal Rights Amendment is a very good thing for men too. Again I think that anything that increases fairness and justice is important to men as it is for women. I also want to make very clear that I have a far greater respect for man than to think that they are currently supporting their wives and families only because of the law.
If they are we are in great jeopardy because there is no law today either in this United States or in the state of Iowa that will intervene that would that requires a husband to support his wife because the courts will not interfere in an ongoing marriage. They will not force within an ongoing marriage any support from the husband the husband has a right to support his wife in the way he deems appropriate. We are most fortunate in this country in this room today and in this state and in this country that most men have a very strong sense of love and affection and concern for their families and the Equal Rights Amendment is not suddenly going to change that. Men also believe the important thing about the Equal Rights Amendment is that it will give the courts the right in all kinds of cases to make a determination on the basis of the individual merits of the case without prior assumptions about what the man is responsible for or the woman is responsible
for. In many cases this will work to the advantage of men who in the past for instance have not been able to gain child custody because of the assumption that the woman was the better custodial parent. That is just one kind of an example. The important thing is the sense of recognizing what the individual case requires and what in most cases of of of settlements for children what is best for the child. That kind of fairness and justice in the long run is going to benefit men as much as women. And you should know very clearly that the Equal Rights Amendment does not say women any place in it it says the government shall not deny or abridge rights on the basis of sex. It's a protection. Men and women. Thank you Mr. Vander sun Mrs. Schlafly. How really Equal Rights Amendment. Affect man. It would be a grievous injustice to treat men and women the same when in fact they are different. Most women want to be treated like
ladies like wives like mothers not like men. And we are entitled to different treatments for husbands and wives fathers and mothers. The RIAA would hurt man too maybe not as much as it would hurt women but it would hurt them because it would deny us our right to make reasonable differences of treatment. E R A would hurt man of course through Section 2 and the total federal control that it would bring. We would all suffer equally through the increased federal power grab in Ouray would hurt men in the military. The biggest complaint we have in the military today is that the Army no longer discharges pregnant soldiers because they say that sex discrimination. So they keep the pregnant service women on the job give them a maternity uniform and let them bring their babies back to the polls. Now the men are doing the jobs for those women during those weeks of less than full capacity. And yet the women are getting the equal pay. Now you just move the situation to a combat situation. And what do you have. Look at somebody like the great football player
Rocky Bleier whose legs were shot up in Vietnam. The only reason he was alive was because his fellow soldier picked him up off the battlefield and carried him to a helicopter. Wasn't he lucky his fellow soldier wasn't a woman. Survival in the military situation depends on the strength and the stamina of your body your fellow soldiers and the men who would really be hurt by E.R. a would be the ones who are sent out to battle with women by their side out to face enemy troops almost exclusively male because you surely don't think the Russians are using female troops. Their army is ninety nine point fifty percent male. Thank you. Thank you Mrs. Schlafly. The next question is what will be via factor of the Equal Rights Amendment on schools. Mrs Schlafly. The effect would be massive. First of all it would bring the federal government. Even into private schools that get no public money. We know this because of the
statement of the US Civil Rights Commission that said a R.A. would get the government into schools even if they get no income tax exemption or public money of any kind. Beyond that you are a would force all schools public schools and universities private schools to get public money and private schools to be fully sex integrated and to treat boys and girls exactly the same. We would lose our right to attend single sex schools our colleges or sit sex separate activities. Now we were told that they wanted a R A because it would be permanent. That's the big day for AB. Look at what happened in education. Title 9 was passed prohibiting discrimination on account of sex in the schools. And every year that the radicals in AGW tried to enforce this mandate they found there's a minority of our people who live sex discrimination. And so Congress had to amend it every year they exempted the right of people to attend single
sex schools and colleges. They had one amendment that took out fraternities and sororities and Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts they had another one one year to take out American Legion girls state and Boise State and another one to take out a mother daughter father son school events. Take out football and basketball and boxing and wrestling. These things are not immoral. They're not illegal under present law but under your way they become unconstitutional because they are they would be part of the supreme law of the land. And if anything is clear it is that it would immediately invalidate any part of any law that permits any sex discrimination or separation whatsoever. E.R. a would be federal control to force us into the unisex society. Thank you Mrs. Schlafly Mrs. Anderson. What will be a view effect of the Equal Rights Amendment on schools. Well I served on the Cedar Falls school board for six years that we were very concerned about the proliferation of different kinds of rules and regulations in regard to education.
The Equal Rights Amendment will be a clear statement of the intent that there shall not to be discrimination on the basis of sex in the schools that is quite correct and that is it deals only with the public schools. It is not correct that it would deal with private schools and make private schools single sex as a matter of fact yesterday I called Jill Conway the president of Smith College who probably has the greatest interest of this one of one of the persons with the most interest of anyone in the country and has it all along of that college I knew that they had recently made a very careful study of the effects of the Equal Rights Amendment on the single sex women's colleges. She assured me that their study and their their lawyers opinions very clearly stated that they did not expect the Equal Rights Amendment to jeopardize their continued position as a single sex women's college. The Equal Rights Amendment does provide and would provide that there would not be discrimination in the schools and it would help to enforce such things as title not an equal opportunity
educational opportunity. I believe in that I believe that my daughters ought to have the same opportunities in education as my sons. They said they did not as a matter of fact they were often they were in school earlier than than the enforcement of Title 9 and not of young women in school are having all kinds of opportunities. It's important to remember we're talking about opportunities not requirements for them to be involved in certain things. The the effect of the interest nother interesting thing is that the anti-E forces are now supporting a bill called the Laxalt family bill which would remove the enforcement provisions from Title 9 and would undermine even vacuum out of equal opportunity in the schools that we have now. I certainly believe in our children having equal opportunity in our schools. Thank you Mr. Sanderson. Our last question Mrs. Anderson is what would be the effect. Of the federal Equal Rights Amendment on military combat duty.
Well first of all I want to reiterate that the question of the draft and military combat duty does not have anything to do whatsoever with the state Equal Rights Amendment which is what we were be deciding upon in November here in Iowa. Now in relation to the federal Equal Rights Amendment Congress now has the power to draft women and would draft women if it were necessary for the defense of our country in an emergency. Men and women would respond equally to the needs of the military. But if there was an Equal Rights Amendment is true that the draft law would have to treat men and women equally in terms of the actual draft. Now that I would I want to point out that there is still the right to make exemptions as there always has been and if you have twice the pool of possible draftees you have. Half the chance that any person with a dependent would have to be drafted. The idea that mothers will be staking away from their children and wives and husbands separated to go off to the military is simply not true.
Also within the military there are at the present time only 95 percent of the jobs in the military today are being done by women. The remaining are what are called the combat positions. When they run out of 10 people are currently serving in any kind of combat position. The military commanders would still have the right to make the determination of who should serve in what unit based on THEIR of ability to carry out the function of that unit. It is totally a fear tactic to suggest that we are going to have large numbers of women being in combat units in the military of this country. And lastly I want to point out that I have two sons and two daughters. I do not feel that my sons have are expendable that they have a greater responsibility nor that they want to be dragged away from their careers any more than my daughters. I hope that none of them have to be drafted. Thank you Mrs. Sanderson Mrs. Schlafly. What would be the effect
of the federal Equal Rights Amendment on military combat duty. There are three federal laws today which exempt women from combat duty one for the Army one for the Navy and one for the Air Force. They are obviously sex discriminatory. If he already goes into the Constitution they get wiped out. Do you doubt that they want to do that. I sat through four days of hearings at the House Armed Services Committee last fall and I saw the representatives of the Carter administration and the principal women's lives lives groups coming in and saying we want women and combat we asked for the repeal of these laws. We want women to have their career opportunity to be in combat right along with men. Fortunately the committee does bury their request because they know the American people don't want that. But E.R. A would require the House Judiciary Committee report on E.R. a said and I quote Not only would women including mothers be subject to the draft but the military would be compelled to place them in combat units alongside of men.
The representatives of the administration have said they brag about all of combat related jobs that women are put into now. Now there's a small percentage of women who write that kind of a life and they have their opportunity. They have all their choices to get the same pay and rank and join up. But most of us don't. My sons are all wrestlers they've attended the Iowa Ames wrestling clinic. My daughters are not wrestlers they want to be wives and mothers. Why should they be forced into this unisex mold just because these people want sameness of treatment for boys and girls. That's not what the American people want. And furthermore the whole record of all history shows that you don't win wars and battles with female troops. If our daughters were taken and into an administration which is already sad they want to put women in combat they would be subject to the sexual abuse that's going on in the Army today to the lack of privacy and they would be sent overseas to face enemy troops almost exclusively male.
This is one of the major reasons why we reject that you were right. Thank you Mrs. Schlafly. We have an opportunity for a three minute summarization period from each of our speakers this morning. And Mrs. Schlafly will give the summary first of her opinions. Mr. Schlafly. What they are I was going through the Senate Senator Evan proposed nine qualifying clauses that would have saved us from the nonsense of e r re. They were all the faded on a roll call vote. So the legislative history is just tremendous that E.R. They will have no exceptions. One clause said except it won't require us to draft women. Another except it will require us to put women in combat. Another except that it won't take away the rights of wives mothers and widows. Another one except it won't take away the rights of privacy. Another one except that it won't take away laws that are based on physiological differences which might have applied to laws about homosexuals and abortion. All of these qualifying languages were defeated because the E R A.
I was wanted as rigid absolute total federal control. Therefore if you oppose the Equal Rights Amendment for any reason you need to oppose it altogether because there is no way to change it now. It cannot be amended. It is to be voted up or voted down. Just exactly as it is locked in concrete. If you maybe you want homosexuals to get marriage licenses but you don't want your daughters in combat then you have to vote no on e r re because there is no way to change it. Maybe you don't want funding or abortions what you don't want to eliminate girls basketball. There is no way to change it. You got to take the whole bag of a constitutional mandate for sameness of treatment in everything that's touched by the government. And you have no way to qualify it or to make reasonable exceptions. Now there'll be some areas where the proponents and the opulence will differ about what it will mean and what it will do you know who will decide. It won't be the President Smith College or
my opponent or me. It will be the federal courts that will decide are the state courts in regard to your state or your a. And he already is very much a blank check to the courts to tell us what it means to tell us whether this is reasonable to tell us how we want our relationships between men and women ordered. This is not sensible to write this check to the to the courts to say you decide all the sensitive issues for us. We don't want that. E.R. A would deny us our right to make reasonable differences of treatment between men and women that reasonable people want. And it would interfere in the schools in family law in the military. It would be a tremendous shift of power to the federal government when he already has put on the ballot in most states it's overwhelmingly defeated the last time it was on the ballot in Nevada. It was on the ballot in Florida and it was overwhelmingly defeated by two thirds of the voters. It was even defeated by 400000 votes in the great state of New York. The American people don't want a and we urge you
to vote no. Thank you message gladly Mr. Vander send you have an opportunity for a three minute summary. Thank you. In conclusion I would like to make three points. Equality of treatment under the law for men and women is as basic a right as for of a basic right as freedom of speech or freedom of religion. We would not feel very comfortable if those basic rights were not protected in the Constitution and could be changed and were dependant upon the whims of any given legislature at any given time we simply would not have the protection against the Government interference if we did not have the First Amendment the equal rights amendment gives us a permanent guarantee of equality of rights and assures that the legislation that has equalized opportunities for boys and girls and men and women over the last few years will main remain permanent and be there for our sons and daughters and their children. Secondly the arguments against the Equal Rights Amendment have really proved to be untrue in those states that
have an Equal Rights Amendment. In the state of Washington the question of homosexual marriage was taken all the way to the Supreme Court and in the case of singer vs. hara the court ruled very clearly that the Equal Rights Amendment did not validate homosexual marriage. When that is used as an argument it is simply not true. The same thing is true with abortion in all six of the states that have had to have that have equal rights amendments the rights to abortion have not been increased in any way. The question of abortion in the Supreme Court was decided on the right to privacy not on the right not on discrimination charges. The cases that have been cited by the opponents to the Equal Rights Amendment are taken out of context and they do not tell you the ultimate resolution of the case. As a matter of fact one of the cases cited here today Albert Einstein versus Nathan is a county court case in Pennsylvania. We do not look to the county courts for the definitive interpretations of the Constitution.
God damn the white stuff that the real reason that the there is opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment is a be against a very basic value of equality of rights for all the citizens of this country. Finally the Constitution and its amendments are more than a legal document. They are a history of our life together as a people as we have searched for a just society of how to live together in a just society. And now in 1980 it is time that we complete that long search and to gather recognize. Are you quality in that constitution. Because despite all rhetoric to the contrary there can be only one interpretation of opposition that is not believing in equality. I believe the voters of I would do believe in equality of rights for men and women and will vote yes on November at the polls. Thank you thank you Mrs. Anderson. I want to thank Phyllis Schlafly and Peggy Anderson for being on our program and I want to thank you all for
being here. This concludes our Probably a. Year but I don't know. I know I'm. Right.
Episode
Debate 1980, ERA (Equal Rights Amendment)
Episode
Phyllis Schlafly and Peg Anderson
Contributing Organization
Iowa Public Television (Johnston, Iowa)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/37-60qrfs38
NOLA
DEB
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/37-60qrfs38).
Description
Episode Description
The ERA Debate: IPBN special on debate between Phyllis Schlafly and Peg Anderson, sponsored by the Iowa Manufacturing Association.
Broadcast Date
1980-06-29
Asset type
Episode
Genres
Event Coverage
Topics
Women
Politics and Government
Rights
IPTV, pending rights and format restrictions, may be able to make a standard DVD copy of IPTV programs (excluding raw footage) for a fee. Requests for DVDs should be sent to Dawn Breining dawn@iptv.org
Media type
Moving Image
Duration
01:00:11
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Credits
AAPB Contributor Holdings
Iowa Public Television
Identifier: 41-C-8 (Old Tape Number)
Format: U-matic
Generation: Master
Duration: 00:59:45
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “Debate 1980, ERA (Equal Rights Amendment); Phyllis Schlafly and Peg Anderson,” 1980-06-29, Iowa Public Television, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed February 26, 2024, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-37-60qrfs38.
MLA: “Debate 1980, ERA (Equal Rights Amendment); Phyllis Schlafly and Peg Anderson.” 1980-06-29. Iowa Public Television, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. February 26, 2024. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-37-60qrfs38>.
APA: Debate 1980, ERA (Equal Rights Amendment); Phyllis Schlafly and Peg Anderson. Boston, MA: Iowa Public Television, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-37-60qrfs38