Dana Goldstein brings up the feminist credentials of Obama’s proposed Democratic platform. One thing she emphasizes is the return of support for the Equal Rights Amendment. I can’t say I understand the point of the ERA. The ERA reads:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
On one hand, sex based inequality, to the degree that it still exists, is largely social, not legal. No Amendment or government action can enforce social equality. The government has no power over the minds of man (I use man in the broad sense that includes women), nor should it. On the other hand, the Fourteenth Amendment already demands legal equality on the basis of sex (among other characteristics). The ERA is a great sentiment, but it simply wouldn’t accomplish anything.
Also getting a lot of discussion is the omission of language about making abortions rare. Apparently this is considered a good step. As I touched upon in more detail previously, I don’t understand the logic that we should consider abortion a morally equivalent choice to not having an abortion. Democrats gain the moral high ground by realizing that abortion must be legal, but when they deny a moral component to the debate, they lose it. However, those on the far left of this issue not only want moral equivalence, they call those who do see a moral difference anti-choice, even though they are defending the legality of abortion.
- VWI
