Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About this Blog   |   On Twitter   |   Follow us on Facebook   |   RSS Feeds RSS Feed
Posted at 5:59 PM ET, 02/ 7/2011

Va. Senate approves resolution to ratify Equal Rights Amendment

By Rosalind S. Helderman
Rosalind S. Helderman

The state Senate has approved a resolution that would make Virginia the 36th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the amendment to guarantee women equal protection under the law that was first approved by Congress in 1972.

The ERA amendment has been previously ratified by 35 states -- three short of the 38 necessary for inclusion in the Constitution.

The full Senate has not considered ERA ratification since 1980, when it died on the floor after one senator abstained on the grounds that having a wife and daughters made him lack objectivity.

A time-limit imposed by Congress for ratifying the amendment has since expired. But Sen. Patsy Ticer (D-Alexandria), the bill's sponsor, explained to colleagues that an attorney general's ruling in the 1990s indicated that the amendment can still be ratified by states because such a clause can be disregarded by Congress if it was not a part of the original proposed constitutional amendment.

The Senate adopted the resolution on a vote of 24 to 16, with two Republicans crossing party lines to support it. Afterward, Senate Democratic Chairman Mary Margaret Whipple (D-Arlington) recalled that as a young mother in the 1970s, she used to drive to Richmond from Arlington to stand in silent protest outside the General Assembly and call on legislators to approve the amendment.

"This is a good step in the right direction," she said.

The measure faces a tough road in the GOP-held House of Delegates, where resolutions to ratify the amendment have never emerged from committees and onto the floor. This year, a measure sponsored by Democrat Del. Mark Sickles (Fairfax) died in a subcommittee. Those who oppose the ERA amendment believe women are already protected under other provisions of the constitution that guarantee all citizens equal rights.

By Rosalind S. Helderman  | February 7, 2011; 5:59 PM ET
Categories:  Rosalind Helderman  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: House and Senate pass McDonnell's higher education package
Next: McDonnell praises Allen, but is not ready to endorse in Senate race

Comments

The original constitutional amendment proposal said that if it wasn't ratified in 7 years, it would be ineffective (in other words, void). Congress extended that by three years. Either way, today it is a dead letter. And is it really needed? For all intents and purposes it is what we have today.

By the way, give the language in the article, I doubt that the author bothered to read the ERA or the extension. All she did was talk to Sen. Ticer, I think.

Posted by: Nemo24601 | February 7, 2011 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Made note of this on the Wikipedia page for the Equal Rights Amendment (with a link to the article, of course!).

Posted by: KBurchfiel | February 9, 2011 12:29 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company