32 years later, many in S.J. want rights guaranteed in Constitution

32 years later, many in S.J. want rights guaranteed in Constitution

By Michelle Molz, Courier-Post Staff, MOUNT LAUREL, March 22, 2004

What effect could the Equal Rights Amendment have if it were ratified today?

A young African-American medical student from Camden believes it would end discrimination in hospital emergency rooms. A psychology student from Haddonfield thinks it would level the playing field for men and women at work and at home.

A women's rights activist from Glassboro believes reproductive rights and equality for gays and lesbians would be guaranteed. It's a guarantee that those opposed to the ERA also cite.

There are many diverse interpretations of the controversial amendment, which Congress passed 32 years ago today and sent to the states for ratification.

Today, the amendment, which calls for equal rights for men and women and would give Congress the power to enforce those rights through legislation, is still three states short of the 38 necessary to become part of the U.S. Constitution.

While opponents say time is up on the ERA because the original deadlines have passed, supporters say there's legal precedent to ratify the amendment.

Supporters are keeping a close eye on Illinois, which could become the 36th state to ratify if the Senate approves it before the current legislative session ends in May.

Lilyan Cralle, 63, of Willingboro, is the New Jersey coordinator of the ERA Campaign Network.

Carlos J. Ortiz/Courier-Post Staff

"We have to be ever vigilant," said Lilyan Cralle, 63, of Willingboro, New Jersey's coordinator of the ERA Campaign Network. "While we have won many rights for women and we are better off now than we were years ago, we haven't won all rights, and they can easily be taken away."

The fight is an uphill battle; hotter issues like gay marriage are now in the forefront, supporters say. Plus, many people don't think the amendment is needed anymore.

"There was a 2001 study that showed nearly three-quarters of people think the Constitution already affirms equal rights," said Roberta Francis, 61, with the National Council of Women's Organizations. "It's hard to get people energized when they don't think it's still viable. We try very hard to educate, but it still doesn't have the traction and the resources and the people power it had back in the '70s and early '80s."

So, what does the ERA mean to today's young women, many of whom weren't yet born when feminists marched on Washington in the 1970s and burned their bras in solidarity?

Adrienne Brooks Williams, 25, of Camden, is a second year medical student at the University of Medicine and Dentistry-New Jersey. She says discrimination based on gender, and race, can surfaces in hospital emergency rooms, according to one study.

Carlos J. Ortiz/Courier-Post Staff

Adrienne Brooks Williams, 25, of Camden, a second-year medical student at the University of Medicine and Dentistry-New Jersey, said the amendment would help protect the rights of women who don't receive proper care in hospital emergency rooms because of their gender and skin color.

Citing a 1999 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Brooks Williams said she was disturbed by its finding that black women who entered emergency rooms complaining of chest pain waited longer for treatment and were less likely to be referred for cardiac testing than white males who had the same symptoms and insurance coverage.

"Things like that that go on daily," she said. "I think a constitutional amendment would help monitor these situations and correct them. Women make 75 cents to every dollar that a man makes, so it could help with that. And there's definitely a glass ceiling, from education to the business world to medicine."

Maria Crisostomo, 24, of Haddonfield, a psychology major at Rutgers University-Camden, thinks the ERA would help level the playing field at work and at home.

"Nowadays, it's a given in the handbooks of the workplace that there isn't going to be any discrimination based on your sex, race, color or orientation," said Crisostomo, who emigrated from the Philippines four years ago. "But it's not spelled out in the Constitution. It would be nice if it were spelled out."

Crisostomo said while American women are expected to enter the work force to help support their families, they continue to carry much of the burden of housework and child care.

"I think that's because of stereotyping that has gone on forever," she said. "It would be nice if we all had equality. In the work force, the ones who have the higher positions tend to always be male, and it makes me curious. It makes me think they don't trust women as much as men, or there's this feeling that women are not as competent as men."

Amanda Kifferly, 26, of Glassboro, co-chair of South Jersey NOW's Alice Paul Chapter, said the ERA means the protection of a variety of rights, including access to abortion, and equality for gays and lesbians.

"It's important for me and my doctor to make decisions about my body, not the politicians, not the church," Kifferly said during a recent National Organization for Women meeting in Moorestown. "There's been a time when people didn't have a choice, and it gives me chills to think that a woman had an unwanted pregnancy and that right was taken away from her."

While none of these issues are mentioned in the wording of the amendment, the ERA would provide a legal basis to decide sexual discrimination cases in the federal courts, not state by state as currently exists.

"All the discrimination lawsuits would have much stronger legal standing," said Cralle. "From a legal point of view, it would grant women full citizenship. People say they are against it because it would allow for abortion or gay marriages. But those aren't covered by the ERA. The ERA would not grant either one of those, it would only say men and women need to be treated equal in those cases."

Yet, both those who support and oppose gay and abortion rights, see the ERA's passage as ensuring the gay- and abortion-rights agendas.

Other ERA supporters think the constitutional amendment will provide legal, social and political changes that would improve aspects of women's lives.

Examples include higher wages; more women in top-level jobs; ending of discriminatory insurance, pension and Social Security practices; and ensuring equality in educational and financial assistance programs, such as Title IX, according to the National Organization for Women.

ERA opponents say the amendment's vague language could not only lead to same-sex marriages and the repeal of anti-abortion laws, it would also require women to serve in the military, invalidate wives' claims to their husbands' Social Security benefits, and erase alimony and child support obligations.

"The ERA is not truly about equal rights for women - we already have those guarantees in the Constitution," said Lori Waters, 28, executive director of Eagle Forum, the conservative, political organization founded in 1972 by Phyllis Schlafly.

"The ERA was about much more than the words that appeared on the page - for instance, it was about same-sex marriage, taxpayer funding of abortion, women in combat and diminishing the value of homemakers."

ERA opponents also say inequalities can be resolved by current laws, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972.

They also say women and men do have profound differences and that there are times when women need special treatment because of physical differences.

Waters said if Illinois ratifies the ERA, it's a moot point since the original deadlines have passed.

"It's dead. Congress set forth a specific time period to ratify the ERA, then they gave it an extension and still not enough states had ratified it," she said.

ERA supporters point to the Madison Amendment, which was ratified in 1992, 203 years after it was first introduced. If that amendment - which deals with Congressional pay raises - passed, then the ERA has time to get three more states to sign on, supporters argue.

"To me, it's a grave injustice that's 300 years overdue," said Cralle, who is devoting her retirement to the ERA. "We were left out of the Constitution, and our rights shouldn't be at the whim of whatever administration is in control. They should be guaranteed."

(Emphasis added.)
Reach Michelle Molz at (856) 273-7632 or cpmetro@courierpostonline.com