NBC News

NBC News 13 Feb 2020

House Passes Historic Resolution For Equal Rights Amendment

Description:

The House approved a resolution to reopen the path for the Equal Rights Amendment. Human Rights Attorney Kate Kelly reports on the milestone and how Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is reacting.


In a bid to revive the Equal Rights Amendment, the House on Thursday approved a measure removing a 1982 deadline for state ratification and reopening the process to amend the Constitution to prohibit discrimination based on sex. (Feb. 13)
A century-old effort to enshrine gender equality in the US constitution is on the verge of success.
The House of Representatives is considering whether to extend a deadline that would allow the Equal Rights Amendment to be added to the constitution.
If successful, it would prohibit the government from denying equal rights to a person on the basis of their sex.
Al Jazeera's Heidi Zhou-Castro reports.
A supreme court justice is suggesting to restart the fight for the equal rights amendment.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke about a proposed amendment at an event in Washington.
The House of Representatives is set to vote on coronavirus relief bill.

FOX News operates the FOX News Channel (FNC),

… show captions ↓
LOOKING INTO IT. AND NOW YOU KNOW.
AND NOW YOU KNOW. >>> MAJOR ROAD BLOCK TO ADDING
>>> MAJOR ROAD BLOCK TO ADDING THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO
THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION CLEARED TODAY.
THE CONSTITUTION CLEARED TODAY. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES VOTED TO ELIMINATE A DEADLINE
VOTED TO ELIMINATE A DEADLINE FOR STATES TO RATIFY THE E.R.A.
FOR STATES TO RATIFY THE E.R.A. IT WAS PASSED IN THE 1970s THAT
IT WAS PASSED IN THE 1970s THAT REQUIRED THREE-FOURTHS OF STATES
REQUIRED THREE-FOURTHS OF STATES TO RATIFY IT BY 198.
TO RATIFY IT BY 198. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA BECAME
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA BECAME THE 38th STATE JUST LAST MONTH,
THE 38th STATE JUST LAST MONTH, HUMAN RIGHTS ATTORNEY KATE KELLY
HUMAN RIGHTS ATTORNEY KATE KELLY JOINS ME FROM WASHINGTON.
JOINS ME FROM WASHINGTON. IT WAS PASSED IN THE 17970s,
IT WAS PASSED IN THE 17970s, STILL NOT PART OF THE U.S.
STILL NOT PART OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
CONSTITUTION. HOW BIG A MILESTONE IS THIS
HOW BIG A MILESTONE IS THIS VOTE?
VOTE? >> SO THERE HASN’T BEEN A VOTE
>> SO THERE HASN’T BEEN A VOTE ON THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT
ON THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT SINCE 1978, WHEN THEY EXTENDED
SINCE 1978, WHEN THEY EXTENDED THE ORIGINAL DEADLINE FROM 1979
THE ORIGINAL DEADLINE FROM 1979 TO 1982.
TO 1982. SO THE DEADLINE HAS BEEN THIS
SO THE DEADLINE HAS BEEN THIS BIG HURDLE BUT REALLY THE IDEA
BIG HURDLE BUT REALLY THE IDEA IS THAT CONGRESS PUT THE
IS THAT CONGRESS PUT THE DEADLINE IN, THEY EXTENDED IT
DEADLINE IN, THEY EXTENDED IT ONCE AND NOW THEY CAN ELIMINATE
ONCE AND NOW THEY CAN ELIMINATE IT.
IT. TODAY THE HOUSE VOTED AND
TODAY THE HOUSE VOTED AND EXTENDED THAT DEADLINE,
EXTENDED THAT DEADLINE, ELIMINATED THAT HURDLE.
ELIMINATED THAT HURDLE. WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND GET THAT
WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND GET THAT PASSED IN THE SENATE AND GET THE
PASSED IN THE SENATE AND GET THE E.R.A. INTO THE CONSTITUTION
E.R.A. INTO THE CONSTITUTION ONCE AND FOR ALL.
ONCE AND FOR ALL. >> REMIND US THE EQUAL RIGHTS
>> REMIND US THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT PROMISING TO OUTLAW
AMENDMENT PROMISING TO OUTLAW SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION.
SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION. HOW WOULD IT DO THAT?
HOW WOULD IT DO THAT? >> THE E.R.A. IS 24 WORDS IN ITS
>> THE E.R.A. IS 24 WORDS IN ITS MAIN CLAUSE.
MAIN CLAUSE. WHAT IT PURPORTS TO DO IS BAN
WHAT IT PURPORTS TO DO IS BAN DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF
DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX.
SEX. THAT’S NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION.
THAT’S NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE
THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE CONSTITUTION LEFT WOMEN OUT.
CONSTITUTION LEFT WOMEN OUT. SO THIS IS REALLY FIXING THAT
SO THIS IS REALLY FIXING THAT ORIGINAL FOUNDING MISTAKE,
ORIGINAL FOUNDING MISTAKE, PUTTING WOMEN IN THE
PUTTING WOMEN IN THE CONSTITUTION, AND IT BANS, IT
CONSTITUTION, AND IT BANS, IT CHANGES THE SORT OF STANDARD FOR
CHANGES THE SORT OF STANDARD FOR SEX DISCRIMINATION.
SEX DISCRIMINATION. WHEN A WOMAN TAKES A CASE TO THE
WHEN A WOMAN TAKES A CASE TO THE COURT AND SAYS SHE WAS
COURT AND SAYS SHE WAS DISCRIMINATED ON THE BASIS OF
DISCRIMINATED ON THE BASIS OF SEX, RIGHT NOW SHE GETS A LOWER
SEX, RIGHT NOW SHE GETS A LOWER JUDICIAL REVIEW OR WHAT’S CALLED
JUDICIAL REVIEW OR WHAT’S CALLED SCRUTINY.
SCRUTINY. THIS WOULD MOVE DISCRIMINATION
THIS WOULD MOVE DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX,
ON THE BASIS OF SEX, INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY TO STRICT
INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY TO STRICT SCRUTINY THE HIGHEST STANDARD
SCRUTINY THE HIGHEST STANDARD AND THE SECOND CLAUSE OF THE
AND THE SECOND CLAUSE OF THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT GIVES
EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT GIVES CONGRESS THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE
CONGRESS THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE IT.
IT. THAT GIVES LEGISLATORS THE
THAT GIVES LEGISLATORS THE OPPORTUNITY TO PASS NEW LAWS TO
OPPORTUNITY TO PASS NEW LAWS TO PROTECT WOMEN AND XWIRLZ.
PROTECT WOMEN AND XWIRLZ. >> I MENTIONED 1982 A MOMENT
>> I MENTIONED 1982 A MOMENT AGO.
AGO. YOU HAVE OPPONENTS OF THE E.R.A.
YOU HAVE OPPONENTS OF THE E.R.A. AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SAYING
AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SAYING THE WINDOW TO RATIFY THIS IS
THE WINDOW TO RATIFY THIS IS CLOSED.
CLOSED. RATIFICATION NEEDS TO START FROM
RATIFICATION NEEDS TO START FROM SCRATCH.
SCRATCH. RUTH BADER GINSBURG WEIGHED IN
RUTH BADER GINSBURG WEIGHED IN ON THIS.
ON THIS. LISTEN TO WHAT SHE HAD TO SAY.
LISTEN TO WHAT SHE HAD TO SAY. >> WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A
>> WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A NEW BEGINNING, AS I SAID, TO
NEW BEGINNING, AS I SAID, TO START OVER.
START OVER. THERE’S TOO MUCH CONVERSATION
THERE’S TOO MUCH CONVERSATION ABOUT LATE COMERS, LONG AFTER
ABOUT LATE COMERS, LONG AFTER THE DEADLINE PASSED, PLUS A
THE DEADLINE PASSED, PLUS A NUMBER OF STATES WITH WITHDRAWN
NUMBER OF STATES WITH WITHDRAWN THEIR RATIFICATION.
THEIR RATIFICATION. IF YOU CAN’T ON THE PLUS SIDE,
IF YOU CAN’T ON THE PLUS SIDE, HOW CAN YOU DISREGARD STATES
HOW CAN YOU DISREGARD STATES THAT SAID WE’VE CHANGED SOME
THAT SAID WE’VE CHANGED SOME LINES.
LINES. >> THE JUSTICE THERE TALKING
>> THE JUSTICE THERE TALKING ABOUT VIRGINIA AS A LATECOMER
ABOUT VIRGINIA AS A LATECOMER STATE.
STATE. HOW DO YOU REACT TO WHAT SHE
HOW DO YOU REACT TO WHAT SHE SAYS IF THIS WERE TO START OVER
SAYS IF THIS WERE TO START OVER AGAIN, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE
AGAIN, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE PROCESS WOULD BE FOR THIS
PROCESS WOULD BE FOR THIS HAPPENING AGAIN IF ALL THE
HAPPENING AGAIN IF ALL THE STATES HAD TO DO THIS OVER
STATES HAD TO DO THIS OVER AGAIN?
AGAIN? >> I SAY BETTER LATE THAN NEVER.
>> I SAY BETTER LATE THAN NEVER. I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING TO
I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER IS RUTH BADER GINSBURG
REMEMBER IS RUTH BADER GINSBURG THINKS THE E.R.A. SHOULD BE IN
THINKS THE E.R.A. SHOULD BE IN THE CONSTITUTION.
THE CONSTITUTION. WE NEED IT.
WE NEED IT. 84% OF COUNTRIES HAVE A GENDER
84% OF COUNTRIES HAVE A GENDER PROVISION IN THEIR CONSTITUTION.
PROVISION IN THEIR CONSTITUTION. A COUPLE WAYS TO GET ABOUT THIS.
A COUPLE WAYS TO GET ABOUT THIS. AS SUSAN B. ANTHONY SAID FAILURE
AS SUSAN B. ANTHONY SAID FAILURE IS IMPOSSIBLE.
IS IMPOSSIBLE. WHETHER WE GET THE THREE-STATE
WHETHER WE GET THE THREE-STATE SOLUTION ADDING THESE THREE
SOLUTION ADDING THESE THREE STATES THAT HAVE RATIFIED SO
STATES THAT HAVE RATIFIED SO 2017 NEVADA, 2018 ILLINOIS AND A
2017 NEVADA, 2018 ILLINOIS AND A MONTH AGO VIRGINIA.
MONTH AGO VIRGINIA. THAT’S THE THREE-STATE SOLUTION
THAT’S THE THREE-STATE SOLUTION AND THE START OVER SOLUTION.
AND THE START OVER SOLUTION. WE SHOULD HAVE A NEW AMENDMENT,
WE SHOULD HAVE A NEW AMENDMENT, GET IT THROUGH CONGRESS AND GO
GET IT THROUGH CONGRESS AND GO THROUGH THE RATIFICATION
THROUGH THE RATIFICATION PROCESS.
PROCESS. AGAIN, I PERSONALLY DON’T THINK
AGAIN, I PERSONALLY DON’T THINK THERE’S ANY REASON, ARTICLE FIVE
THERE’S ANY REASON, ARTICLE FIVE OF THE CONSTITUTION ONLY SAYS
OF THE CONSTITUTION ONLY SAYS THAT THREE-FOURTHS OF THE STATE
THAT THREE-FOURTHS OF THE STATE NEED TO RATIFY AFTER IT PASSES
NEED TO RATIFY AFTER IT PASSES IN CONGRESS.
IN CONGRESS. THERE’S NO TED LINE IN ARTICLE
THERE’S NO TED LINE IN ARTICLE FIVE.
FIVE. THERE ARE LOTS OF OTHER
THERE ARE LOTS OF OTHER DEADLINES IN THE CONSTITUTION SO
DEADLINES IN THE CONSTITUTION SO THEY LEFT THAT COMPLETELY UP TO
THEY LEFT THAT COMPLETELY UP TO CONGRESS.
CONGRESS. I SEE NO REASON WHY A CONGRESS
I SEE NO REASON WHY A CONGRESS WHO PUT THE DEADLINE ORIGINALLY
WHO PUT THE DEADLINE ORIGINALLY IN CAN’T EXTEND IT.
IN CAN’T EXTEND IT. KEEP IN MIND MOST AMENDMENTS TO
KEEP IN MIND MOST AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION NEVER HAD
THE CONSTITUTION NEVER HAD DEADLINES TO THE 27th AMENDMENT,
DEADLINES TO THE 27th AMENDMENT, THE MOST RECENT AMENDMENT TO THE
THE MOST RECENT AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN BY
CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN BY JAMES MADISON AND 203 YEARS
JAMES MADISON AND 203 YEARS LATER IN 1992 RATIFIED.
LATER IN 1992 RATIFIED. SO 200 YEARS IF IT IS NOT TOO
SO 200 YEARS IF IT IS NOT TOO LONG I DON’T THINK 50 YEARS IS
LONG I DON’T THINK 50 YEARS IS TOO LONG.
TOO LONG. >> HOW MUCH HAS THE DEBATE
>> HOW MUCH HAS THE DEBATE CHANGED OVER THE LIFE OF THIS
CHANGED OVER THE LIFE OF THIS THING?
THING? NOT TOO LONG AGO I REMEMBER
NOT TOO LONG AGO I REMEMBER BEING IN COLLEGE AND THE LATE
BEING IN COLLEGE AND THE LATE PHYLLIS LASHLEY CAME TO LECTURE
PHYLLIS LASHLEY CAME TO LECTURE AND SHE OPPOSED THIS FROM THE
AND SHE OPPOSED THIS FROM THE GET-GO AND FIGHTING IT
GET-GO AND FIGHTING IT VOCIFEROUSLY AGAINST IT.
VOCIFEROUSLY AGAINST IT. I DON’T THINK HER ARGUMENT
I DON’T THINK HER ARGUMENT CHANGED ALL THAT MUCH.
CHANGED ALL THAT MUCH. WHAT IS THE DEBATE LIKE IN THE
WHAT IS THE DEBATE LIKE IN THE INTERVENING DECADES?
INTERVENING DECADES? >> MOST OF THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST
>> MOST OF THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENTS IN
THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENTS IN THE ’70s ARE COMPLETELY MOOT.
THE ’70s ARE COMPLETELY MOOT. THEY TALKED ABOUT MARRIAGE
THEY TALKED ABOUT MARRIAGE EQUALITY.
EQUALITY. WE ALREADY HAVE MARRIAGE
WE ALREADY HAVE MARRIAGE EQUALITY.
EQUALITY. THEY TALKED ABOUT WOMEN BEING,
THEY TALKED ABOUT WOMEN BEING, YOU KNOW, SERVING ALL LEVELS OF
YOU KNOW, SERVING ALL LEVELS OF THE MILITARY OR BEING ELIGIBLE
THE MILITARY OR BEING ELIGIBLE FOR THE SELECTIVE SERVICE.
FOR THE SELECTIVE SERVICE. THE PENTAGON ALREADY RECOMMENDED
THE PENTAGON ALREADY RECOMMENDED THAT WOMEN BE ELIGIBLE FOREVER
THAT WOMEN BE ELIGIBLE FOREVER THE SELECTIVE SERVICE, AND ALSO
THE SELECTIVE SERVICE, AND ALSO AS A FEDERAL JUDGE HAS ALREADY
AS A FEDERAL JUDGE HAS ALREADY SAID THAT SELECTIVE DRAFT WOULD
SAID THAT SELECTIVE DRAFT WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ALREADY,
BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ALREADY, EVEN WITHOUT THE EQUAL RIGHTS
EVEN WITHOUT THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT. SO A LOT OF THESE ORIGINAL SCARE
SO A LOT OF THESE ORIGINAL SCARE TACTICS AND BOOGEYMAN TYPE
TACTICS AND BOOGEYMAN TYPE ARGUMENTS ARE COMPLETELY DEAD.
ARGUMENTS ARE COMPLETELY DEAD. THERE IS SOME FOCUS ON
THERE IS SOME FOCUS ON REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS AND THEN A
REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS AND THEN A LITTLE BIT OF ARGUMENT, CULTURAL
LITTLE BIT OF ARGUMENT, CULTURAL ARGUMENTS THAT EXIST ABOUT TRANS
ARGUMENTS THAT EXIST ABOUT TRANS FOLKS AND TRANS INCLUSION.
FOLKS AND TRANS INCLUSION. WE WANT OUR MOST BASIC HUMAN
WE WANT OUR MOST BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS TO BE PROTECTED, AND
RIGHTS TO BE PROTECTED, AND THERE IS A PERFECT PLACE FOR
THERE IS A PERFECT PLACE FOR THAT IN THE CONSTITUTION.
THAT IN THE CONSTITUTION. WHAT WE NEED IS FUNDAMENTAL
WHAT WE NEED IS FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND THESE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND THESE ARGUMENTS WON’T STOP US ANY

Share Video:

Embed Video:

Recommended News