The Daily Signal - Even Liberal Feminists Are Concerned About the Equal Rights Amendment, President of Nation’s Largest Public Policy Women’s Organization Says

Episode Date: February 13, 2020

Lawmakers are expected to vote this week, potentially Thursday, on removing the June 30, 1982 deadline when the Equal Rights Amendment expired. Proponents of the law are saying that it “will enshrine equality for women into the Constitution.” Penny Nance, president and CEO and of Concerned Women for America joins today’s Daily Signal podcast to discuss why she — and even some liberal feminists — want to see the ERA stopped.  We also cover these stories: President Donald Trump tweets about the case of Roger Stone, a Trump ally who prosecutors recommended spend 7 to 9 years in prison after he was convicted for witness tampering and lying to Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is calls out President Trump on Twitter for his words about Roger Stone. Three high school female athletes are suing the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference over its policy that permits biological males to compete as girls with biological females in high school sports.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Thursday, February 13th. I'm Virginia Allen. And I'm Rachel Del Judas. Lawmakers are expected to vote this week on removing the June 30th, 1982 deadline when the Equal Rights Amendment expired. Proponents of the law are saying it will enshrine equality for women into the Constitution. Penny Nance, president and CEO of Concern Women for America, joins today's Daily Signal podcast to discuss why she,

and even some liberal feminists want to see the area stopped. And don't forget, if you're enjoying this podcast, please be sure to leave a review and a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts and definitely encourage others to subscribe. Now, on to our top news. President Donald Trump tweeted on Wednesday about the case of Roger Stone, a Trump ally who prosecutors recommended spend seven to nine years in prison after he was convicted for witness tampering and lying to Congress. Trump wrote, quote,

two months in jail for a swamp creature, yet nine years recommended for Roger Stone, who was not even working for the Trump campaign. Gee, that sounds very fair. Rogue prosecutors, maybe? The swamp, exclamation point. He also wrote approvingly of Attorney General William Barr. The Justice Department, led by Barr,

told reporters it would be issuing a new recommendation in Stone's case. Trump tweeted, congratulations to Attorney General Bill Barr for taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have even been brought. Evidence now clearly shows that the Mueller scam was improperly brought and tainted. Even Bob Mueller lied to Congress. Some Republican senators expressed dismay with Trump's actions. Senator Lindsey Graham told reporters, per the Hill, he didn't think Trump, quote, should be commenting on cases in the system.

I don't think that's appropriate. Senator Susan Collins of Maine said also via the Hill, I think the president would be better served by never commenting on pending federal investigation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is calling out President Trump for his words about Roger Stone. Pelosi tweeted on Tuesday, by tweet at real Donald Trump engaged in political interference

in the sentencing of Roger Stone. It is outrageous that, the DOJ has deeply damaged the rule of law by withdrawing its recommendation. Stepping down of prosecutors should be condemned and actions of DOJ should be investigated. Well, House Republicans skipped a hearing Wednesday, accusing Democrat leadership on the House Intelligence Committee of ignoring important issues. Representative Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, and Representative Chris Stort, another Republican on the committee and head of the subcommittee, whose hearing Republicans boycotted Wednesday,

wrote Representative Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the committee. Nunes and Stort complain there's been no attention to the fact that an inspector general report found serious issues in how the Justice Department handled its probe of the Trump campaign aides. The two write, per Fox News, despite the seriousness of these issues in our clear jurisdiction, you have failed to hold a single briefing or hearing on this matter. Three high school female athletes are suing the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference over its policy that permits biological males to compete as girls with biological females in high school sports. The Daily Signals Fred Lucas reported.

The lawsuit filed on Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut says that Connecticut's Athletic Conference violated Title 10, which is meant to, to ensure equal athletic opportunities for women and girls. Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian Legal Aid Organization, who are representing the three female athletes, said their case is the first of its kind in the country. Now Virginia is looking to upend the Electoral College. The Virginia House passed a bill that, if it becomes law, means Virginia electoral votes will go to the winner of the national popular vote, not whomever wins Virginia. Right now, 15 states and Washington, D.C., have adopted this practice.

Ultimately, there would need to be states with 270 or more Electoral College votes in order to effectively make the presidential race determined by popular vote and not the electoral college. Next up, my interview with Penny Nance, CEO and president of Concern Women for America. It's because of support from listeners like you that we can continue to produce podcasts like Heritage Explains, and SCOTUS 101. And you can help us keep it going by visiting www.heritage.org slash podcast today to make your tax deductible gift. We are joined today on the Daily Signal podcast by Penny Nance. She is president and CEO of Concern Women for America, the nation's largest public policy women's organization. Penny, thank you so much for joining us today.

Well, it's great to be on with you, Rachel. Well, thanks for being here. Well, so in January, Virginia passed the Equal Rights Amendment or the ERA. Before we get started on the nitty-gritty of it, can you briefly go over what the ERA is? Well, the history of the ERA is quite interesting. It was originally introduced in 1923 and Alice Paul was pushing it. And interestingly enough, Alice Paul was pro-life. She called abortion the ultimate exploitation of women. And then it came up again and was reintroduced in,

1971. And this time it was actually passed. But it had a very rocky road because at this point, this was the issue was abortion, not just abortion, but abortion on demand. And breaking down state laws, any prohibitions on the issue of abortion. The ERA passed Congress in 1971, but it failed to meet the 38th state mark within the time limit, within the time frame. And so once the amendment time frame had expired, a few. states did pass it and ultimately Virginia passed it. But it was outside the boundaries of the time frame set within the limit. And let's remember that during that same time frame, when Virginia passed the law, which is just recently, we had three states that wanted to

rescind their approval. So it's been a very checkered pass to the point on the legal front that Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg has said twice now that she thinks, opponents have to start over because it would be illegal as the way that it is unfolded. Well, it's interesting. Your organization, Concerment for America, they have a long history with the ERA. Can you tell us a little bit about that? Well, that's right. Consorin for America started in 1979. We just had our 40th anniversary and our chairman, Beverly Lahae, our founder, retired. And the whole point of this organization, the early start of this organization, was to be the counterpoint because it was very clear in the 70s in late 1779 that if conservative women

didn't speak forth on this issue, that their ERA was going to pass and it was going to be detrimental to women and children. And aside from the abortion issue, Phyllis LaHaye were out front talking about how this bill would specifically impact laws that were made to protect women, because again, it removes the definition of sex. It's no longer, there cannot be any specific carve-outs to protect women. And at this point would be used to deny really the, you know, the intrinsic value in dignity and biology of women. So even back then, Beverly Lehman-Ville-Haleigh and Sallis-Shlafly argued that it impacted Social Security laws, impacted divorce laws, impacted whether or not women would be eligible for,

for the draft. You know, there was all sorts of laws in which women have special protections because we believe that we need them because we have certain needs and biological needs that deserve respect. Today, we see a whole network of laws. In fact, about 800 laws that specifically impact women that would be undone by the ERA. I mean, potentially, you have issues like the pregnancy. Discrimination Act. If women can't ask for specific protections in the corporate world because we are the givers of life, then what are we doing here? You also have the issue of women's sports, and this has been

very interesting as we've watched this unfold. We have said at Concern Women for America and been joined by self-defined radical feminist to say, sex is biological, women deserve special treatment and dignity because of that, and it impacts everything from the corporate world, but also women's sports. So there is a wide variety of laws and policies specifically, and I believe most importantly, the issue of abortion that would be very negatively impacted because of the passage of the ERA. The concerns that we have on the ERA impacting abortion isn't just something that we've made up. We already have proof that the ERA would impact prohibitions on abortion, particularly

funding. We saw in 1996 Connecticut High Court strike down their prohibition on abortion funding based on a state ERA, and then the same thing happened again in 1998 in Mexico. So we understand that this is interpretation. We've already seen communications to NARAL, to the National Abortion Rights Activist League, to their... constituency saying that they need the ERA in order to take down prohibitions on abortion. So this isn't just something that we've conjured up.

We already have proof that this would be happening. And you mentioned, too, going back to what you alluded to about radical feminists, even being concerned about the ERA. Can you impact that a little bit more? You know, it's been very interesting as we work alongside organizations and members of the radical feminist community. And it's really been, you know, an interesting journey. I mean, it's not people that necessarily agree with us on abortion,

but they do feel very strongly on Title IX and these other specific laws that protect women. And so whether it's a woman that's incarcerated, a woman in domestic violence shelter, you know, there's rules based on the fact that these are women and we need to protect them. But if there's no definition of sex, if sex is whatever someone, sex is confused, if sex is confused with gender and you're basically a man or woman based on your feelings, then the protections that we have for women, these same single sex bases like domestic violence shelters, will have no ability to maintain the protection of the women who need their refuge. And so you've seen this just outcry from women who worked hard to pass these sorts of law,

Violence Against Women Act, Title IX and others saying, wait a minute, what is happening? We are being betrayed by the left. So there really is a real break within people that consider themselves on the left and consider themselves not conservative. And you've seen this ability for us to work together on a very narrowly defined range of issues. So there will likely be a vote in the House this week on the ERA. It's probably going to be Thursday. And this vote is to remove that June 30, 1982 deadline when the ERA expired. And you mentioned this a little bit ago.

Why do you think that there is such a push to have this deadline removed? It really boils down to the fact that Roe v. Wade was basically decided on using technology, using a trimester. system. But modern technology has undone many of the suppositions that the bill was based on. And so they no longer can expect the court to uphold Roe if it's actually challenged, and it will be challenged, by the way. And so they certainly want to change the conversation and make it about the autonomy of women. They want to make it based on a different set of criteria because they can't win using science anymore. And then the other piece, of course, is that Donald Trump has appointed 187 lower court judges who are constitutionalists and two Supreme Court judges. And so they're looking at

the unfolding of the judiciary branch, and they're concerned about Rosie Wade moving forward and Dovey v. Bolton. And they should be, because that law was not based on reality, not based on science, and we have all the proof we need today. proponents of the R.A. are saying that it will enshrine equality for women into the Constitution. Is that the case? In fact, it does the opposite. It breaks down our ability to protect life. It breaks down our ability to declare that we are of distinct value, that our biology matters, that we need specific protections as women under the law and impacts about 800 current laws. that protect women. And so although it sounds pretty and it's got a great name, it has the opposite impact of what's being declared by the left.

You mentioned how there are some radical feminists that you are working with that are very concerned about the area. Are there any other women on the left who might not fall into that category but are still concerned about potential results of this becoming law? Well, I think this is a great discussion and an important discussion for women all over the ideological spectrum. I mean, you may not be a pro-lifer who believes that life against a conception and that we should protect life from conception to natural death. But you may be more moderate. You may actually say, well, I don't support abortion after the first trimester and I don't want to pay for someone else's abortion.

If that's the feeling, and that's the vast majority of women in this country, fall into either my position or a more moderate position, if that's the feeling, then the ERA runs completely counter to that. It would impact the court decisions on state prohibitions on abortion funding and late-term abortion. So it really is a very radical bill and is something that regardless of being a conservative or even on the left or a moderate, this has got something in it that offends everyone. You mentioned some of the effects of the RA, but if you were to pick, I don't know, a couple that concern you, how would the ERA affect women in general? You know, I think the most important impact of the ERA would be two pawns. The first is the fact that it would impact the ability of state to limit abortion, to limit state funding for abortion, and really would impose abortion on demand anytime, any reason, all paid for by the taxpayer on every single state.

The second is that it impacts laws that, in fact, a network of over 800 laws that were developed. to protect women. If there is no reason, if there's no ability to make law based on sex, biological sex, then how do we argue in favor of the Pregnacy Discrimination Act and other Social Security laws and other laws that protect women specifically? It is really the opposite of helpful to women. And anyone who can take a moment and really kind of come up to speed on it, I think, whether you're on the right, moderate, or left, there's real reason for concern.

So Kristen Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, recently wrote an article saying that she quoted an email from NARAL, in which it said in March, 2019, NARL admitted to supporters that the ERA is about abortion, saying that in order to protect our reproductive freedom today, it's essentially passed the newly reintroduced bill to ratify the ERA. What is your perspective on this? Well, I think it's really interesting when the left tells you what they really mean. You know, there's been obfuscation on that issue. But clearly, Naira and others of their ilk want this law in order to take down any state prohibitions on abortion all the way up until birth. They want every state in the United States to have laws similar to New York and now Virginia. So it's very clear that this is the abortion lobby's dream. and they're being very honest about it. And so I'm glad they did.

And this isn't theoretical either because we know that both Connecticut in 1986 and then New Mexico in 1998 used state ERAs to take away the prohibition on abortion funding. So it's already happened. They just want it to happen on the federal level. Hypothetically speaking, if the country were to have the ERA shrine enshrined it as a constitutional amendment, what would that look like? It would immediately cause the abortion lobby to take on every state prohibition and the many, many laws that the pro-off community and others have worked together to pass. Parental notification laws, laws that require a doctor to have many privileges at hospital,

20-week bans, any other prohibitions on funding, would. immediately go to court and the court would use the criteria of the ERA in order to strike these down. We've already seen it happen. But we believe strongly that this won't happen because we already know we even have Justice Ginsburg agreeing that the time has expired and they need to start over and adding every single state all over again. And we're going to We will fight them state by state, and I think they will lose. You just mentioned Justice Ginsburg, and actually in her book, Sex, Bias, and the U.S. Code, she mentions that the ERA would include the elimination of Social Security benefits for wives and widows.

What's your perspective on this, too? I don't know if she's saying that as is if it's a good thing, and I can't believe that women who consider themselves feminists would consider this a good thing. But it absolutely would have that impact. In fact, that issue came up back in. the late 70s when Dillishlafly and Beverly LaHaye were fighting the ERA. The issue of Social Security benefits for widows, the issue of forcing women to participate in the draft, and other issues were front and center at that point, and none of that has changed. You mentioned how the ERA would force women to be part of the draft,

and also apparently would force women to be in combat units with men. What is your perspective on this? Well, Consum for America has said we are so proud of our women warriors, and we have members who are mothers of military men and women. We have women who are currently serving or have served, and we respect that. But we also recognize that the military isn't a social program. And so there has to be an ability for the command to draw lines in which only the most qualified can participate, whether it's special forces or special forces. certain unit, certain combat missions, whatever that is. So this broad policy in which there can be no distinctions made based on biology is unsafe for other people serving. Penny, thank you so much

for joining us today on the Daily Signal podcast. Well, always my honor. Thank you so much. And I, of course, I love the Daily Signal and appreciate everything you do. Well, thanks for being here. That's going to do it for today's episode. Thanks so much for listening to the Daily Signal podcast. brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation. And if you haven't already, be sure to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, or Spotify. And please leave us a review or a rating on Apple Podcasts to give us any feedback. We'll see you again tomorrow. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation.

It is executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis. Sound design by Lauren Evans, the Leah Rampersad, and Mark Geinney. For more information, visit dailysignal.com.