Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.abortion
Subject: ERA and abortion
Message-ID: <372@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 4-Oct-84 15:36:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.372
Posted: Thu Oct  4 15:36:42 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Oct-84 02:03:43 EDT
Organization: UW Primate Center
Lines: 28


> 	But now, in the Reagan '80's, ridiculous claims are everywhere.
> There are new, wilder claims:  Mandatory homosexual bathrooms is one
> I've heard, and there are claims that the ERA would make
> abortions constitutionally legal.

I don't know about the bathrooms, but a piece of information that
may be pertinent to ERA and abortion is this:  Pennsylvania has
a state ERA which is worded very similarly to the Federal version.
This document has recently been construed to mean that state money
may not legally be withheld from being used to pay for abortion.

Some who are for equal rights for women, but are against abortion,
have had this objection to ERA:  it will be used to enforce use
of Federal money for abortion funding.  Pro-ERA forces have said
that this was not the intent of ERA and so therefore it would not
be used that way.  It would appear, from the situation above, that
the refutation of the objection is invalid.

This has nothing to do with making abortions "constitutionally
legal", of course, but the connection between ERA and abortion
is evident.
-- 
Paul DuBois		{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois

"Make me to go in the path of thy commandments; for therein
do I delight."
				Psalm 119:35