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