Senate GOP blocks Equal Rights Amendment

[aubiefifty 18,259]

Senate GOP blocks Equal Rights Amendment

Al Weaver

3–4 minutes

Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked a measure that would have allowed the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to be added to the Constitution.

Senators voted 51 to 47 to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed, falling short of the 60 votes it it needed.

Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine) were the lone Republicans to vote with every Democrat.

The ERA passed Congress in 1972, having been first proposed in 1923. Constitutional amendments, under U.S. law, must be ratified by three-quarters of all state legislatures, meaning 38 states.

- ADVERTISEMENT -

In 2020, Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the ERA, but it did so after the 1982 deadline to ratify the amendment had passed.

The Senate resolution would have removed the deadline so that the ERA could become the 28th Amendment. Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Murkowski were the resolution’s lead co-sponsors.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) argued throughout the week that the legislation was needed following the Supreme Court‘s ruling last summer that overturned Roe v. Wade.

“This resolution is as necessary as it is timely. America can never hope to be a land of freedom and opportunity so long as half of its population is treated like second class citizens,” Schumer said on the Senate floor ahead of the vote.

“There is no good reason — none — for this chamber, this Congress and this nation to bind itself to limitations set 50 years ago,” he continued. “If you look at the terrible things happening to women’s rights in this country, it’s clear we must act. To the horror of hundreds of millions of American people, women in America have far fewer rights today than they did a year ago.”

Schumer switched his vote to “no” in order to bring up the bill at another time.

Nearly a dozen House Democrats marched across the Capitol to the Senate shortly before the vote began on Thursday to demand that the upper chamber pass the measure.

During the trek through the building, members of the ERA Caucus and Democratic Women’s Caucus chanted “what do we want? ERA. When do we want it? Now.”

“We’re right outside the Senate chamber while the vote is happening for the ERA right now. So the House is standing, saying to the Senate we need you to make the ERA happen today. ERA now,” Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), a co-chair of the ERA Caucus, said before entering the Senate chamber.

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), another co-chair of the Caucus, said “gender equality can’t wait, there should be no deadline for that.”

“It’s been over 100 years, we deserve for gender equality to be enshrined in the Constitution. We’re gonna go in here, look at our Senate colleagues and demand they do the right thing, do the right thing by the women of this country,” she added.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.

[homersapien 12,244]

Smart political move at least.

[I_M4_AU 8,943]

This is why Senator Kennedy from Louisiana voted no:

 

 

[Mims44 2,004]

14 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

America can never hope to be a land of freedom and opportunity so long as half of its population is treated like second class citizens,” Schumer said on the Senate floor ahead of the vote.

To the horror of hundreds of millions of American people, women in America have far fewer rights today than they did a year ago.”

 

lol

lmao even.

[CoffeeTiger 5,881]

29 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

 

lol

lmao even.

He's not wrong. 

Women DID factually have more pregnancy and reproductive rights in the United States a year ago than they have now today. 

Edited April 28, 2023 by CoffeeTiger

[Mims44 2,004]

1 minute ago, CoffeeTiger said:

He's not wrong. 

Women DID factually have more pregnancy and reproductive rights in the United States a year ago than they have now today. 

They have FAR fewer now. lol

Can you name all the many rights men have that women don't please. I'm very interested. 

What am I allowed to do that a woman would be jailed or fined for? I wanna go flaunt my rights  

[CoffeeTiger 5,881]

19 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

They have FAR fewer now. lol

Can you name all the many rights men have that women don't please. I'm very interested. 

What am I allowed to do that a woman would be jailed or fined for? I wanna go flaunt my rights  

He was obviously making a exaggerated political statement sure, but it was  pointed at abortion and reproduction rights. 

Millions of American women across vast swaths of the US have lost the rights to get an abortion...in some cases because of vague and overly strict laws, even abortions for medical reasons and unviable fetuses are forbidden. Republicans are also fighting in the Supreme Court now trying to ban abortion medication for purchase and mailing. 

 

You may not believe that women losing autonomy and decision making over their own bodies just because a egg is fertilized is a big deal, but a lot of America would disagree with you.

 

Edited April 28, 2023 by CoffeeTiger

[homersapien 12,244]

22 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

They have FAR fewer now. lol

Can you name all the many rights men have that women don't please. I'm very interested. 

What am I allowed to do that a woman would be jailed or fined for? I wanna go flaunt my rights  

Losing personal control over your body is big. Real big.  Massively big.

[I_M4_AU 8,943]

What is a woman?

[Mims44 2,004]

2 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

He was obviously making a exaggerated political statement sure, but it was  pointed at abortion and reproduction rights. 

Millions of American women across vast swaths of the US have lost the rights to get an abortion...in some cases because of vague and overly strict laws, even abortions for medical reasons and unviable fetuses are forbidden. Republicans are also fighting in the Supreme Court now trying to ban abortion medication for purchase and mailing. 

 

You may not believe that women losing autonomy and decision making over their own bodies just because a egg is fertilized is a big deal, but a lot of America would disagree with you.

 

Instead of all that, you could have just copy/pasted 'killing babies' over and over to constitute the "many rights"  

 

But if soo many people believe women should have that right, how are all these elected officials against it?

Isn't that the point of our government? People elected execute the will of the people or some such thing? That's odd isn't it?

[Mims44 2,004]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Losing personal control over your body is big. Real big.  Massively big.

I'm not allowed to do it either tho Homie, I've asked.

I can't yell "my body my choice' at the dentist and then bite his fingers off.... I'll get in trouble. 

Numerous lawyers have told me this.

[homersapien 12,244]

5 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

Instead of all that, you could have just copy/pasted 'killing babies' over and over to constitute the "many rights"  

 

But if soo many people believe women should have that right, how are all these elected officials against it?

Isn't that the point of our government? People elected execute the will of the people or some such thing? That's odd isn't it?

Wait for it.  

There will be a backlash, even in our pseudo democracy

[CoffeeTiger 5,881]

24 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

Instead of all that, you could have just copy/pasted 'killing babies' over and over to constitute the "many rights"  

Medicine disagrees that they are 'babies' 

24 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

But if soo many people believe women should have that right, how are all these elected officials against it?

 

Because our system of government isn't set up to give power to the majority. In most areas of the country a Democrat politician (either State or federal) will represent many more people than a typical Republican politician will. We give voting power to "land area", not to actual people. 

 

24 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

Isn't that the point of our government? People elected execute the will of the people or some such thing? That's odd isn't it?

At many points in US history the "will of the people" was to persecute and discriminate against minorities. That doesn't make it right, moral, or acceptable. 

Edited April 28, 2023 by CoffeeTiger

[aubiefifty 18,259]

1 minute ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Medicine disagrees that they are 'babies' 

 

Because our system of government isn't set up to give power to the majority. In most areas of the country a Democrat politician (either State or federal) will represent many more people than a typical Republican politician will. We give voting power to "land area", not to actual people. 

 

At many points in US history the "will of the people" was to persecute and discriminate against minorities. That doesn't make it right, moral, or acceptable. 

coffee he is just trolling me. he does not want to engage he wants to mock. nothing more.

[I_M4_AU 8,943]

2 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Medicine disagrees that they are 'babies' 

Mims can speak for himself, but this one is a priceless comment.  Medicine disagrees so as to rationalize in a woman’s head it’s alright to kill the baby that is growing in her.  Looking even further, medicine has a monetary incentive to say such a thing.  One last one;  medicine, at the present moment, can not tell if a person is a male or female until the 8 y.o tells them what they are.  Medicine, when in comes to biology, is upside down.

[CoffeeTiger 5,881]

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Mims can speak for himself, but this one is a priceless comment.  Medicine disagrees so as to rationalize in a woman’s head it’s alright to kill the baby that is growing in her.  Looking even further, medicine has a monetary incentive to say such a thing.  One last one;  medicine, at the present moment, can not tell if a person is a male or female until the 8 y.o tells them what they are.  Medicine, when in comes to biology, is upside down.

You men are all free to speak for yourselves. I'll choose to give women the power over their own bodies and reproductive health. 

You can believe a fertilized egg is a full human if you choose, but you should not be able to force that view on everyone else in society. 

Edited April 28, 2023 by CoffeeTiger

[CoffeeTiger 5,881]

Ironic this conversation is coming up now: 

 

Mims says 

"Why are Republicans passing Abortion bans if its so unpopular?" 

 

Well...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/04/27/south-carolina-nebraska-abortion-bill/

Conservatives in South Carolina and Nebraska just blocked their States attempts at abortion bans because they were concerned about the political blowback and that it didn't represent the will of their conservative constituents. 

 

[I_M4_AU 8,943]

6 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

You men are all free to speak for yourselves. I'll choose to give women the power over their own bodies and reproductive health. 

You can believe a fertilized egg is a full human if you choose, but you should not be able to force that view on everyone else in society. 

Like I said, this is a rationalization.  Power over their own bodies and reproductive health also includes preventing the pregnancy in the first place.  By the way, reproductive health usually doesn’t go well for the baby.

The bottom line is abortion is the leading cause of death in children.

[CoffeeTiger 5,881]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Like I said, this is a rationalization.  Power over their own bodies and reproductive health also includes preventing the pregnancy in the first place.  By the way, reproductive health usually doesn’t go well for the baby.

The bottom line is abortion is the leading cause of death in children.

Like i said You have a right to that view. Many, many, many other Americans disagree and it's not you or your Religion, or Republican politicians place to force these same views on everyone in America.

 

[aubiefifty 18,259]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Like I said, this is a rationalization.  Power over their own bodies and reproductive health also includes preventing the pregnancy in the first place.  By the way, reproductive health usually doesn’t go well for the baby.

The bottom line is abortion is the leading cause of death in children.

NOT TRUE!

statesman.com

 

Fact-check: Are firearms the leading cause of death in children?

 

6–7 minutes

---

Charles Schumer: "The leading cause of death among children is a firearm."

PolitiFact's ruling: Mostly True

Here's why: Are firearms the leading cause of death in children? 

In a speech on the Senate floor, Majority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., recounted details of two recent mass shootings, one in a Buffalo supermarket and the other at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas. He called on his colleagues to tighten the nation’s gun laws.

"America doesn’t stand out when it comes to the rate of mental illness, but we are unique among the world’s developed nations in that today the leading cause of death among children is no longer a car accident, is no longer illness or malnourishment. The leading cause of death among children is a firearm," Schumer said. 

Schumer is correct, depending on you define children, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and analyses from researchers at three academic centers. 

More:Fact-check: Do 'more people die from hands, fists, feet, than rifles'?

The CDC publishes data on the leading causes of death among different demographic groups, providing the most reliable data. In 2020, the leading cause of death among children ages one through 18 involved a firearm. There were 3,219 such deaths in 2020, followed by motor vehicle traffic deaths, of which there were 2,882. 

In their report about gun violence, "A Year in Review: 2020 Gun Deaths in the U.S.," researchers at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions analyzed CDC data from 2020 and found that gun violence was the leading cause of death among children, teens, and young adults under age 25. Firearms were also the leading cause of death for children and teens ages 1 to 19, taking the lives of 4,357 young people, they wrote. 

The report also found that gun violence claimed more lives in 2020, more than 45,000, than it had during any year on record.  

Researchers at the Rockefeller Institute of Government, Leigh Wedenoja and Jaclyn Schildkraut, used CDC data, and found that if "children" are defined as people 19 and under, as they said the CDC tends to do, then firearm deaths exceed traffic deaths. Their analysis did not take into account infant-specific types of deaths, such as congenital abnormalities or short gestation. 

More:Fact-check: Who was the officer who killed the Uvalde school shooter?

Rockefeller and Johns Hopkins researchers said that when analyzing the leading causes of death among "children," infants are typically not included because of certain fatal conditions unique to children under a year old. 

If infants are included, rankings of the leading causes of death for children up to age 18 change. Congenital abnormalities are the leading cause of death in infants, and surpass the number of firearm deaths among all children up to age 18. In 2020, there were 4,403 deaths from congenital abnormalities, 3,141 deaths from short gestation, or preterm birth and low birth weight, and 1,389 deaths from sudden infant death syndrome. There were 11 infant deaths caused by a firearm in 2020.   

We approached Schumer’s office, and Director of Communications Justin Goodman said the office relied on a letter in the New England Journal of Medicine, written by researchers at the University of Michigan, as its source. The researchers wrote that among children and adolescents, defined as people ages 1 to 19, firearms overtook motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause of death in 2020. 

"From 2019 to 2020, the relative increase in the rate of firearm-related deaths of all types (suicide, homicide, unintentional, and undetermined) among children and adolescents was 29.5% — more than twice as high as the relative increase in the general population," they wrote.  

More:Fact-check: How are the firearms for mass shootings purchased?

Our ruling

Schumer claimed that the leading cause of death among children is a firearm. 

Among children between the ages of one and 18, and ages one and 19, this is true, based on several analyses of CDC data, the leading source for data regarding causes of death. 

There are significant causes of death unique to babies up to a year old, such as congenital abnormalities, which is why researchers typically don’t include infants when studying causes of death among children and adolescents. 

We rate his claim Mostly True, because what he said is accurate but needs some clarification. 

[I_M4_AU 8,943]

10 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

NOT TRUE

If the liberals don’t believe a baby in the womb is actually a baby of course it is not true.  If you believe a baby in the womb is a person it is true.

[aubiefifty 18,259]

12 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

If the liberals don’t believe a baby in the womb is actually a baby of course it is not true.  If you believe a baby in the womb is a person it is true.

many on  your side believes as semen enters the vagina it is sacred and pretty much should be left alone. i will never believe this.it takes a while. and no i do not agree with long term abortions.

[arein0 1,105]

1 hour ago, Mims44 said:

Isn't that the point of our government? People elected execute the will of the people or some such thing? That's odd isn't it?

Where are you seeing that banning abortion is the will of the people? The last thing I saw was that Kentucky, Kansas, and Montana put it to a vote and failed to ban abortion, whereas Michigan, Vermont, and California successfully voted for pro choice. It is telling to me that the 3 that failed were deep red states, and the rest of the red states did not put it to a public vote after seeing the results from Kentucky, Kansas and Montana. 

[aubiefifty 18,259]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

What is a woman?

apparently garbage.

[I_M4_AU 8,943]

14 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

many on  your side believes as semen enters the vagina it is sacred and pretty much should be left alone. i will never believe this.it takes a while. and no i do not agree with long term abortions.

Now, each state can decide what is legal in relation to abortion.  That is not a bad thing.  The late term up to birth is just wrong.