About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

1 Statement on Bayh Substitute and Ervin Amendment to the Equal Rights Amendment 1 (1970)

handle is hein.prescomm/bayhsubea0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 


                 Citizens' Advisory Council on the Status of Women

                                                                Washington, D.C. 20210

               CHAIRMAN
         Mrs. Jacqueline G, Gutwillig
                Arizona



         October 29, 1970


                   STATEMIENT ON BAYH SUBSTITUTE AND ERVIN AMEIUENT TO
                                 THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMMENIEv1NT



          The Citizens' Advisory Council on the Status of Women strongly rejects the
          proposed substitute to the Equal Rights Amendment for the following reasons:

              1.   The Bayh substitute negates the purpose of the Equal Rights
                   Amendment, which is to guarantee complete legal equality of
                   men and women under the Constitution.

              2.   The substitute implies that women are presently beyond the
                   scope of the 5th and 14th Amendments.     This is not true.

              3.   The proposed substitute would lend credence to Supreme
                   Court interpretations that sex is a reasonable classification
                   for legal purposes and the very unreasonableness of such a
                   classification has been a major factor in the drive for the
                   Equal Rights Amendment.       Women should not be singled out
                   for special treatment in the law under any constitutional test
                   whether it be the test of reasonableness or a compelling
                   and overriding public interest.

              4.   The substitute would in effect encourage continued discrimi-
                   nation against women in the law by allowing the courts
                   discretion to decide when and where and how women may be
                   treated as second class citizens.

              5.   The purpose of the substitute as expressed by the chief
                   proponent is unclear.    Is it the intent of the chief proponent
                   to extend the restrictive hours and weightlifting laws to men?
                   If so, such would be contrary to Federal court -d--STM-gtMr--qer
                   Title VII of the Civil Rights- Act of 1964.




MEMBERS: Miss Virginia  R  Allan,  Michigan;  Miss  Nola  A  Allen, Indiana: Dr. Margaret  Lor  Arrod  Nei  York  Mrs  Paul  Bethel,  Florida,
Mrs. Lorraine  L. Blair, Illinois: Dr. Rita  Ricardo  Campbell, California,  Mrs. Julia  Casterman  Cennorl, Georgia, '  sS _  rl  J-flie (_u nin ham, Nebraska,
Mrs Robert A. Griffin, North Carolina; Miss  Maxine  R  Hacke, Oklahoma; Mrs  Charles  M, HaineLo aS  Mr   M  ,V K I  Minne ota, Iss
Margaret J. Mealey, District of Columbia; Miss Hazel Palmer, Missouri  Mrs  Chapman  Revercomb, West Virginia, Representative  Patricia Saiki, Hawaii
Miss Rachel E  Scott, Maryland; Mrs, Daniel H  Wasserman, Oio; Mrs. Irene  Wischer, Texas  *  EXECUTIVE  SECRETARY  Mrs  Catrerne  East

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most