SENATE BILL: Equal Rights Amendment (Sent to the Regions)

[Napoleon]

Senators, why has this debate has descended into the scatalogical? There is a pre-occupation with toilet facilities when this amendment has nothing to do with with them. I re-iterate; the biological difference between men and women with regards to their sanitary needs is not something that the ERA will affect. It does however mean that if an establishment has toilets clearly labeled 'Men' but no facilities for women then it would be in violation of the ERA. I dread to think that any establishment (even gay bars) don't provide facilities for both sexes in 2012 so the point is probably moot. It also means that baby changing facilities should be accessable to men (if an establishment chooses to make baby changing facilities available) as providing such facilities in a womans restroom only would be in violation of the ERA.

The ERA does not mandate anyone to provide toilets, or changing facilities or lockerooms but if it does, it has to provide them for both sexes either as individual facilities or unisex facilities. It is as simple as that.

Could someone not claim in the future that the separate facilities are unequal so we need Uni-sex bathrooms. I personally don't think it's a big deal, but I do think this amendment could lead to that.

It only guarantees that the facilities be provided equally for each sex. No one with a law degree would agree with this conclusion. It's illegitimate.

[Napoleon]

OK... I am going to do my best to respond to all of these points in one post. If I miss some one's comments, please let me know...

Vagueness of my Amendment

I find it very amusing that this is the criticism of my amendment... this is my point about the ERA as a whole! If your concern is that a judge could conceivably interpret my amendment in a way that you would not want- please understand that a judge could do the same for the ERA which leads to my next point....

Actually the text as written is typical of constitutional law and validated by the opinions of many legal experts. What you propose is vague, unclear, and unsuitable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your amendment implies that abortion isn't already a constitutional right.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Napoleon- this is absurd on two levels. Of course it is ridiculous to suggest I'd be fine with that, but it is also absurd to say that it is hurtfully discriminatory if I hired some one because they were more physically able. Is it discriminatory that I preferred to hire a woman whenever I hired a nanny or babysitter for my children? Perhaps you think it might be... but there are certain qualities that men and women have in more abundance. I am not offended that I could've never been a basketball star because I am 5'9...why would you take offense to a woman losing out on a construction job because other applicants were physically stronger or a man losing out on a job as a nanny because the parents felt more comfortable with a woman watching their children?[/quote]

I don't know why you keep making this argument. It is a poor one. To suggest that no women could ever be as physically capable as a man is flat out wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, if that is so, could you explain to us how inequality of restroom convenience and quality is "biologically necessary"?