The good, the bad, and the ugly: A small taste of 2011 Minnesota House Legislation

We know very well that the dire budget situation, lack of stable well-paying employment, access to affordable education, transportation, food security, personal and community safety, and so much more are critical to our State’s future, our families’ futures, and women.  Are they “women’s issues”?  YES.  EVERYTHING IS.

Today, though, let’s look at a “good”, and – based on how you choose to view it – a “bad” and/or “ugly” piece of legislation moving through the Minnesota House…and of significant note is that only the “good” DOES NOT have a Senate companion (huh?).  We’re working on that with our Senators…call your Senator, too.


House File 556 (H.F. 556)

  • Summary: Juvenile prostitutes in need of protection or services provisions amended, sexually exploited youth defined, prostitution crime penalty assessments increased, and distribution of the assessment amended; prostitution laws provisions clarified and recodified, and definitions modified; money appropriated to the commissioner of public safety to develop a statewide victim services model.  Basically, juveniles who are trafficked and prostituted are VICTIMS, not criminals, and this bill will ensure they are treated as such and are protected.  There is there is far more child and teen prostitution and trafficking in MN than people realize.
  • Passed out of a previous committee, and today was heard in the Judiciary Policy and Finance Committee [click here for links to watch the testimony/hearing and testimony on related bills – worth your time; Heather Boyum is amazingly brave] and PASSED.
  • Bill sponsored by Steve Smith (R-Mound) with 19 bi-partisan co-sponsors.
  • Again, there is NO SENATE COMPANION (several NOW members have approached their Senators to introduce).
  • Good non-House discussion on the bill: MPR’s Midmorning with guest host Cathy Wurzer aired “Sex trafficking on the rise in Minnesota” at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, March 8 with guests Suzanne Koepplinger, executive director of the Minnesota Indian Women’s Resource Center and Jeff Bauer, Director of public policy for the Family Partnership.  Find it online and listen in. It is valuable for Minnesota.


Abortion bills

  • H.F. 201 and H.F. 391 [sponsored by Peggy Scott, R-Andover]: – Summary: State-sponsored health program abortion funding limited. [essentially will overturn Doe v. Gomez, which is the law in Minnesota]. 
    • H.F. 0201 has a total of 28 sponsors (including Rep. Scott).
    • H.F. 0391 has a total of 35 sponsors (including Rep. Scott).
    • Surprise!  Late this afternoon, the House decided to add H.F. 201 to their list of bills to receive a hearing, leaving little or no time for action by those who may want to testify or protest this action.  Click here for the schedule of today’s bill hearings in the Minnesota House Health and Human Services Reform Committee.
    • DFLers co-sponsoring (one on 201; three on 391):
      • Gene Pelowski Jr. (31A, Winona) [H.F. 0201]
      • Larry Hosch (14B, St. Joseph) [H.F. 0391]
      • Lyle Koenen (20B, Clara City) [H.F. 0391]
      • Mary Murphy (6B, Hermantown) [H.F. 0391]
  • H.F. 936 and H.F. 1042 [sponsored by Mary Liz Holberg, R-Lakeville]: Summary: Abortions at or after 20 weeks gestational age prohibited unless exceptions apply, and civil and criminal penalties provided.
    • Hearing: The bill will be heard on Wednesday, March 16 in the Health and Human Services Reform Committee at 2:30 p.m., Room 200.  Can you be there?  Will you call your Representative?
    • DFLer co-sponsoring: John Ward (12A, Brainerd)
    • We must fight this “fetal pain” (personhood) bill!

Pay Equity bills

  • H.F. 519 and H.F. 698 [sponsored by Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa]: Summary:  Local government comparable worth requirements repealed.
    • This will undo the public employee pay equity standards that have been in place (and WORKING!) since 1984.  Minnesota’s pay equity laws ensure jobs performed by women are not consistently paid less than jobs performed by men of comparable work value.
    • Pay Equity Coalition of Minnesota (PECOM) and the Minnesota Women’s Consortium are very much against these bills and the Senate companions introduced by Michael Jungbauer (R-East Bethel).   MN NOW is signed on with PECOM as a supporter of pay equity, and a group that opposes repealing pay equity laws.
    • So far, there are no co-sponsors to the House or Senate Bills.
    • Senator Ray Vandeveer (R-Forest Lake) will hold an informational hearing on the comparable worth bills on Wednesday, March 23 at 1 p.m. in Room 112.

Now…make those calls!  Schedule those visits!  Write those letters!  And if your Representative or Senator did something you like, don’t forget to personally thank her or him and explain what precisely it is that pleased you and why (encouragement is powerful).

For equality and with gratitude for all you do,

Jessica K. Trites Rolle, MN NOW Legislative Coordinator

Correcting the Record: Q & A on Constitutional Equality

The ERA frequently asked questions list pasted below comes to us from the Equal Rights Amendment site (, a great clearinghouse of facts and figures.  The web site is operated by the National Council of Women’s Organizations, and affiliated with the Alice Paul Institute.  Fantastic resources. 

If you’re looking to clarify for yourself or others what’s fact and what’s fiction, start here.  It’s a great piece to share with friends and family, co-workers, neighbors, that person you meet at the coffee shop or farmers market or hardware store…everyone.  Once you read this, head home to the National NOW web site and read up on the history of the ERA (, the relationship of NOW with Constitutional Equality (, and the renewed national campaign to finally get this done (  Now it’s your turn to decide if you want to…

  • Disucss or debate?  Engage us.
  • Learn what’s happening in Minnesota…NOW?  Talk to us.
  • Finally write women into the Constitution and throw anatomy out?  Of course you do.

You can do all this and more on August 26, because YOU are invited to celebrate Equality Day and kick off the MN CAFE campaign for Constitutional Equality at Fabulous Fern’s in St. Paul from 5-8 p.m. on Wednesday the 26th.

If we miss you there, please be in touch and watch this blog for more activities, information, and opportunities to be a part of history.

In sisterhood,

Jess Trites Rolle, MN NOW Legislative Coordinator



ERA Task Force


by Roberta W. Francis, Chair, ERA Task Force National Council of Women’s Organizations

The proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the United States Constitution is a political and cultural inkblot, onto which many people project their greatest hopes or deepest fears about the changing status of women.  

Since it was first introduced in Congress in 1923, the ERA has been the object of both enthusiastic support and fervid opposition.  Interpretations of its intent and potential impact have been varied and sometimes contradictory.  

The following answers to frequently asked questions about the ERA are provided to encourage evaluation of the amendment on the basis of facts rather than misrepresentations.  For more information, see “The Equal Rights Amendment: Unfinished Business for the Constitution,” a 17-minute educational DVD, is also available through the website.

1. What is the complete text of the Equal Rights Amendment?

Section 1: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Section 3: This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

2. Why is an Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution necessary?

The Equal Rights Amendment would provide a fundamental legal remedy against sex discrimination for both women and men.  It would guarantee that the rights affirmed by the U.S. Constitution are held equally by all citizens without regard to sex. 

The ERA would clarify the legal status of sex discrimination for the courts, where decisions still deal inconsistently with such claims.  For the first time, sex would be considered a suspect classification, as race currently is. Governmental actions that treat males or females differently as a class would be subject to strict judicial scrutiny and would have to meet the highest level of justification – a necessary relation to a compelling state interest – in order to be upheld as constitutional.

To actual or potential offenders who would try to write, enforce, or adjudicate laws inequitably, the ERA would send a strong preemptive message – the Constitution has zero tolerance for sex discrimination under the law.    

3. Why has the ERA recently been referred to as the Women’s Equality Amendment?

The ERA is sometimes called the Women’s Equality Amendment to emphasize that women have historically been guaranteed fewer rights than men, and that equality can be achieved by raising women’s legal rights to the same level of constitutional protection as men’s. 

As its sex-neutral language makes clear, however, the ERA’s guarantee of equal rights would protect both women as a class and men as a class against sex discrimination under the law. 

4. What is the political history of the ERA?

The Equal Rights Amendment was written in 1923 by Alice Paul, a leader of the woman suffrage movement and a lawyer.  It was introduced in Congress in the same year and subsequently reintroduced in every Congressional session for half a century.  

On March 22, 1972, the ERA finally passed the Senate and the House of Representatives by the required two-thirds majority and was sent to the states for ratification.  An original seven-year deadline was later extended by Congress to June 30, 1982.  When this deadline expired, only 35 of the necessary 38 states (the constitutionally required three-fourths) had ratified the ERA.  It is therefore not yet included in the U.S. Constitution.  

The Equal Rights Amendment has been reintroduced in every session of Congress since 1982.  In the 110th Congress (2007-2008), ERA ratification bills were S.J.Res. 10 (lead sponsor, Senator Edward Kennedy, MA) and H.J.Res. 40 (lead sponsor, Representative Carolyn Maloney, NY).  ERA ratification bills have not yet been reintroduced in the 111th Congress (2009-2010). 

5. Which 15 states have not ratified the ERA?

The 15 states whose legislatures have not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia. 

6. Why are these 15 states still being asked to ratify the ERA under a “three-state strategy,” even though the 1982 deadline has passed?  

Since 1995, ERA supporters have advocated for passage of ERA ratification bills in a number of the “unratified” states.  Such bills have been introduced in one or more legislative sessions in eight of these states (Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Virginia).  While no state has passed an ERA bill in both houses of its legislature, ERA bills have been voted out of committee in some of those states, and the Illinois House (but not the Senate) passed an ERA ratification bill in 2003. 

The three-state strategy was developed following ratification of the Constitution’s 27th Amendment in 1992, more than 203 years after its passage by Congress in 1789.  Acceptance of that ratification period as sufficiently contemporaneous has led some ERA supporters to argue that Congress has the power to maintain the legal viability of the ERA’s existing 35 state ratifications.  The time limit on ERA ratification is open to change, as Congress demonstrated in extending the original deadline, and precedent with the 14th and 15th Amendments shows that rescissions (legislative votes retracting ratifications) are not valid. Therefore, Congress may be able to accept state ratifications that occur after 1982 and keep the existing 35 ratifications alive. 

The legal analysis for this strategy is explained in “The Equal Rights Amendment: Why the ERA Remains Legally Viable and Properly Before the States” by Allison Held et al. in William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law, Spring 1997. The Library of Congress’s Congressional Research Service analyzed this article and concluded that acceptance of the Madison Amendment does have implications for the three-state strategy, and that the issue is more of a political question than a constitutional one.  

Since 1994, Representative Robert Andrews (NJ) has been the lead sponsor of a resolution (H.Res. 757 in the 110th Congress) stating that when an additional three states ratify the ERA, the House of Representatives shall take any necessary action to verify that ratification has been achieved. Representative Andrews and Representative Carolyn Maloney (House leader of the “start-over” ratification strategy) have co-sponsored each other’s ERA bills, in line with the general belief of ERA supporters that both strategies should be pursued in the effort to put the ERA into the Constitution.   

7. Do some states have state ERAs or other guarantees of equal rights on the basis of sex?

Only a federal Equal Rights Amendment can provide U.S. citizens with the highest and broadest level of legal protection against sex discrimination.  However, the constitutions of 22 states – Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming – provide either inclusive or partial guarantees of equal rights on the basis of sex.

(As a point of historical comparison, by the time the 19th Amendment guaranteeing women’s right to vote was added to the Constitution in 1920, one-quarter of the states had enacted state-level guarantees of that right.) 

States guarantee equal rights on the basis of sex in various ways.  Some (e.g., Utah, Wyoming) entered the Union in the 1890s with constitutions that affirm equal rights for male and female citizens.  Some (e.g., Colorado, Hawaii) amended their constitutions in the 1970s with language virtually identical to the federal ERA.  Some (e.g., New Jersey, Florida) have language in their state constitution that implicitly or explicitly includes both males and females in their affirmation of rights.  Some states place certain restrictions on their equal rights guarantees: e.g., California specifies equal employment and education rights, Louisiana prohibits “arbitrary and unreasonable” sex discrimination, and Rhode Island excludes application to abortion rights. 

Ironically, five states with state-level equal rights amendments or guarantees (Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Utah, and Virginia) have not ratified the federal ERA. 

State-level equal rights jurisprudence over many decades has produced a solid body of evidence about the prospective impact of a federal ERA and has refuted many of the extreme claims of ERA opponents. Further information on state ERAs is available in “State Equal Rights Amendments Revisited: Evaluating Their Effectiveness in Advancing Protection Against Sex Discrimination” by Linda J. Wharton, Esq., in Rutgers Law Journal (Volume 36, Issue 4, 2006).

8. Since the 14th Amendment guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws, why do we still need the ERA?

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, after the Civil War, to deal with race discrimination. In referring to the electorate, it added the word “male” to the Constitution for the first time.  Even with the 14th Amendment in the Constitution, women had to fight a long and hard political battle to have their right to vote guaranteed through the 19th Amendment in 1920.

It was not until 1971, in Reed v. Reed, that the Supreme Court applied the 14th Amendment for the first time to prohibit sex discrimination, in that case because the circumstances did not meet a rational-basis test.  However, in that and subsequent decisions (Craig v. Boren, 1976; United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 1996), the Court declined to elevate sex discrimination claims to the strict scrutiny standard of review that the 14th Amendment requires for certain suspect classifications, such as race, religion, and national origin. 

The Court now applies heightened (so-called “skeptical”) scrutiny in cases of sex discrimination and requires extremely persuasive evidence to uphold a government action that differentiates on the basis of sex.  However, such claims can still be evaluated under an intermediate standard of review, which requires only that such classifications must substantially advance an important governmental objective (rather than bear a necessary relation to a compelling state interest, as strict scrutiny requires). 

The ERA would require courts to go beyond the current application of the 14th Amendment by adding sex to the list of suspect classifications protected by the highest level of strict judicial review.  

9. Aren’t there adequate legal protections against sex discrimination in the Equal Pay Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Titles VII and IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, court decisions based on the 14th Amendment, and more?  

Without the ERA in the Constitution, the statutes and case law that have produced major advances in women’s rights since the middle of the last century are vulnerable to being ignored, weakened, or reversed.  By a simple majority, Congress can amend or repeal anti-discrimination laws, the Administration can negligently enforce such laws, and the Supreme Court can use the intermediate standard of review to permit certain regressive forms of sex discrimination.

Ratification of the ERA would also improve the United States’ global credibility in the area of sex discrimination.  Many other countries have in their governing documents, however imperfectly implemented, an affirmation of legal equality of the sexes.  Ironically, some of those constitutions – in Japan and Afghanistan, for example – were written under the direction of the United States government. 

The ERA is necessary to make our own Constitution conform with the promise engraved over the entrance of the Supreme Court: “Equal Justice Under Law.”  

10. How has the ERA been related to reproductive rights?

The repeated claim of opponents that the ERA would require government to allow “abortion on demand” is a clear misrepresentation of existing laws and court decisions at both federal and state levels. 

In federal courts, including the Supreme Court, a number of restrictive laws dealing with contraception and abortion have been invalidated since the mid–20th century based on application of the constitutional principles of the right of privacy and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.  The principles of equal protection or equal rights have so far not been applied to such cases at the federal level.

The presence or absence of a state ERA or equal protection guarantee does not necessarily correlate with a state’s legal climate for reproductive rights.  For example, despite Pennsylvania’s state ERA, the state Supreme Court decided that restrictions on Medicaid funding of abortions were constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court in separate litigation (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992) upheld Pennsylvania’s restrictions on the abortion procedure under the federal due process clause.  Missouri enforces significant restrictions on abortion despite its state constitution’s equal protection clause.

State equal rights amendments have been cited in a few state court decisions (e.g., in Connecticut and New Mexico) regarding a very specific issue – whether a state that provides funding to low-income Medicaid-eligible women for childbirth expenses should also be required to fund medically necessary abortions for women in that government program.  Those courts ruled that the state must fund both pregnancy-related procedures if it funds either, in order to prevent the government from using fiscal pressure to exert a chilling influence on a woman’s exercise of her constitutional right to make medical decisions about her pregnancy.  The New Jersey Supreme Court issued a similar decision based on the right of privacy and equal protection, with no reference to its state constitution’s equal rights guarantee.   

State court decisions on reproductive rights are not conclusive evidence of how federal courts would decide such cases.  For example, while some state courts have required Medicaid funding of medically necessary abortions, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the federal “Hyde Amendment,” which has for decades prohibited the federal government from funding most or all Medicaid abortions, even many that are medically necessary.

11. How has the ERA been related to discrimination based on sexual orientation and the issue of same-sex marriage?

Opponents claim that the ERA would require government to permit same-sex marriage, but the U.S. Supreme Court has never defined discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as a form of sex-based discrimination.  The Defense of Marriage Act currently prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and denies federal benefits to spouses in such marriages.  Even without an ERA, a lawsuit was filed in March 2009 to have that law overturned on equal protection grounds.

At the state level, where most laws dealing with marriage are passed and adjudicated, the legal status of same-sex marriage is not correlated with whether or not a state has an equal rights amendment.  Recent developments indicate that state laws and court decisions are evolving toward acceptance of the principle of equal marriage rights without regard to sexual orientation.

Some states with ERAs have maintained the legal definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.  In 2006, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that a state law limiting marriage to one man and one woman does not violate the state constitution.  Alaska and Hawaii amended their constitutions to declare marriage a contract between a man and a woman.  A Maryland statute stating that “[o]nly a marriage between a man and a woman is valid” has survived a legal challenge.  Florida voters in 2008 amended the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.  The Supreme Court of California legalized same-sex marriage in 2008 under the principles of privacy, due process, and equal protection, but then upheld a voter-passed Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage, saying that the vote amended rather than revised the state constitution (a technical point at issue) and that same-sex couples through civil unions had all the same civil benefits as heterosexual partners except the designation of “marriage.” 

Other states with ERAs have legalized same-sex civil unions or marriages.  The Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled under state equal protection guarantees that same-sex couples must be afforded the same access to the benefits of marriage as opposite-sex couples, and the Legislature responded by legalizing civil unions.  The Supreme Court of Massachusetts held that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the individual liberty and equality guarantees of the state constitution.  Connecticut in 2005 was the first state to legalize civil unions without a prior court decision, and in 2008 the state Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry.  In 2009, New Hampshire passed a same-sex marriage bill, and, pursuant to a state Supreme Court decision, Iowa became the first state outside of New England to legalize same-sex marriage.

Vermont is a state without an ERA but with legal same-sex marriage.  Ironically, a 1986 vote to add an ERA to the state constitution failed in large part because of opponents’ claims that it would legitimize same-sex unions.  Nevertheless, in 1999 the Vermont Supreme Court decided under the common benefits clause of the state constitution that same-sex couples must be provided the benefits and protections of marriage in the form of civil unions, and the Legislature responded by passing a civil union statute in 2000.  In 2009, the Legislature passed a same-sex marriage bill over the governor’s veto.   

12. How has the ERA been related to single-sex institutions?

Even without an ERA in the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions in recent decades have increasingly limited the constitutionality of public single-sex institutions.

In 1972, the Court found in Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan that Mississippi’s policy of refusing to admit males to its all-female School of Nursing was unconstitutional.  Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in the majority decision that a gender-based classification may be justified as compensatory only if members of the benefited sex have actually suffered a disadvantage related to it.

In the Court’s 1996 United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia decision, which prohibited the use of public funds for then all-male Virginia Military Institute unless it admitted women, the majority opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated that sex-based classifications may be used to compensate the disadvantaged class “for particular economic disabilities [they have] suffered,” to promote equal employment opportunity, and to advance full development of the talent and capacities of all citizens. Such classifications may not be used, however, to create or perpetuate the legal, social, and economic inferiority of the traditionally disadvantaged class, in this case women.

Thus, single-sex institutions whose aim is to perpetuate the historic dominance of one sex over the other are already unconstitutional, while single-sex institutions that work to overcome past discrimination are constitutional now and, if the courts choose, could remain so under an ERA.

13. How has the ERA been related to women in the military?

Women have participated in every war our country has ever fought, and they now hold top-level positions in all branches of the military, as well as in government defense and national security institutions. They are fighting and dying in combat, and the armed services could not operate effectively without their participation. However, without an ERA, their equal access to military career ladders and their protection against sex discrimination are not guaranteed.   

The issue of the draft is often raised as an argument against the ERA.  In fact, the lack of an ERA in the Constitution does not protect women against involuntary military service.  Congress already has the power to draft women as well as men, and the Senate debated the possibility of drafting nurses in preparation for a possible invasion of Japan in World War II.    

Traditionally, and currently, only males are required to register for the draft.  After removing its troops from Vietnam in 1973, the United States shifted to an all-volunteer military and has not since that time conscripted registered men into service.  In 1981, in Rostker v. Goldberg, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a male-only draft registration.

In recent years, however, Department of Defense planning memos and Congressional bills dealing with the draft or national service have included both men and women in the system.  With or without an ERA in the Constitution, it is virtually certain that a reactivated male-only draft would be legally challenged as a form of sex discrimination, and would likely be found unconstitutional.  

Congress could respond by developing a system of national service that would balance equality on the basis of sex with the functional status of individuals.  The system could include both military and civilian placements, and exemptions could be granted as always to those unqualified to serve for reasons of physical inability, parental status, or other relevant characteristics. 

Since there is presently no imminent prospect of reinstituting the draft and no way to know what its requirements would be if it were reactivated, a discussion about the ERA’s relation to it is primarily theoretical. However, the immediate practical value of putting the ERA into the Constitution would be to guarantee equal treatment for the women who voluntarily serve in the military and to provide them with the “equal justice under law” that they are risking and sometimes sacrificing their lives to defend.     

14. Would the ERA adversely affect existing benefits and protections that women now receive (e.g., alimony, child custody, Social Security payments, etc.)?

Most family law is written, administered, and adjudicated at the state level, and court decisions in states with ERAs show that the benefits opponents claim women would lose are not in fact unconstitutional if they are provided in a sex-neutral manner based on function rather than on stereotyped sex roles.  That same principle would apply to laws and benefits (e.g., Social Security) at the federal level.  

Legislators would have two years after the federal ERA is ratified to amend sex-based classifications in any laws that might be vulnerable to challenge as unconstitutional.  Those laws can be brought into conformity with the ERA by substituting sex-neutral categories (e.g., “primary caregiver” instead of “mother”) to achieve their objectives.  

Courts have for many years been moving in the direction of sex-neutral standards in family court decisions, and legislatures have been writing laws with more attention to sex-neutral language and intent.  It is unlikely that the ERA would cause a noticeable acceleration of those trends. 

15. Does the ERA shift power from the states to the federal government?

Opponents have called Section 2 of the ERA (“The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article”) a “federal power grab.”  In fact, that clause, with some variation in wording, appears in eight other amendments, beginning with the 13th Amendment in 1865.

The ERA would not transfer jurisdiction of any laws from the states to the federal government.  It would simply be one more legal principle among many others in the U.S. Constitution by which the courts evaluate the constitutionality of governmental actions. 

16. What level of public support exists for a constitutional guarantee of equal rights for women and men?  

An Opinion Research Corporation poll commissioned in 2001 by the ERA Campaign Network of Princeton, NJ shows that nearly all U.S. adults – 96% – believe that male and female citizens should have equal rights. The vast majority – 88% – also believe that the U.S. Constitution should make it clear that these rights are supposed to be equal. However, nearly three-quarters of the respondents – 72% – mistakenly assume that the Constitution already includes such a guarantee.  

By presenting these three questions without specifically mentioning the Equal Rights Amendment, the survey filtered out the negative effect of misrepresentations of the ERA by its opponents.

It is clear that the citizens of the United States overwhelmingly support a constitutional guarantee of equal rights on the basis of sex, and ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment will achieve that goal.

MPR on sex ed, teen pregnancy, and the CDC compilation report

First link in this post…
After years of requiring sex education, reducing teen pregnancy and HIV infections remains a stubborn problem particularly among adolescents of color. A look at what’s next for addressing the major health challenges for teens.

The statistics and honest conversation from some of the callers isn’t surprising (maybe will be to some?), but the show is very good, something everyone – even childless people like me – should hear. And there are links to the study on the MPR page. 

...and here’s the second link:

Improvements in Sexual and Reproductive Health of Teens and Young Adults Slowing, After a period of improvement, trends in the sexual and reproductive health of U.S. teens and young adults have flattened, …

This is the official CDC Press Release. The link to the site with the full report (downloadable PDF, bottom of page) is at the bottom of the release page.


So, what were your experiences with sex education?  Did you have comprehensive sex ed?  When did it start?  Was it from mom or dad or another relative or trusted adult (or physician)?  Or was it in school?  If you received sex ed in school, does that school still offer it, or are they “abstinence only” now?

I’m from a small town in west central MN (Henning – it’s in Ottertail County, and has a whopping 738 people).  I did get sex ed in 6th grade from the school nurse.  Now, it was pretty basic, and really didn’t get into contraception, but it explained in blunt terms what all the parts were, how they worked, and how those boy and girl parts worked together.  Yeah, we all giggled and turned red, and some of us (me) were already having our periods, so when she talked about that, some of us sat up a little straighter and listened…we could…get pregnant?  But I’m 12!  Wow.

To be honest, I don’t know what happens in Henning today, but I’m going to ask a teacher/friend who is still there.  Do the same – find out what happened in your school.

And two things I thought were poigniant in the MPR radio program above:

  1. Parents need counseling and coaching to be comfortable with their OWN sexual health and knowledge so they can have those important discussions and open a dialogue with their kids.
  2. Even though the info wasn’t necessarily surprising, the interviews/conversations drew out the right points, AND pointed out how the move away from being comprehensive has been accompanied by an increasing rate of unplanned pregnancies in teens and very young women, and thus a growing rate of abortion.

So come on, anti-choice folks: If you REALLY want to reduce abortion, which I question considering your lack of support for education and birth control (hey, what would you have to rail against if abortion went down to a tiny figure?), you should support comprehensive sex ed.  AND you need to support education of parents and of communities about teen sex, sexual health, and discussing sex with kids.

Reproductive rights/freedom/health…collectively, women’s health.  This is my issue, your issue, a MN NOW issue!

I’ll be reading through the report.  I ask you to do the same, and then consider how we help.  And post it here.

Want Insurance to Cover Your Reproductive Health Care? Bring It, MN NOW!

As various health reform bills move through House and Senate committee, coverage of reproductive health care, including but not limited to abortion care, hangs by a thread, and the drumbeat from the far right against coverage of primary reproductive health care has been growing louder. …


I don’t think we have a choice; we have to “bring it”.

Because even if you don’t support the FULL spectrum of women’s reproductive health care (you should), I can’t imagine anyone risking loss of well-woman exams, pap smears, STI tests, pregnancy care, and other forms of primary, preventive reproductive health care. We have to change the inaccurate stereotype that reproductive care is “only abortion”. So wrong!

Even if you’re a man, you either have a sister, wife, mother, grandmother, cousin, aunt, co-worker, neighbor, partner, friend…you get the picture…who is a WOMAN. This impacts you, too.

If reproductive health care is used as a pawn, tossed out as a “bipartisan” bargaining chip to get Republican and Blue-Dog Dem votes on a health care reform package, we ALL LOSE.

Cutting reproductive health care will NOT improve the system, will NOT save money, and WILL result in a sicker, riskier populous.

I’m purposely stopping here – so much more I could say.  But it’s YOUR turn – let’s start a disucssion.

And let’s talk about how NOW becomes part of the list of groups “mobilizing constituents to protect coverage of basic reproductive health care”.  Because WE ARE MISSING in her article.  We know that’s wrong, but we have to make others know WE’RE HERE, TOO…and in fact, we can lead.

Read the article, make calls/write to Congress and the White House, and DISCUSS!

Health Care Reform, part III – Nurses and Doctors Speak Out

Doctors and nurses talk about what changes in health care might mean for they way they care for patients and for the future of medicine. The conversation with Kerri Miller was recorded in the UBS Forum on July 9, 2009…


Listened to this a few days ago…it’s fabulous.  Might have to send this discussion to the White House and Congress.  They need to hear it.

I’ve come to believe it’s true that Minnesota will be hit pretty hard if the current public option legislation passes in DC, and that scares me.  I’m a progressive, but that doesn’t mean I won’t disagree with what’s happening right now – I think there are better ways.

And the people speaking at the UBS Forum in St. Paul in this piece speak from experience and reality about what’s lacking in the health care conversation…like preventative…like educating patients…like disincenting “overtesting” and “overperscribing”…and more.

Hope you’ll listen.  Then let’s talk about it.

What do you think?  What needs to happen to make sure our States’ health communities and services aren’t beat up by whatever Federal health care reform comes?  What does health care reform look like to YOU?  If you work in health care, I’d love to hear from you.

“Where are all those Democrats who claim to be supporters of abortion rights?”

In reading about the life of Wichita, Kan., physician George Tiller, who was killed in May by an antiabortion maniac, I was reminded again of an abiding truth: Doctors who perform abortions for desperate women are courageous, moral agents for good…

The subject of this article doesn’t just apply to reproductive rights and women’s health.  Where are the brave, thoughtful, strong women and men we elected, who SHOULD be speaking up collectively, NOT holding their tongues, NOT worrying about the press and the polls?

I know elections are coming.  Yes, I completely agree there are times that people learn new information and reach a new conclusion.  But come on…that’s not the case with women’s health and reproductive rights.  We know what many of our officials think (and they’re with us); so why can’t they speak up…especially when we have a “friendly” environment in the Halls of Congress and in the White House?

Most often, people won’t stand up because it’s hard – I’m guilty of that, too, so I understand.  But I want to be able to count on my elected officials to stand up for ‘we the people’ when the issue is tough, possibly unpopular, and just plain not fun.

And it’s my job and your job to hold our officials accountable…AND to prop them up and let them know we’re behind them so they will take a stand for us.

A good read – please share – please discuss/comment.

Health Care Reform, part II

Taken with the piece I posted in “Health Care Reform, part I” [“They Dump the Sick to Satisfy Investors”: Insurance Exec Turned Whistleblower Wendell Potter Speaks Out Against Healthcare Industry (7/16/2009)], this offers additional food for thought and fodder for discussion. And we all need to be reading, listening, thinking, and acting for the good of everyone in our great country.

We can have better than we have today, but we have to be smart about it. And we have to speak up to the people in power (whether or not we voted for them) so they understand our position and why we think as we do…just disagreeing (or just agreeing) doesn’t help them make a case for their constituents.

 Howard Dean on His Prescription for Real Healthcare Reform (Source:

 SUMMARY: The House Ways and Means Committee approved legislation early this morning to overhaul the nation’s healthcare system and expand insurance coverage. By a 23-to-18 vote, the committee backed key elements …