Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ulysses.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!wjh12!foxvax1!brunix!ulysses!smb
From: smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: What does ERA have to do with abortion?
Message-ID: <700@ulysses.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-Nov-83 19:00:32 EST
Article-I.D.: ulysses.700
Posted: Wed Nov 16 19:00:32 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Nov-83 06:43:08 EST
References: <683@ihuxi.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 12

ERA has *nothing* to do with abortion.  It's a red herring raised by assorted
opponents to (a) whittle down abortion rights even more; (b) throw obnoxious
garbage into the ERA in the hopes that people will reject a "christmas tree"
amendment; and (c) generally confuse and delay the issue.  There are all
sorts of other irrelevant amendments that folks attempted to talk on, such
as (a) say that it doesn't mean that women can be drafted (it does mean that,
actually); (b) say that it has nothing to do with insurance rates (!); (c) say
that it doesn't mean that laws that "protect wives and widows" are invalid,
etc.  I didn't see any reports of amendments saying that the ERA didn't mean
that separate-sex bathrooms had to be banned, but I wouldn't be suprised...

		--Steve Bellovin