Archive for Thursday, March 19, 2009

Proposed equal rights amendment lacks support for now

March 19, 2009


A proposed equal rights amendment to the Kansas Constitution will have to wait another year.

State Sen. Pete Brungardt, R-Salina, and chairman of the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee, said Thursday there wasn’t enough support in the Legislature for the measure, so he wasn’t going to bring the matter up for a committee vote.

“It’s probably not going to happen,” Brungardt said.

SCR 1608 states: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the state or any of its political or taxing subdivisions on account of sex.”

To be put in the Kansas Constitution, the proposal would require a two-thirds majority vote in the House and Senate, and a majority vote at the polls in a statewide ballot. Brungardt said it was obvious the required two-thirds support in the Legislature was lacking.

Judy Smith, director of the Kansas chapter of Concerned Women for America, which opposed the resolution, said she was glad to hear it.

“Women are already protected,” Smith said. “It’s unnecessary and superfluous to have an amendment against something we already have.”

But Marla Patrick, coordinator of the Kansas chapter of the National Organization for Women, and other supporters said the equal rights amendment is needed to provide fundamental protections for women.

Patrick said supporters of the amendment will continue to fight for it.

“We’ll be back, absolutely. This is not going to go away,” Patrick said.

Kansas ratified the federal equal rights amendment in the 1970s, but that effort eventually failed to gain national ratification. Twenty-two states currently have equal rights amendments in their state constitutions.


ricochet680 8 years, 10 months ago

What part of "the protections we have are through simple law and can be easily overturned" does nimwit Judy Smith not get?

Seriously. Women like her are worse than the just don't get it as they've never had to live it. Smith knows better, but chose to sell out anyways. She proved that when she got up there at the hearing and lied out her wazoo. Nice Christian values there CWA!

Hey Judy, not all of us are willing to sell ourselves out to the very men that purposely left us OUT of the KS Constitution and trust that they will "take care" of us, nor do we want them to.

JustaWoman 8 years, 10 months ago

What a crock of crap reason by Brungardt for not giving it a vote. It HAD the votes it needed to get out of committee. And since when did it become a requirement that a bill needed to have all the votes necessary to pass out of the Senate before you even allow it to get there? If that was the case, half the bills wouldn't be sitting there that are.

Let's be honest. It wasn't given a vote BECAUSE it had the number it needed to get out of committee and the moderate republicans caved in to the right wing republicans who believed the CWA shills that this had something to do with abortion. CWA knows it doesn't, but they knew there was no better way to put the brakes on something that the people of Kansas realize is needed and is now overwhelming supported by its citizens.

IT IS NOT ABOUT ABORTION. One must only look to the other 22 states that have ERA's in their state constitutions to know that CWA is playing "fear and smear". Sadly, our legislators continue to fall for it.

The Kansas legislators never fail to embarrass, and as a result never fail to ensure that Kansas is looked to as the state that no other states want to emulate.

I am sick of the minority extremists being the ones that scream the loudest and therefore get their way. CWA does not represent the majority of Kansans...the majority of Kansans use their heads for more than a resting spot for their hats!

Mixolydian 8 years, 10 months ago

Brungardt just doesn't get it. For too long women have endured suffrage in silence.

It's time we end women's suffrage.

igby 8 years, 10 months ago

Ironic is this bill. It would redefine the grounds for many laws that make men at a disadvantage, like divorce and children's rights. It would also lay the ground work for the man to have a decision in parenting a child or not.

kansanjayhawk 8 years, 10 months ago

Why is it that the supporters of this legislation would oppose adding a provision to it to specifically state that the amendment does not in anyway confer a right to obtain or commit an abortion? The reason is clear--they use these amendments to try to push abortion and homosexuality on the citizens--through the courts. It is a great victory that this was defeated.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.