By PAUL A. FISHER
Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly has been called “One of the 25 most influential women in the United States” (World Almanac), and Good Housekeeping magazine said she is “one of the 10 most admired women in the world.” Those accolades are understandable. The attractive and dynamic mother has, with her lawyer husband, Fred, raised six high-achieving children, and she has almost single-handedly defeated the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).
The Alton, Ill., housewife received a Master of Arts degree from Harvard University in 1945, and was awarded a law degree by the Washington University Law School in 1978. As a practicing attorney she has testified before numerous State and Congressional Committees. Her first book, A Choice Not An Echo, was a best seller when it was first published in 1964. Since that time she has written eight other books on a wide variety of subjects.
As a syndicated columnist, Mrs. Schlafly’s twice weekly commentary is distributed nationwide by Copley News Service. Additionally she is or has been a television and radio commentator, and appears frequently on media talk shows.
In this exclusive interview, Mrs. Schlafly, who is national president of Eagle Forum and national chairman of Stop ERA, discusses how she became involved in the Equal Rights Amendment, some of the problems with the proposal, and what can be expected from her in the future.
Q. What were you doing, Mrs. 5chlafly, before the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) captured your attention?
A. I was bringing up my six children, volunteering in politics, and doing a little free lance writing. I had my first best-selling book in 1964, and I started my Phyllis Schlafly Report in 1967.
Q. What specific thing prompted you to oppose ERA?
A. Somebody invited me to engage in a debate on the subject. I really didn’t want to do it, because I knew little about the subject at the time. At the time of the invitation, I said I didn’t know which side I would be on. The person who invited me said: “I’ll send you all the material. After reading it I know which side you will be on.”
So, I had the debate, and used the research I developed for it in my first newsletter, which was published in 1972. It was terribly popular, and things took off into orbit after that.
Q. What was the status of the ERA at the time you became involved?
A. It passed Congress March 22nd, 1972, a few weeks after my first newsletter. Then, in the first year, it came up for ratification in Illinois, and I helped defeat it there. In the fall of 1972, I brought together friends from about 30 states, and we started “Stop ERA.”
Q. What specific aspect of the amendment did you oppose at the outset?
A. The fact that it would draft women, and that it would take away rights of wives. Also, that it would give more power to the federal government.
Q. So you weren’t involved in the amendment during its passage through Congress?
A. No, I was not involved at all.
Q. Why do you think it moved so easily through Congress and then through a number of states during its early stages?
A. A handful of people went down there and lobbied it through. A couple dozen women convinced the men this is what women wanted.
Q. And at that point there was no serious opposition to the amendment?
A. There was no opposition at all, except for Sam Ervin in the Senate and Leonor Sullivan in the House.
Q. The Senator from North Carolina and the Congresswoman from Missouri?
A. That’s right.
UNFAIR EXTENSION OF TIME
Q. Would you comment on the three-year extension of the ERA after it failed to win ratification during the seven years allowed when the legislation first passed Congress? I believe the additional three years were approved by a simple majority vote in both Houses.
A. That’s right. They ignored the two-thirds requirement in Article Five of the Constitution. The unfair extension was put through by (President) Carter lobbyists. It was grievously unfair. They very clearly wanted an extension for states to switch from no to yes, but not from yes to no. That is from disapproving the amendment to approving it, but not the other way around. They defeated the fair play amendment proposed by Sen. Jake Garn (R., Ut.).
Q. What was that?
A. It was to allow states to switch either way.
Q. Oh, yes, I see. How badly was that defeated?
A. They got a majority, but it was not a two-thirds majority.
Q. Does that tell us something about how the nation is run on a number of issues?
A. Well, yes, it does. They got the Justice Department to put out a crooked brief saying this is o.k. They got the White House to push it.
“CROOKED” BRIEF
Q. What do you mean by “a crooked brief?”
A. Well, to give you one clear example: The Justice Department brief given to the House Judiciary Committee and used throughout that debate, said the original time period in the ERA resolution was “at least seven years.” Now, the actual wording in the ERA resolution was “within seven years.”
Of course, they also got the Justice Department to say it was o.k. for them to do it without the two-thirds majority that Article 5 (of the Constitution) requires.
Q. Oh, it was the Justice Department that made the constitutional judgment on that legislation?
A. The Justice Department rendered a political opinion….
Q. Hasn’t that been challenged?
A. Sure, it’s been challenged. That’s the case we won in the federal district court on Dec. 23rd, 1981, after two-and- one-half years in the federal courts. And we won it on all counts. The court held that the extension was illegal and I that recision is legal.
Then the libs took it to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court stayed it for the time being. We don’t know what they will do know.
Q. Will failure to obtain the necessary number of state ratifications moot the issue?
A. It all depends on whether the Supreme Court holds that the extension was illegal and that recision is legal. A lot of people are betting that the Supreme Court will say it’s moot, and duck the issue.
Q. Regardless, they won’t decide it in this term.
A. No.
RESTROOMS IN COMMON?
Q. Turning to the military aspects which involve placing women in combat. That, of course is serious. But what about women and men sharing common rest rooms, locker-rooms and dormitories. Isn’t that also a problem?
A. Do you mean in the military, or generally?
Q. Generally?
A. Well, let’s go back to what the ERA would do. ERA would require every law, federal or state, every federal and state regulation – everything that is covered by public funding to be sex neutral: to treat men and women exactly the same.
A lot of people have testified, including the presidents of the American Bar Association, that it would require that sex be treated exactly like we now treat race.
I think the best prediction of what the ERA will do is to ask yourself the question: how do we do it on race? All their lawyers say the Supreme Court has never held that sex has to be treated just like race. You ask yourself how we treat it, on race, then you will know what will happen under the ERA.
Q. That would mean across the board?
A. Sure, that means across the board, and it does quite a lot to the school systems of this country. For example, it would wipe out all the exceptions in Title IX, which allows all-girl or all-boy schools, colleges, sports, social events, dormitory living facilities, fraternities, sororities, or whatever.
Q. Do the proponents argue that it will not take place?
A. Not seriously. The lawyers usually do not deny that, they just avoid it. It’s kind of like they do on the draft issue. They don’t deny it, they just slip into prevarications or irrelevancies.
Q. They look upon it as a bogeyperson that is raised to frighten people. . .?
A. Or they ridicule it.
ERA AND ABORTION
Q. Many clergymen, including Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, insist that passage of the ERA would have no bearing on abortion. Would abortion be an appropriate means to allow women to be equal by not carrying babies?
A. The final decision on that will be made by the Supreme Court. It won’t be made by Fr. Hesburgh, some nuns, or some clergymen. You can ask, “Who knows how the Supreme Court will decide?” But we do know for sure how the abortionists will argue.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has already argued in a brief in Massachusetts (which has a state ERA) that the ERA requires the payment of tax funds for abortion. This is argued on the theory that abortion is an operation performed only on women.Therefore, they say, it is within the definition of tax discrimination to deny public funds for a medical procedure that is performed only on women.
They won their case, and Massachusetts has to pay tax funds for abortion. The Supreme Court of that state did not deign to tell us what they thought about that argument. It really doesn’t matter, because the Supreme Court can do what it wants anyway, but we know for sure how the abortionists will argue.
Under the ERA there would be immediate action to declare the Hyde Amendment unconstitutional, because it denies the payment of federal funds for a medical procedure performed only on women, and, therefore is within the definition of sex discrimination.
Would they win? The Hyde Amendment was upheld only by a 5 to 4 majority under the present constitution. All they have to do is convince one Justice, who is already pro-abortion, that the ERA makes the difference. I think they would win.
You can argue: we don’t know. But there is no way to deny how the abortionists will argue, and they have all the massive litigative skill of the ACLU behind them.
WILL THERE BE ANOTHER ERA?
Q. Regarding Cong. (Henry) Hyde, he said on a radio program in Chicago, according to a press report, that the Equal Rights Amendment can be re-worded, and he predicted the House Judiciary Committee would meet on July 1st and report out another ERA. Reportedly, he said it will pass Congress.
Are you familiar with the Congressman’s statement?
A. Yes, I’m very familiar with that, and that was taken very much out of context. Fifteen minutes of Hyde’s interview was devoted to explaining what is wrong with the ERA. The statement you refer to was very much taken out of context. Of course, the press seized on that and headlined it.
Q. Do you believe another ERA will be coming before Congress?
A. I believe it will be introduced. I do not believe it will come out of the Judiciary Committee of either the House or Senate.
Q. Both of those committees are considered very liberal. . . .
A. Oh, they’re terrible.
Q. But you don’t think those committees would clear such a proposal.
A. I don’t think they will, but if another ERA proposal does get to the floor, I don’t think it will get the necessary two-thirds vote.
Q. You have traveled around the country a great deal and have spoken on this issue. Do you find people are wearied of the issue?
A. They are absolutely sick and tired of it. Hyde, for example, believes there should be a cooling-off period.
Q. What is the underlying rational, or the driving force behind the E RA?
A. The radicals who want to see in the ERA the vehicle to achieve their goals.
Q. What are their goals?
A. Their goals are: tax-funded abortions, lesbian privileges, massive federal child care, drafting women, and a federal solution for every problem.
POLLS BIASED
Q. I haven’t followed nor analyzed this closely, but the proponents of the ERA contend that different polls show the mass of American people approve of the ERA. Are those polling questions loaded in your estimation?
A. Yes they are very loaded. For example, a recent Harris poll contained three sentences before the question was asked. Sentence One declared that if you are for women’s rights you are for the ERA. That is extremely prejudicial, as well as false.
Sentence Two gave a fake argument for the ERA by telling the respondents that it will provide jobs.
Sentence Three gave a fake argument against the ERA which did not touch any of the major arguments in opposition to it. And then they asked people whether they are for or against the amendment.
Q. Is that typical of most of the polls which have been conducted on the issue?
A. It is typical. Most of the polls will ask: Are you for the Equal Rights Amendment which will give equal rights to women? I don’t know how much you have studied polls, but that is a very biased question. Who wants to stand up and say they are against women?
WHAT NOW?
Q. Right.
What will Phyllis Schlafly do now? Fold up her tent?
A. No, we’ve got a great movement. We’re going to keep going. We not only defeated the ERA, but we defeated (President) Carter’s plans to draft women.
We’re going to elect candidates. We’re going to work for the economic life of the traditional family. We are going to work in the education field, and we are going to work in the area of national defense.
Q. What do you plan to do in the educational field?
A. Our people have a lot of different projects. I have a project to teach reading by the phonics method the way I taught my children to read.
Q. Have you thought of running for public office?
A. No, I can’t think of any job that would be better than what I’m doing now.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress