The Equal Rights Amendment: Institutionalizing Abortion

Author: A.L.L.


American Life League

Those who witness the effort to add ERA to the Constitution might well exclaim, 'O equality! What crimes are attempted in thy name!'

                                                                                     Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr.[1]

Anti-Life Philosophy.

The Equal Rights Amendment has nothing at all to do with abortion. It would not make abortion part of the Constitution. All we want is a Constitutional guarantee of equality for men and women. Anyone who opposes the ERA is an ignorant misogynist and a bigot; anti-choicers are merely setting up a false abortion 'red herring' because they are inherently woman-haters and want to keep women down.


When Dealing With Snakes ... 

The proposed Equal Rights Amendment, as shown below, sounds simple, straightforward, and reasonable.

But pro-lifers experienced in the legislative arena (and every other arena, for that matter) know well that, when dealing with pro-abortionists, literally nothing is what it seems to be.


Section I: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.

Section II: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section III: This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

The Ultimate Objective of the ERA. 

The primary and ultimate objective of the ERA is to enshrine abortion in the United States Constitution, which would make child-killing absolutely unassailable. No restriction or limitation on abortion whatever including informed consent, conscience clauses, parental involvement, and waiting periods would be allowed. In this area, the ERA is similar to the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).

Under the ERA that is desired by pro-aborts, the mere picketing of an abortion mill could, with a little help from the ever-willing court system, become a Federal civil rights violation.

A Brief History of the Federal ERA.

Early in the Century. 

The National Woman's Party first outlined the concept of an Equal Rights Amendment in early 1923 at the 75th Seneca Falls Conference. Later that year, the ERA was first introduced into Congress by two United States legislators from Kansas, Senator Charles Curtis and Representative Daniel Anthony.

The ERA has been introduced in both the House and the Senate in every session since 1923. In 1950 and 1953, the Senate passed the Amendment; both times it was killed by the attachment of the Hayden rider, which kept all State protective legislation intact.

The House Judiciary Committee also held Amendment hearings in 1948, and then not again until 1970, because the Chairman of the Committee, Rep. Emanuel D. Cellar [D.-NY], refused to schedule them.[2]

The States Speak. Previously to 1970, voting for the ERA was a popular and relatively risk-free symbolic gesture, similar to voting pro-life before the Supreme Court's 1989 Webster decision. Before 1970, more than 80 Senators had co-sponsored the ERA because they were certain that it would never be reported out of the House.

However, on June 11, 1970, the ERA became a whole new ball game. On this date, Representative Martha Griffiths [D.-Mich.], used the rare discharge petition to force the Amendment out of the Judiciary Committee, where it was voted on for the first time on August 10. It was passed by a lopsided vote of 352 to 15.

On August 17, 1970, the ERA reached the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and on October 7, it reached the Senate floor, where it was weighed down with 'controversial' (i.e., pro-life) riders (many introduced by Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. [D-NC]), and subsequently died.[2]

The Ervin Amendments. 

The Equal Rights Amendment was finally passed by both Congress and the Senate on March 22, 1972. Numerous pro-family amendments (mostly proposed by Senator Sam Ervin) to the ERA were this time rejected in conference. These amendments would have;

• exempted women from compulsory military duty and combat (Amendments 1065 and 1066);

• protected the traditional rights of wives, widows, and mothers (Amendments 1067 and 1068);

• preserved the responsibility of fathers to support their children (Amendment 1069);

• preserved laws that protect privacy for men and women (i.e., segregated toilet facilities, Amendment 1070), and;

• upheld laws that make sexual offenses of all types crimes, and upheld guarantees that homosexuality would not be forced on the public with the force of law (Amendment 1071).[3]

Obviously, if the ERA had not meant to make these actions legally enforceable, there would not have been any need to offer amendments (or vote them down). It is revealing indeed that the far-left radical Neofeminist groups fanatically opposed all of the above amendments.

Ratification by the States.

Following passage by both the House and the Senate, a proposed Constitutional Amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the States before it becomes the law of the land. The ERA therefore required the support of 38 states.

Congress presented the unamended Equal Rights Amendment to the States on March 22, 1973. In just twelve months, 30 states had ratified it.[2] Incredibly, 14 of the states that ratified the ERA did so without any hearings or committee action, without any debate, without any airing of the issue in the media, and without any input from the voters![4]

This is a typical pro-abort tactic: To rush legislation through before the people have a chance to react or comment, and then crow that the new law represents "the will of the people."

In the period 1973 to 1977, five more states ratified the ERA (the last state to ratify was Indiana in 1977). However, during the same time period, five other states, after bitter legal struggles, withdrew their ratifications as follows;

Nebraska         March 15, 1973;
Tennessee          April 23, 1974;
Idaho             February 8, 1977;
Kentucky         March 16, 1978; and
South Dakota     March 1, 1979.

The states that never ratified the Equal Rights Amendment were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.

During the ratification period, the ERA enjoyed the fanatical support of the elite; Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, most wealthy and trendy national organizations, virtually all of the media, and public officials at every level. Yet history has shown us that, when the ERA has been presented to the people, the result was nine defeats in nine tries, as depicted below;[3]


[A medium text size on your computer's 'view' setting is recommended, otherwise, the table may be discombobulated.]

                               Date of                    Against                For
State                   Referendum                  ERA                 ERA

Wisconsin         November 1973                  52%                  48%
New York        November 1975                  55%                  45%
New Jersey      November 1975                   52%                  48%
Nevada            November 1978                   66%                  34%
Florida             November 1978                   60%                  40%
Iowa                November 1980                   55%                  45%
Maine              November 1984                   64%                  36%
Vermont           November 1986                  57%                   43%
Iowa                November 1992                   54%                  46%

The seven-year ratification limit expired on March 22, 1979. This was in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision Dillon v. Gloss, handed down in 1921, which upheld the seven-year time limit on Constitutional amendments in order to reflect the will of the people.

But Congress, bowing under radical left-wing pressure once again, ignored this standing Supreme Court decision and unconstitutionally extended the ratification deadline another 30 months to September 22, 1981. Despite this unlawful extension, no further states ratified the ERA.[3]

The "New" ERA.

This unbroken series of defeats didn't faze the pro-ERA forces in the least. In January of 1983, the same ERA was reintroduced in both the Congress and the Senate.

During hearings, the lead sponsor of the 'new and improved' ERA was pro-abortion Senator Paul Tsongas. When questioned about the effect of the ERA on the enshrinement of abortion and homosexuality in the Constitution, Tsongas replied, "That's up to the courts to decide."[4]

This meant that the Supreme Court and lower Federal courts could decide anything they wanted to regarding the ERA and, in view of the court system's past devastating campaign against family life and matters of ethics and morals, this was a frightening prospect for pro-life groups.

The Final Proof.

The National Right to Life Committee lobbied to have the following amendment attached to the 1983 Equal Rights Amendment; "Nothing in this Article [the ERA] shall be construed to grant or secure any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof."[5]

Constitutional attorneys and other experts predicted that the ERA would easily pass both the House and Senate with this amendment. However, every major national radical feminist group rose up with one voice and condemned this wording and demanded that the ERA be put to a vote in its unamended form. When the votes were taken on November 15, 1983, the ERA was defeated yet again by six votes.

The uncontestable link to abortion was the obvious killer of the ERA.

The Vampire Rises Again.

Like that hoary old monster of old, the ERA simply just will not go away. In late 1987, Molly Yard, former president of the National Organization for Women, announced a plan to lobby nationwide once again for the ERA. Pro-life forces must continue to remain alert, with wooden stakes close to hand.

Tactics Used to Push the ERA.


No discussion of any major battle with the Neofeminists would be complete without a description of some of the effective (and not-so-effective) tactics they use to achieve their goals.

Three of the most unusual tactics used by Neofeminists in the original (mid-1970s) fight over the ERA were witchcraft, subversion, and bribery, as described in the following paragraphs.

"Z" Takes the Lead.

Speaking of wooden stakes and other ghoulish beasties, many pro-life activists were bemused at the strange Neofeminist antics used to try and pass the ERA. Self-professed witch Z. Budapest even cooked up a spell "To be cast by wimmin [sic] who have worked for the ERA or who strongly want to "do something" for it."

The text of the spell is rather lengthy, but is worth the space for its entertainment content. Editorial comments are contained in [brackets].


"When the moon is full, at sundown, go to a place "wild and lone" (or your own backyard). Place on the ground a map of the United States with the non-ratified states outlined in blood red. On each of the capital cities of each of these non-ratified states, place a red-white and blue candle with the letters E.R.A. scratched onto it three times with a rose thorn. Also place on each capital a black candle inscribed with the names of the people and organizations who are working against the ERA in that state [Comment: black is never used in Wicca ceremonies unless death or 'great evil' is to be directed against someone]. Anoint the triple power candle with seven power oil, the black candle with hecate oil [Comment: hecate oil is another representation of death; Hecate was the Greek goddess of death and the underworld]. You will also need some incense, either high power, high priestess, or dragon's blood."

"Form a circle around the map. Light the candles, then the incense; inhale the incense while looking at the full moon. To raise power, everyone join hands and hum without strain, a centering sound. The four wimmin [sic] standing in the four corners of the Universe (E,S,W,N) within the circle will invoke the Goddess in turn [Comment: here each 'wimmin' recites a lengthy prayer to various goddesses, including Ea, Astarte, Ishtar, Lilith, Esmerelda, Vesta, Aphrodite, and a host of others]."

"All then link arms around the circle and raise more power, concentrating on the non-ratified states. (Chanting would be appropriate here, using chants from ERA demonstrations) [Comment: How about a rousing chorus of "not the church, not the state ...?]."

"Offering: mix honey and clear water in a chalice, then pour a small amount on the ground, saying: "To return to you a small portion of that which you have given us so freely." Each womon [sic] then takes the chalice, going clockwise around the circle, and speaks her feelings about the ERA, then drinks. When the chalice has gone all around and all have reaffirmed each others spell, share some in the Goddess' honor."

"Then take a pair of shears and cut out the [nonratified] states from the map, and burn them in the flames of the candles. Say: "As this paper burns in the flame of the Goddess, so shall the enemies of wimmin [sic] be melted against her. The states will grant ratifications in the name of Thekis, Goddess of Special Consciousness." "

"Let the candles burn down at their own pace until done. Gather all the remnants of this spell, including the rest of the map, and throw them into a living body of water."

"It is done."

Reference: Z. Budapest. "A Spell for the E.R.A." The Allegheny Feminist [Pennsylvania], July 1978, pages 1 and 7.

While Z. Budapest and her 'wimmin wiccas' were taking their ease and occupying themselves with complex, strange and useless ceremonies under the full moon, Phyllis Schlafly and her Eagle Forum were fighting the battle with prayer and lots of slogging hard work.

History, of course, reveals to us which side won the ERA battle.


The Neofeminists did not stop at silly incantations in their desperation to pass the ERA. On May 14, 1980, Wanda Brandstetter, a "field organizer" for the National Organization for Women, offered a $1,000 "campaign contribution" (i.e., bribe) to Representative Nord L. Swanstrom in exchange for a "Yes" vote on the ERA. She was indicted by a Sangamon County grand jury.[6]


Perhaps the most effective strategy used by Neoliberals to paralyze the churches in the vital area of moral action is infiltration and subversion. This strategy, discussed in Chapter 10 of Volume I, may involve the misrepresentation of the target organization's moral views by people who claim to be an authority on the subject in question and members of the organization that is being subverted.

An excellent example of such a subversive organization is the 'Religious' Coalition for Abortion Rights (RCAR), which claims that Christians of all denominations (but especially Catholics) can kill their preborn children with clear consciences.

An organization that was nearly identical to RCAR in terms of membership, tactics, and propaganda style appeared in the mid-1970s. This group, the 'Religious' Committee for the ERA, was composed of small organizations that were either dissident 'Catholic' groups, tiny women's committees from the mainline churches, Humanist agitators, or members of the 'Religious' Coalition for Abortion Rights, as shown below.[7]


American Baptist Women
American Friends Service Committee
Catholic Women for ERA
Catholics Act for ERA
Disciples of Christ Homeland Ministries *
Church of the Brethren *
Church Women United
Joint Strategy Action Committee
Lutheran Church Women
National Assembly of Women Religious
National Coalition of American Nuns
National Council of Jewish Women
National Federation of Temple Sisterhoods *
Presbyterian Church, Committee on Women's Concerns *
Priests for Equality
Sisters of Loretto
United Methodist Board of Global Ministries *
Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation *
United Church of Christ *
United Synagogues of America *
Women's League for Conservative Judaism
Young Women's 'Christian' Association

* These organizations are also members of the 'Religious' Coalition for Abortion Rights.

The Ineptitude of the ERA.


The two legal objections to the Equal Rights Amendment are very basic in nature. The proposed Amendment is fundamentally and hopelessly flawed in that;

(1) it duplicates existing legislation, and

(2) it would cause extreme confusion in the judicial and legislative branches at every level, because its intent is so general and far-flung.

The ERA Duplicates Existing Legislation.

The strongest argument of ERA proponents is that the proposed ERA would guarantee equal pay for equal work and equal treatment under the law. However, equal pay for equal work is already guaranteed by the major Federal legislation.[3] The primary reason that women earn less than men on the average is that they are concentrated in lower-paying jobs.

If unequal pay for unequal work still exists in many areas, yet another law will make little or no difference. The answer to perceived inequalities under existing law is local litigation, not more Federal law.

The following major Federal laws guarantee equal pay for equal work;

(1) the Equal Pay Act of 1963;
(2) the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
(3) the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972; and
(4) the Federal Minimum Wage Act of 1974.

Equal protection under the law is adequately covered by the following major Federal legislation;[3]

(1) the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
(2) the Comprehensive Health Manpower Training Act of 1971;
(3) the Nurse Training Act of 1971;
(4) the Higher Education Act of 1972;
(5) the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973; and
(6) the Federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1975.

The ERA Would Cause Judicial Confusion.

Professor Paul A. Freund of the Harvard Law School, one of the foremost legal analysts in the country, opposed the use of the ERA in an article entitled "The Equal Rights Amendment is NOT the Way," written in the Harvard Civil Rights Civil Law Review. He applied a medical analogy to the field of Constitutional law, endorsing the use of "specific pills for specific ills" instead of one "broad-spectrum drug" which carries with it "unwanted and uncertain [legal] side effects."[8]

Freund and other distinguished legal scholars, including Roscoe Pound, oppose the ERA not because of principle, but because of the practical legal effect it would have if enacted. As a body, these attorneys concluded that;

The basic fallacy in the proposed amendment is that it attempts to deal with complicated and highly concrete problems arising out of a diversity of human relationships in terms of a single and simple abstraction. As a constitutional standard, it is hopelessly inept. That the proposed Equal Rights Amendment opens up an era of regrettable consequences for the legal status of women in this country is highly probable. That it would open up a period of extreme confusion in constitutional law is a certainty.[9]

The courts could use the ERA to nullify literally thousands of legislative acts, thereby increasing the power of the judiciary drastically, even above the current already unacceptable level. The actual objective of the ERA is to curtail the power of representative government. No other constitutional Amendment has had or would have such a direct destructive or coercive intent.

Over the last quarter-century, Neoliberals have consistently used the judiciary to advance their causes. The ERA is nothing more or less than a battering ram that would freely be used to override the will of the people.

The Conclusion.

ERA proponents allege that they want equal pay for equal work and equal protection under the law. The only reason that these objectives have not been met is that existing legislation has not been enforced. Since these primary ERA objectives have already been covered by existing Federal legislation, there can be only one logical conclusion: the ERA pushers want something else!

And that hidden 'something else' is ABORTION.

The ERA-Abortion Connection.

Conclusive Evidence at the Federal Level.

There is not a particle of doubt among scholars familiar with the ERA both pro and con that the primary objective of this Amendment is to place abortion in an unassailable position as a truly constitutionally-guaranteed right, a status that it does not now enjoy. If the ERA passes, it will be nearly impossible for pro-life activists to fight abortion from a legislative position.

The stated objective of the ERA is full equality between the sexes. Since men are free of pregnancy, it follows that women must be allowed the same right.

It is interesting to note that no mention is made of the mirror-image argument using the same weird logic: That if women can get pregnant, in the name of equality, legislation should be introduced to guarantee men the right to become pregnant if they wish, as well. Therefore, the fact that men cannot get pregnant is, in itself, an unconstitutional restraint.

Neofeminist-style class action suit, anyone?

As Professor Charles E. Rice of Notre Dame's Law Department says,

If the ERA were adopted, it would make it abundantly clear that the states are disabled from restricting abortion in any significant way. Abortion is an operation which can be performed only upon women. The combination of the Supreme Court abortion decisions and the ERA would operate to prevent any restrictions on abortion. In fact, I believe that the adoption of the ERA would jeopardize, at least to public institutions and personnel, the so-called conscience clauses which give hospitals and medical personnel the right to refuse on grounds of conscience to perform abortions. The potential effects of ERA on abortion are sufficient, it seems to me, to cause all those who oppose abortion to oppose the ERA.[10]

Professor Joseph P. Witherspoon, an authority on Constitutional law from the University of Texas Law School who was very active in the civil rights movement, outlined the case for an ERA-abortion connection succinctly;

Ratification of the ERA will inevitably be interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States as an explicit ratification and approval by the people of the United States of its 1973 decision invalidating state anti-abortion statutes and of its declaration therein that the unborn child is not a human person ... and it will make it more difficult to obtain ratification of a Human Life Amendment.[11]

Finally, we should let the pro-abortion people speak for themselves. Betty Friedan, one of the founders of the modern pro-ERA movement, and obviously an expert on its objectives, stated in her March 1978 letter to the International Women's Year Conference delegates; "The ERA has become both symbol and substance for the whole of the modern woman's movement of equality. Further, I am convinced if we lose this struggle for the ERA, we will have little hope in our own lifetime of saving our right to abortion."[12]

And as another Neofeminist writer put it, "The separation of abortion from the campaign for the ERA has jeopardized abortion and produced a truncated version of liberation."[6]

Conclusive Evidence at the State Level.

Without exception, the proposed State Equal Rights Amendments are identical in their primary objective: To secure a Constitutional right to abortion that will be unassailable in the courts and legislatures.

As one example, the Wisconsin State Legislature added language to its proposed state ERA which would not allow forced funding for abortion or gay rights. The sponsors of the Wisconsin ERA (including the National Organization for Women, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the League of Women Voters), which had until this time been vigorously pushing the legislation, suddenly reversed their position and publicly denounced the amended ERA, because it now contained "... objectionable anti-civil libertarian language."[13]

An identical sequence of events occurred in Minnesota in 1983.

As final proof, the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Hawaii all have state ERAs. In each case, the American Civil Liberties Union stated in its briefs that the state ERAs require courts to rule in favor of abortion funding, as shown below;[14]

By singling out for special treatment and effectively excluding from coverage an operation which is unique to women, while including without comparable limitation a wide range of other operations, including those which are unique to men, the statutes constitute discrimination on the basis of sex, in violation of the Massachusetts Equal Rights Amendment.

                                                                        Moe v. King, Massachusetts, 1980.

Pregnancy is unique to women. 62 P.S. 453 and 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3215(c) which expressly deny benefits for health problems arising out of pregnancy, discriminate against women recipients because of their sex. 62 P.S. 453, 8 Pa. C.S.A. 3215(c) and the regulations issued pursuant thereto constitute a gender-based classification in violation of the Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment, Article I, S 28 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Fischer v. Department of Public Welfare, Pennsylvania, 1983.

Abortion is a medical procedure performed only for women; withdrawing funding for abortions while continuing to reimburse other medical procedures sought by both sexes or only by men would be tantamount to a denial of equal rights on account of sex.

                                                          Hawaii Right to Life v. Chang, Hawaii, 1978.

In each of these cases, District judges have ruled that, under the ERA, the states must fund abortions. Any challenge to this funding, even by public petition, is unconstitutional.

For example, New Haven (Connecticut) Superior Court Judge Robert Berdon, on April 19, 1986, stated that "Since only women become pregnant, discrimination against pregnancy by not funding abortion ... is sex-oriented discrimination."[15]

Lynn Paltrow, a lawyer with the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, also stated at an October 1986 speech at Sarah Lawrence College: "They say the ERA will lead to funding for abortion. I say, I hope so."[16]


These examples at the State level make it perfectly clear that one of the primary objectives of the Federal ERA is to enshrine abortion rights in the United States Constitution. These rights are an integral part of the fabric of every Equal Rights Amendment so far introduced at the Federal and State level.

References: The Equal Rights Amendment.

[1] Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., in a September 22, 1975 letter to a constituent. Quoted in Eileen Vogel. "Abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment: A Call to Common Sense." 20 page booklet, June, 1978, available from People Concerned for the Unborn Child, 1760 Potomac Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15216. An excellent summary of the background and weaknesses of the ERA, suitable for giving to people with little background on the subject.

[2] Judith Hole and Ellen Levine. Rebirth of Feminism. Quadrangle Books: New York, 1971. Pages 54 to 77. An excellent history of the Equal Rights Amendment to mid-1971.

[3] "A Short History of E.R.A." The Phyllis Schlafly Report, September 1986. Copies of this excellent four-page pamphlet are available from: The Eagle Trust Fund, Post Office Box 618, Alton, Illinois 62002. See also testimony on the ERA in the Congressional Record, March 22, 1972.

[4] Congressman Henry J. Hyde. "The ERA-Abortion Connection." Human Life Review, Summer 1983, pages 81 to 86.

[5] J.C. Willke, M.D. Abortion Questions and Answers. Hayes Publishing Company, 6304 Hamilton Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45224. Telephone: (513) 681-7559. 1988, pages 267 to 275.

[6] Rhonda Copelon. "Abortion Rights: Where Do We Go From Here?" Ms. Magazine, October 1983.

[7] Pamphlet entitled "Why Religious Groups Support the ERA. 'Religious' Committee for the ERA, 475 Riverside Drive, Room 812, New York, New York 10027, undated.

[8] Paul A. Freund. "The Equal Rights Amendment is NOT the Way." Harvard Civil Rights Civil Law Review. Quoted in Eileen Vogel, "Abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment: A Call to Common Sense." People Concerned for the Unborn Child, June 1978.

[9] John T. Noonan, Jr. "ERA: Equal Rights for Abortion?" Human Life Review, Spring 1984, pages 29 to 46. Also included in Congressional Record ERA testimony of March 22, 1972.

[10] Charles E. Rice, Professor of Law, Notre Dame University. "ERA: Easy Rampant Abortion." The Wanderer, February 1975.

[11] Lincoln C. Oliphant. "ERA and the Abortion Connection." Human Life Review, Spring 1981, pages 42 to 60.

[12] Betty Friedan, quoted in Eileen Vogel, "Abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment: A Call to Common Sense." People Concerned for the Unborn Child, June 1978.

[13] Johnson, D. "Proof of Abortion-ERA Link Massive, Compelling." National Catholic Register, July 6, 1984.

[14] Johnson, D. "Aborting the ERA." American Politics, May 1987, pages 19 to 21.

[15] Douglas Johnson. "Connecticut E.R.A./Abortion Ruling Allowed To Stand; Attorney General Won't Appeal." National Right to Life News, May 15, 1986, page 5.

[16] "Action Box: Equal Rights Amendment." National Right to Life News, February 5, 1987, page 4.

Further Reading: The Equal Rights Amendment.

Carol Felsenthal. Phyllis Schlafly: The Sweetheart of the Silent Majority
Chicago: Regnert Gateway, 1981. The last five chapters of this book describe Schlafly's fight against the ERA and gives fascinating insight into the strategies and tactics used by both 'sides' in the battle.

Lawrence Lader. Abortion II, Making the Revolution
Boston: Beacon Press, 1973. Pages 36 to 40 describe the early history of the ERA.

United States Senate Subcommittee hearing on Constitutional Amendments, April 11, 1975. 
Subject: Abortion Part IV, pages 297 to 301.

© American Life League BBS — 1-703-659-7111

This is a chapter of the Pro-Life Activist’s Encyclopedia published by American Life League.