Speaker 1: Next Question with Katie Kuric is a production of I
Speaker 1: Heart Radio and Katie Couric Media. Hi everyone, I'm Katie
Speaker 1: Couric and welcome to Next Question. On this episode, we
Speaker 1: really still have to fight to be considered equal, and
Speaker 1: we've had enough of this, you know, we just really
Speaker 1: have to take this and move forward. Can you believe
Speaker 1: the battle over the Equal Rights Amendment is still going on?
Speaker 1: This is the radical move that will finally set equality
Speaker 1: into motion. A century is enough. The proposed addition to
Speaker 1: the Constitution says, quote equality of rights under the law
Speaker 1: shall not be denied or abridged by the United States
Speaker 1: or by any state on account of sex. End quote.
Speaker 1: This one sentence, written all the way back in is
Speaker 1: that the heart of a national constitutional debate that may
Speaker 1: now finally be nearing its end. Virginia is for e
Speaker 1: r A lovers a lot of great things. This is Zion, who,
Speaker 1: along with her mom, Lily Bernard, an artist and activist
Speaker 1: in l A, made this p s A a year
Speaker 1: ago to spread the word that Virginia could be the
Speaker 1: last state needed to ratify the e R A. She
Speaker 1: was just ten. The next great things to come out
Speaker 1: of Virginia is the Equal Rights Comming first approved by
Speaker 1: Congress back in nineteen seventy two when I was fifteen,
Speaker 1: the e r A has been dormant for the better
Speaker 1: part of four decades, just three state shy of ratification.
Speaker 1: But now, thanks to the tireless work of e r
Speaker 1: A activists and a whole new generation of voices like Zions,
Speaker 1: the amendment achieved its goal on January. All those in
Speaker 1: favor of the resolution that the resolution passed a century
Speaker 1: after women secured their right to vote in the US,
Speaker 1: for Gino became today the crucial thirty eight state to
Speaker 1: ratify the two Equal Rights Amendment. The passage marked a
Speaker 1: historic moment for the e r A, which was written
Speaker 1: eyest nine nays, forty one abstention zero. For the women
Speaker 1: of Virginia and the women of America, the resolution has
Speaker 1: finally So what does the passage of the e r
Speaker 1: A mean for the women of America and when will
Speaker 1: it actually take effect? Later we'll hear from playwright Heidi
Speaker 1: Shrek of the Tony nominated play what the Constitution means
Speaker 1: to me? But first we turned to Carol Jenkins, the
Speaker 1: co president and CEO of the e r A Coalition,
Speaker 1: doubt us answer my next question, does the e r
Speaker 1: A actually have a shot this time? And why in
Speaker 1: do we still need it? We always think Ellis Paul
Speaker 1: a really courageous, smart, determined woman for giving women the
Speaker 1: right to vote. She was at the head of that.
Speaker 1: Alice Paul is a critical figure in the fight for
Speaker 1: women's equality. Born in New Jersey in eighteen five, Alice
Speaker 1: was ahead of her time. Her parents embraced gender equality
Speaker 1: and education for women. She herself earned multiple degrees, including
Speaker 1: a law degree and a pH d. In the early
Speaker 1: twentieth century, she became one of the most vocal leaders
Speaker 1: of the suffrage movement, putting pressure on Congress and President
Speaker 1: Woodrow Wilson to give women the right to vote, which
Speaker 1: they finally did with the Nineteenth Amendment, passed in nineteen
Speaker 1: nineteen and ratified in nineteen twenty. When she got that
Speaker 1: Nineteenth Amendment, she said, you know what, we need one
Speaker 1: more step, one more insurance for equality, and that was
Speaker 1: to amend the Constitution where the drafters deliberately left women out.
Speaker 1: It was Alice Paul her elf who wrote the very
Speaker 1: first version of the Equal Rights Amendment. The National Women's
Speaker 1: Party proposed it in nineteen twenty three and two Republican
Speaker 1: senators introduced it to Congress. Year after year thanks to Alice,
Speaker 1: the e r A is introduced into every new session
Speaker 1: of Congress, but year after year it fails. From three
Speaker 1: to nineteen seventy two, that fifty year chunk, Alice Paul
Speaker 1: and her colleagues were always working for it. The groups
Speaker 1: would get small and they would get large. And when
Speaker 1: some of our colleagues met up with her in the
Speaker 1: nineteen seventies, apparently Alice Paul shouted out, there, the young
Speaker 1: ones are here. They're going to take it on. Ye
Speaker 1: last year, women god year. But we just sat on
Speaker 1: dusty hills because we never helped. Also, I have been
Speaker 1: refused departments by landlords who not rank with women. I
Speaker 1: have been refused full participation in politics. Tomorrow is Women's
Speaker 1: Strike Day, the day that women are being asked to
Speaker 1: stop typing, stop selling, stop cleaning house, stop doing dishes,
Speaker 1: and start demanding equal rights with men, to demand that
Speaker 1: women be given their rightful place. And the pages of
Speaker 1: the Ladies Home Journal, you do you mean by rightful place?
Speaker 1: It is a woman's magazine. It is a woman's magazine.
Speaker 1: And that's the ironic aspect of the whole problem women here.
Speaker 1: There is one woman above middle management, one token woman
Speaker 1: out of the four men who control this magazine. Women
Speaker 1: here make paltry salaries as secretaries. They're not promoted, they're
Speaker 1: not given their rights. There's a lot of women that
Speaker 1: are really doing men's work, and I really do believe
Speaker 1: that they should have the equal rights on the equal
Speaker 1: pay that a man does receive. Now, thanks to the
Speaker 1: spirit of equality in the air, and to the work
Speaker 1: of many of my more of four sided sisters, I
Speaker 1: no longer accept the sciety's judgment that my group is
Speaker 1: second class, So please stop fine. Second wave feminists of
Speaker 1: the nineteen sixties like Gloria Steinham and grassroots organizations like
Speaker 1: the National Organization for Women picked up where Alice left off,
Speaker 1: convincing political leaders in Congress to consider adding the e
Speaker 1: r A to the Constitution. By nineteen seventy, Congress began hearings,
Speaker 1: and in nineteen seventy two, the Equal Rights Amendment, with
Speaker 1: support from President Nixon, sailed through. Tonight, after a forty
Speaker 1: nine years struggle, a constitutional amendment appears on the way,
Speaker 1: proclaiming once and for all that women have all the
Speaker 1: same rights as that. Other says there was just one hitch,
Speaker 1: a seven year time limit for ratification. This sort of
Speaker 1: wrinkle was put into the e r A that there
Speaker 1: would be a what they used to refer to as
Speaker 1: the deadline. We don't think of it as that that
Speaker 1: has more of a concrete feeling to it. This was
Speaker 1: a time limit that was not even included in the amendment,
Speaker 1: so it's not what states voted on. Time limits are
Speaker 1: not required by the Constitution, but by the nineteen seventies,
Speaker 1: Congress was in the habit of setting these arbitrary deadlines
Speaker 1: for ratification. In fact, the eight amendments preceding the e
Speaker 1: r A from the through we're all given time limits,
Speaker 1: and we're all ratified. After the e r A S passage,
Speaker 1: most Americans supported the amendment, but over time public enthusiasm
Speaker 1: waned thanks to a highly visible and highly coordinated e
Speaker 1: r A opposition campaign led by a conservative activist named
Speaker 1: Philish Laughly. How do you view the relationship of women
Speaker 1: and men? Is it equal? Women should not be equal
Speaker 1: to men. I think under our present system in the
Speaker 1: United States, women enjoy a very wonderful status. I think
Speaker 1: it's better than equality. I think women would be sacrificing
Speaker 1: many of the good things they now have, and it
Speaker 1: would be taking a step downward to go for equality.
Speaker 1: Philish Laughly, who was herself a very accomplished woman, uh
Speaker 1: felt that women did not need to be that accomplished.
Speaker 1: She was afraid that they would lose things like alimony
Speaker 1: and you know, social security, and they would have to
Speaker 1: go to war, they would have to join the army.
Speaker 1: That would be same, say the picture that was painted
Speaker 1: then as Armageddon. Slaughley's whole campaign hinged on the belief
Speaker 1: that the e r A would unravel traditional American values.
Speaker 1: In fact, her anti feminist, pro family crusade was one
Speaker 1: of the catalysts propelling an evangelical resurgence on the right
Speaker 1: that is still thriving today. And while there's no doubt
Speaker 1: Shlaughley helped stop the Equal Rights Amendment, Carol Jenkins says
Speaker 1: she shouldn't get all the credit. I think it was
Speaker 1: more the businesses who understood that if they gave women
Speaker 1: equal rights and that would mean equal pay and equal consideration,
Speaker 1: they would have to stop charging women more for insurance
Speaker 1: and dry cleaning. To to disparate examples. One of the
Speaker 1: reasons that corporate America is so successful is that it's
Speaker 1: still generally pays its women less than it pays its meant.
Speaker 1: There was also a feeling amongst some progressive women that
Speaker 1: maybe they didn't need the e r A anyway. We all,
Speaker 1: even the women, bought this notion of our being in
Speaker 1: the pipeline, which is the phrase that used to be used,
Speaker 1: don't worry about it. When we are in the pipeline
Speaker 1: and at a certain point they'll emerge and be totally equal.
Speaker 1: And we bought into that progress, you know, the first woman, this,
Speaker 1: the first woman that. And I think we got lulled
Speaker 1: into thinking that we were making extraordinary progress when in
Speaker 1: fact we were still only doing you know, one by one.
Speaker 1: After the time limit expired in Democratic leaders continued to
Speaker 1: champion and reintroduced the amendment to Congress every year, but
Speaker 1: for decades, for most Americans, the fight for the e
Speaker 1: r A was a distant memory. But then in two
Speaker 1: thousand fourteen, a group of women led by women's rights
Speaker 1: lawyer and activists Jessica new Worth, formed the e r
Speaker 1: A Coalition. When we started, ere A had vanished from
Speaker 1: public consideration. Uh so many people thought it had already
Speaker 1: been passed. Of course, how could we be a country
Speaker 1: without an Equal Rights Amendment? Uh? And others thought, oh,
Speaker 1: had been defeated years ago, and good thing. Uh. So
Speaker 1: when we came along, our job was to inform the
Speaker 1: public that no, it had not been ratified, even though
Speaker 1: Congress passed it in nineteen seventy two, and at that
Speaker 1: point five years ago, we still needed three states and
Speaker 1: it seemed an impossibility. So some of what we were
Speaker 1: working on was starting all over again, which also seemed incredible, uh,
Speaker 1: knowing what it would take to start from the very beginning. Uh.
Speaker 1: And then suddenly, in two seventeen, Nevada, thanks to this
Speaker 1: magnificent state legislator Pat Spearman, ratified the Equal Rights Amendment.
Speaker 1: And we were all sitting in the office and looking
Speaker 1: at each other and saying, does that count? And our
Speaker 1: lawyers said it counts. Then we began to look around
Speaker 1: to see what other states were that that this could
Speaker 1: happen in. Illinois just took it right up that s
Speaker 1: j r. A Four is adopted. Illinois is now the
Speaker 1: thirty seventh state to ratify the amendment. The night's vote
Speaker 1: was symbolic the country still needs one more state to
Speaker 1: ratify it to make it federal law. And that last state,
Speaker 1: of course, would be Virginia, which means three states ratifying
Speaker 1: in three years, like a beautiful contagion of equality after
Speaker 1: no nine seven years, which raises the question why now
Speaker 1: we've gone through this period where we thought, oh, incremental
Speaker 1: progress will mean equality in our lifetime, and when I
Speaker 1: think a lot of women looked around and said, no,
Speaker 1: it's not going to happen in my lifetime or my
Speaker 1: daughters are probably my granddaughters either that they will be
Speaker 1: faced with the same kinds of insane, you know, discriminatory
Speaker 1: tactics that have been used through my grandmother's lifetime. So
Speaker 1: I think there was that there was the Me Too movement.
Speaker 1: We of it full credit for an uproar the women's marches,
Speaker 1: you know, that kind of massive gathering. I think women
Speaker 1: have said that's it, that's enough, And it's only recently
Speaker 1: that people have begun to understand, hey, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: there's something wrong with our constitution. It's the playbook by
Speaker 1: which this country lives, and women are not in it.
Speaker 1: And until you fix that, uh, you're not going to
Speaker 1: fix anything. Congress approved it in nineteen seventy two. By
Speaker 1: two thirds, so we have the thirty eight state. You
Speaker 1: know we are there. Coming up, we'll talk with playwright
Speaker 1: Heidi Shrek about what the Equal Rights Amendment means to her.
Speaker 1: When I was fifteen years old, I would travel the
Speaker 1: country giving speeches about the Constitution at American Legion halls
Speaker 1: for prize money. Is this was a scheme invented by
Speaker 1: my mom to help me pay for college. That's playwright
Speaker 1: Heidi Shrek in two thousand nineteen, performing in her acclaimed
Speaker 1: Broadway show What the Constitution Means to Me. I was
Speaker 1: actually able to pay for my entire college education this way.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Thank you. It's it was thirty years ago
Speaker 1: when it was a state school, but thank you. A
Speaker 1: few years ago, I was thinking about the Constitution for
Speaker 1: various reasons, and I thought it would be interesting to
Speaker 1: go back and see what my fifteen year old self
Speaker 1: loved so much about this document. Because I did. I
Speaker 1: loved it. I was a zealot. I was a true believer.
Speaker 1: The play is funny, poignant, and moving. Over the course
Speaker 1: of an hour and a half, Hiding manages to make
Speaker 1: this incredibly dry document incredibly warm, personal, and resident by
Speaker 1: revisiting her fifteen year old self. She reveals just how
Speaker 1: complicated and problematic the Constitution is. What I would do
Speaker 1: is resurrect the speech and the contest based on what
Speaker 1: I remember about myself at fifty, which is why the
Speaker 1: Equal Rights Amendment, or lack thereof, is so personal. What
Speaker 1: I wasn't able to put together at that time, I
Speaker 1: think was the way it had influenced my life and
Speaker 1: the life of my women ancestors, the sort of negative impact, um,
Speaker 1: that our laws had actually had on the lives of
Speaker 1: my mom, my grandma, my great grandma, um, my great
Speaker 1: great grandma. And I didn't sort of viscerally start to
Speaker 1: put that together until I began making the play. Um. So,
Speaker 1: my mom is a feminist. She fought for the e
Speaker 1: r A. I remember I was eleven in two when
Speaker 1: it decided it couldn't be ratified when there weren't enough
Speaker 1: states to ratify. I remember were crying about it, not
Speaker 1: totally understanding that though, and then when I went to
Speaker 1: do the contest, I didn't sort of put together that
Speaker 1: This document I loved so much, it was part of
Speaker 1: the reason my mom was crying. And when I started
Speaker 1: to do research for the play. Uh, I began to
Speaker 1: connect those things. So I have this long history of
Speaker 1: domestic violence in my family UM and sexual assault. And
Speaker 1: when I began to understand the ways our laws and
Speaker 1: this constitution had failed the women in my family and
Speaker 1: seen firsthand the effects that failure had had in my mom,
Speaker 1: who had to grow up in a violent and abusive household,
Speaker 1: I started to question the document more deeply and that
Speaker 1: it wasn't as inclusive as you might have originally thought. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the protections weren't afforded to everyone. They weren't and are
Speaker 1: not afforded to everyone. And it says in the Fourteenth
Speaker 1: Amendment we all must be treated equally under the law,
Speaker 1: and I took that at face value, and I didn't
Speaker 1: understand that that that wasn't happening in practice. And not
Speaker 1: only was it not happening in practice, obviously not just
Speaker 1: for women, but for many groups of people, immigrants, indigenous peoples,
Speaker 1: all people of color in this country, especially black people.
Speaker 1: I didn't understand that discrimination on the basis of sex
Speaker 1: was not actually prohibited by the document. So, you know,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court came out and has established that um
Speaker 1: that the Fourteenth Amendment does not cover sex in the
Speaker 1: way it covers race, religion, and other protection protective groups.
Speaker 1: Real yeah, very famously said, Um, well, the Constitution does
Speaker 1: not require discrimination on the basis of sex, which is
Speaker 1: nice of him to say. Uh, the issue is whether
Speaker 1: it prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, and he
Speaker 1: said it does not prohibit it. And so there have
Speaker 1: been all these decisions that have been made that, from
Speaker 1: my perspective, have enshrined sexism in our laws. And I've
Speaker 1: also failed to overturn sexist laws. And it's clear that
Speaker 1: we need a constitutional amendment so that the courts have
Speaker 1: to be held accountable for overturning these laws or challenging
Speaker 1: these laws. Heidi says there are several examples of court
Speaker 1: cases that have enshrined sexism into our laws, but there's
Speaker 1: one in particular that hit home for her. The case
Speaker 1: of Jessica Gonzalez now Jessica Lenihan versus the Town of
Speaker 1: Castle Rock, Colorado. You know the case of Jessica Lenahan,
Speaker 1: Jessica Gonzalez, who in two thousand five um took her
Speaker 1: case to the Supreme Court. Well, your argument on we're
Speaker 1: all four to the town of Castle Wrap versus Jessica Ganzals.
Speaker 1: Mr Eastman, Mr Chief Justice, I may have pleased accord.
Speaker 1: What happened here is undeniably tragic. She had had a
Speaker 1: restraining order against her violent husband UM. He violated the
Speaker 1: restraining order, kidnapped their daughters. She contacted the police UM
Speaker 1: many times, nine times, I believe, went to the station
Speaker 1: twice in person. They laughed at her, told her she
Speaker 1: was being silly, refused to enforce the restraining order, and
Speaker 1: her husband that night killed their daughters. She sued the
Speaker 1: police department for failing to protect them, for failing to
Speaker 1: uh enforce this restraining order, and in fact, Colorado had
Speaker 1: just passed a law that required police to enforce these
Speaker 1: restraining orders. UM. The police department appealed. The case went
Speaker 1: all the way to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court decided that the police department could not be held accountable,
Speaker 1: even though there was a state law saying that they could. UM.
Speaker 1: And that is because we don't have an equal rights amendment.
Speaker 1: That's because there was nothing in the constitution that said
Speaker 1: that you could not discriminate on the basis of sex.
Speaker 1: They decided there was no way to hold the police
Speaker 1: accountable or to address this larger problem of police not
Speaker 1: listening to women when they're in these situations, refusing to
Speaker 1: protect them. The Colorado Law had been enacted in order
Speaker 1: to like address this problem uh in police departments, which
Speaker 1: was like the They discovered like all over the country
Speaker 1: that police departments were failing to protect women in this way,
Speaker 1: and so the law was an attempt to rectify that,
Speaker 1: and the Supreme Court essentially killed the law. For me,
Speaker 1: that story is very uh personal. I mean, I was
Speaker 1: researching the story of my family and trying to understand
Speaker 1: why my grandma Betty did not leave her violent husband.
Speaker 1: I was looking into what kind of laws would have
Speaker 1: protected my grandma if she had wanted to take her
Speaker 1: kids and run away. What does the constitution say, if anything,
Speaker 1: about women in my grandma's situation. And when I was
Speaker 1: trying to understand that, I found Jessica's story. I listened
Speaker 1: to her case. Um, we've since become friends, and I
Speaker 1: I understood in a much deeper way why my grandma
Speaker 1: chose to stay. The fact is, and this is still
Speaker 1: true in this country, that the moment a woman decides
Speaker 1: to leave a relationship like that is the moment her
Speaker 1: life is in the most danger. And that's because we
Speaker 1: don't have laws that protect women in these situations. We
Speaker 1: don't have adequate laws. How would the A. R A
Speaker 1: rectify that? Heidi? So, if we had an equal Rights Amendment,
Speaker 1: then the Supreme Court would have to say a. Scalia
Speaker 1: was unwilling to say that the Constitution of the United
Speaker 1: States prohibits to discrimination on the basis of sex, and
Speaker 1: what this police department was doing was discrimination on the
Speaker 1: basis of sex. They were not listening to a woman,
Speaker 1: they were dismissing her, they were calling her ridiculous. They
Speaker 1: they didn't have an understanding of what circumstances are like
Speaker 1: for women in in violent relationships. Um. So, it would
Speaker 1: I think, in her case, have allowed the law to
Speaker 1: stand for one thing. Um And it would have provided
Speaker 1: a way for people to take action on a state
Speaker 1: level to say, like, let's let's address this problem of
Speaker 1: of sexism and police departments, Like let's address the fact that, um,
Speaker 1: these cases are often misunderstood and therefore bad policing happens.
Speaker 1: What's the difference between the Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal
Speaker 1: Rights Amendment. Uh that's a wonderful question. Uh. So the
Speaker 1: fourteen Amendment says no state shall deny to any person
Speaker 1: within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. So
Speaker 1: that's fourteen Amendment, Section one class. The only reason I
Speaker 1: know that is because he has been trying to figure
Speaker 1: that out. Um so, so when that include women? Uh? Ideally? Yeah,
Speaker 1: And actually, you know, it's a really interesting clause too,
Speaker 1: because it uses the word person. Uh, not citizen or
Speaker 1: man or man or, but citizen, which means also that
Speaker 1: if you are here as an undocumented immigrant, it's it
Speaker 1: would seem that the text is saying you almost you
Speaker 1: must also be treated equally under the law because of person,
Speaker 1: because of what you're a person, and other parts of
Speaker 1: the amendment used the word citizen. Um so, yes, so
Speaker 1: that that is the argument people make. Uh, And I
Speaker 1: get the argument if you read the I mean, I
Speaker 1: think that's what I thought when I was fifteen too.
Speaker 1: If you read that amendment, it seems very clear, no person,
Speaker 1: I'm a person. You're a person. But that has not
Speaker 1: actually played out in the laws or in the decisions
Speaker 1: made by the Supreme Court. In addition, heidi to helping
Speaker 1: people like Jessica Lenahan. What other ways would the e
Speaker 1: R A protect and ergo help women. Having that amendment
Speaker 1: in our constitution would go a long way towards supporting
Speaker 1: legal protections like across the board having to do with
Speaker 1: equal pay, having to do with UM, maternal mortality, and
Speaker 1: the health crisis for women in this country, having to
Speaker 1: do with paid parental leave UM obviously UM. Making sure
Speaker 1: that a woman's right to control over our own body,
Speaker 1: to the right to have an abortion, the right to
Speaker 1: get birth control UM. It would strengthen all of those protections,
Speaker 1: either strengthen them or allow people to pass better laws
Speaker 1: UM to protect women in these situations. As you know
Speaker 1: the UM, we have the highest maternal mortality rate UM
Speaker 1: of any westernized nation UH, and it's going up. And
Speaker 1: having a constitutional amendment would allow us to have laws
Speaker 1: UH that could stick. It means you could pass a
Speaker 1: lot to try to address that problem and not then
Speaker 1: eventually have it overturned by the Supreme Court. I also
Speaker 1: think it has the potential to change attitudes, because often
Speaker 1: laws happen before there's a real shift in public perception
Speaker 1: and attitudes. Absolutely, you saw that in the Civil rights movement.
Speaker 1: For example, we needed Brown versus Board of Education UH
Speaker 1: to end segregation in this country. Like if we had
Speaker 1: just waited for people to change their minds or for example, yes,
Speaker 1: I think that would have taken much longer to happen
Speaker 1: than it did. When we come back Heidi Shrek and
Speaker 1: Carol Jenkins on what happens next with the e r A.
Speaker 1: Is this finally the era for the e r A.
Speaker 1: Just because it's been ratified by the necessary thirty eight
Speaker 1: states doesn't mean the fight is over. Once again, here's
Speaker 1: Carol Jenkins to help us understand what comes next. The
Speaker 1: first thing that will happen is that we will have
Speaker 1: two years the waiting time before it's enacted. There will
Speaker 1: be legal cases, a really strong, vibrant legal life that
Speaker 1: the Equal Rights Amendment will have to tackle, you know,
Speaker 1: various things that have come up, like the time limit. Uh.
Speaker 1: The r A coalition has been working for years on
Speaker 1: on getting the time limit removed. We have the votes
Speaker 1: in the House. We are also working in the Senate
Speaker 1: with Senator Ben Cardon and with Lisa Maurkowski, a Democrat
Speaker 1: and a Republican who both support the e r A
Speaker 1: and are working to remove that time limit in the Senate.
Speaker 1: But the time limit is just the beginning. While an
Speaker 1: overwhelming majority of Americans support the Equal Rights Amendment. Conservative opponents,
Speaker 1: worried mainly about the e r a s effect on abortion,
Speaker 1: are already fighting. In fact, five states have voted to
Speaker 1: resent their ratification of the r A. Five states have
Speaker 1: tried to rescind. Our legal team tells us that it's
Speaker 1: not possible that you cannot have a subsequent body undo
Speaker 1: what a previous body has done. So legally, we think
Speaker 1: we're safe there. But there are three states who have
Speaker 1: filed a lawsuit against the head librarian because it is
Speaker 1: the archivists job as a strange as it seems nothing personal,
Speaker 1: but that the head of librarian is the one who
Speaker 1: certifies ratifications of amendments, and so uh, they have filed
Speaker 1: a suit against the archivists, saying that he cannot assert
Speaker 1: that Virginia is as a ratified state. But then a
Speaker 1: pro equality group filed a dueling suit, and then the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice weighed in, effectively siding with conservative states,
Speaker 1: saying the archivists can't verify the amendment because the time
Speaker 1: limit had passed. I know, stay with me, people. All
Speaker 1: of which is to say, the next steps for the
Speaker 1: e r A are complicated, legally, fraught, and will likely
Speaker 1: go all the way up to the Supreme Court, but
Speaker 1: supporters say they're ready. We have colleagues who have been
Speaker 1: waiting for that Supreme Court hearing for years and then
Speaker 1: and are ready to to engage in that. So ultimately
Speaker 1: we will win this because the women of America deserve
Speaker 1: equality and this is the way to get it. When
Speaker 1: Heidi and I talked about the laundry list of continued
Speaker 1: hurdles the e r A now faces, she was also
Speaker 1: optimistic that the amendment would ultimately be a part of
Speaker 1: the constitution she loved so much. Clearly, there's great political
Speaker 1: will behind it. There have been various polls taken and
Speaker 1: the amount of Americans who support and Equal Rights Amendment
Speaker 1: is always in the like or higher. And frankly, if
Speaker 1: we had to start over, I think we could do it.
Speaker 1: I imagine that, like every state now could take up
Speaker 1: the mantle and try to pass it again if that's
Speaker 1: what we needed to do. But I think that, like
Speaker 1: the there's there's momentum. I feel like we're at in
Speaker 1: a moment in our country's history when we understand that
Speaker 1: things have to change. Uh well on so in so
Speaker 1: many ways, but we understand that um, that things have
Speaker 1: to change for for women culturally and legally in this country.
Speaker 1: That it's time. You're pregnant with twins this spring, which
Speaker 1: is so exciting. So do you feel an even greater
Speaker 1: sense of urgency to usher in some of these changes
Speaker 1: that many women have been waiting for for so long?
Speaker 1: H Yes, I do, I do. I UM, so I'm
Speaker 1: pregnant with girls, and uh, I do feel I do.
Speaker 1: I mean I felt a sense of urgency already. But
Speaker 1: I really want them. I really want them to be
Speaker 1: born into a world or to grow up in a
Speaker 1: world in which, um, they know they are valued by
Speaker 1: their country, by the legal system, by the culture. UM.
Speaker 1: I want them to be able to open a constitution
Speaker 1: and look and see that there protected there um. And
Speaker 1: I want actually I sort of feel out on both sides.
Speaker 1: I want my mom to see that before she dies,
Speaker 1: and I want my girls to grow up in a
Speaker 1: world in which that's true. And I think I think
Speaker 1: that's the other thing about the Amendment is like simply
Speaker 1: on a symbolic level, it's really important, Like it's crucial
Speaker 1: that a girl or woman, or mother or grandmother or
Speaker 1: a person could look in this document and say I'm
Speaker 1: represented here. Um, yeah, that's what I want. Meanwhile, what
Speaker 1: is Carol Jenkins want to see? I wish as Paul
Speaker 1: we're here. I'm giving her a heavenly hug. Thank you
Speaker 1: for starting this rolling, Shirley Chisholm, and all of the
Speaker 1: people who worked on this endlessly. Uh and you know,
Speaker 1: I'm hoping that we'll be able to celebrate a final,
Speaker 1: final victory for for them as well as for every
Speaker 1: girl in America. And that does it for this week's episode.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much everyone for listening. We hope they've provided
Speaker 1: you with some information and context to help you better
Speaker 1: understand the e r A and the constitutional fight for equality.
Speaker 1: There's gonna be an awful lot happening around the e
Speaker 1: r A in the coming months, maybe even years, but
Speaker 1: I hope we can ultimately see those twenty four words
Speaker 1: make their way into the two hundred and thirty three
Speaker 1: year old piece of parchment that's the foundation of our democracy.
Speaker 1: As Alex P. Keaton once said, you say you are
Speaker 1: A I say y e s. But for now, keep
Speaker 1: up with Next Question second season by subscribing on Apple Podcast,
Speaker 1: the I Heart Radio app, or wherever you get your
Speaker 1: favorite shows and we hope we're one of them, and
Speaker 1: if you're looking for more context on the day's biggest headlines,
Speaker 1: subscribe to our daily morning newsletter, wake Up Call, at
Speaker 1: Katie Currek dot com. You can also follow me, of course,
Speaker 1: on your go to social media feed. Until Next Time
Speaker 1: and My Next Question, I'm Katie Couric. Next Question with
Speaker 1: Katie Couric is a production of I Heart Radio and
Speaker 1: Katie Currik Media. The executive producers are Katie Currek, Courtney Litz,
Speaker 1: and Tyler Klang. The supervising producer is Lauren Hansen. Our
Speaker 1: show producer is Bethan Macaluso. The associate producers are Emily
Speaker 1: Pinto and Derek Clements. Editing by Derrek Clements, Dylan Fagin
Speaker 1: and Lowell Berlante, mixing by Dylan Fagin. Our researcher is
Speaker 1: Gabriel Loser. For more information on today's episode, go to
Speaker 1: Katie Kurik dot com and follow us on Twitter and
Speaker 1: Instagram at Katie Currek. For more podcasts for My Heart Radio,
Speaker 1: visit the I Heart Radio app, Apple podcast, or wherever
Speaker 1: you listen to your favorite shows.