The ERA Returns as the Women's Equality Amendment
Listen to/Watch entire show:
The Equal Rights Amendment for women is back under a new name: the
Women's Equality Amendment. But some natural supporters are more
fatigued than excited. Would changing the Constitution have unintended
consequences? We hear about better salaries, benefits and work-place
environments along with the right to same-sex marriage and the possible
loss of existing protections. Also, the Supreme Court has bad news for
President Bush and good news for California Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger. On Reporter's Notebook, presidential candidates from
both parties set records for raising money.
Supreme Court on CO2 Emissions and Guantanamo Detainees ()
The US Supreme Court decided one case and punted another today. The case it decided was bad news for President Bush and good news for California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. By a vote of 5 to 4, the court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency does have the right to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. David Savage covers the Court for the Los Angeles Times.
An Old Controversy Gets a New Name ()
Fifty years after the civil rights movement began, many people think equal rights for women are part of the Constitution. They are not. The drive for women's equality under the law began in 1923, three years after the granting of women's suffrage. In 1972, Congress gave the Equal Rights Amendment the required two-thirds vote, but by a deadline of 1982, it was three states short of the 38 needed to pass. With Nancy Pelosi now the first female House Speaker in history, the ERA is back under a new name: the Women's Equality Amendment. The key sentence states "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." Does an idea as old as women's suffrage finally have a chance? Would women lose as much as they might gain? We get several perspectives from political activists, attorneys and social critics.
Presidential Candidates Set Record Fundraising Numbers ()
Voters may want to know what presidential candidates think and what they'd be likely to do if elected, but special interest groups and political pros want to know how much money they're able to raise. With more and more primaries scheduled for early next year, the calendar for fundraising disclosures has been accelerated. Reports for the first quarter of this year have assumed new importance for bragging rights and, sure enough, records are being broken by both Democrats and Republicans. The first quarter of this year ended Saturday, but reports to the Federal Election Commission aren't due for two weeks. Some candidates are making voluntary announcements anyway. To put the numbers in historical context, John Edwards set a record for Democrats not in the White House of $7.4 million. David Kirkpatrick is keeping track of this year's money for the New York Times.
CD copies of To the Point are available by calling 1.888.600.5279.
Engage & Discuss
BROUGHT TO YOU BY