00:00:00 | 3:02:50




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.

Making News Supreme Court on CO2 Emissions and Guantanamo Detainees 6 MIN, 3 SEC

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.

David Savage, Los Angeles Times (@davidgsavage)

Main Topic An Old Controversy Gets a New Name 35 MIN, 15 SEC

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.

Eleanor Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority Foundation
Phyllis Schlafly, President of the Eagle Forum
Idella Moore, Executive officer of 4ERA.org
Wendy Kaminer, Writer, lawyer and  contributing editor at the Atlantic

Reporter's Notebook Presidential Candidates Set Record Fundraising Numbers 7 MIN, 42 SEC

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. 

David D. Kirkpatrick, New York Times (@ddknyt)

Subscribe to the 5 Things To Do newsletter

Never miss the best of what to do with your free time.


More From To the Point



View All Events


Player Embed Code