Cathi Herrod's Legerdemain about the Equal Rights Amendment

The ERA, in wording of passed by both chambers of the US Congress on March 22, 1972):

Section 1: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3: This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Legerdemain is defined as:

n.
1. sleight of hand.
2. trickery; deception.
3. any artful trick.

Herrod, who's art is exerting power over the (anachronistic, or outdated) institution of the Arizona Legislature, tricked (and tricks) those who believe her drivel, into once again depriving women in our state of their personal sovereignty.

Herrod recently sent out this press release:

Arizona House Defeats Ratification of the ERA

Statement by Cathi Herrod, President [Center for Arizona Policy, a Dominionist (i.e. fake Christian) organization]

Once again, state legislators pushing for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) tried, but failed, to set aside House rules and bring the proposed ratification to the floor.

In a 31-29 party-line vote with Republicans voting against the procedural motion and Democrats voting for, the House failed to move forward on a vote on the ERA. Proponents trotted out the same old tired arguments about equal pay and equality, while denying the ERA really is about abortion.

On March 13, 2019, the same day the Arizona Senate declined to push forward on the ERA, the National Abortion Rights Action League Pro-Choice America sent out a fundraising email stating:“With its ratification, the ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to an abortion.”

The National Organization for Women (NOW) has stated “an ERA – properly interpreted – could negate the hundreds of laws that have been passed restricting access to abortion care. . .”

The close call shows what we are up against this legislative session and what we can expect next year, given the current composition of the state legislature.

The desperate move to slip abortion into the U.S. Constitution and the sudden embrace of radical abortion laws in New York, Virginia, and other states tells us something. They are clear indicators that abortion activists fear the tide is turning toward life.

To learn more about today’s actions, check out my tweets during the debate and our Fact Sheet on the reasons to oppose the ERA.

From Herrod's fact sheet:

REASONS TO OPPOSE THE ERA

1. The ERA is completely unnecessary:

a. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments in the U.S. Constitution already provide equal protection under the law for women.

b. Countless federal, state, and local laws already prohibit sex discrimination.

c. Federal laws — the Equal Pay Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act — and Arizona’s Equal Wages law already prohibit pay discrimination based on sex. If the ERA is ratified, Congress could potentially pass laws requiring equal pay, but it has already done so many times.

2. The ERA could enshrine the right to an abortion in the U.S. Constitution

However, what she artfully declines to explain to her readers is that because those statutory protections are NOT enshrined in the Constitution, not only are they not honored in the course of human events, but they are challenged vigorously and frequently both in courts and in federal and state lawmaking venues. Consider also that any protection the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments provide to women run up against a wall that prevents self-determination on matters that can dramatically change (especially) a young woman's life.

In other words, 

And Herrod desperately wants to prevent women's rights to personal sovereignty from being enshrined in the US Constitution.

So, what the hell is personal sovereignty?

Besides being a crucial concept underlying society world wide today, it completely and legitimately reframes debate over a woman's right to make her own decisions (aka self-determination) in EVERY area of her life.

No longer is the debate over whether Joe and Mary (or Cathi and Michael Herrod) in your local church, synagogue or mosque deciding the rights of a fetus, which is not yet able to perceive the world around it. Instead, it's ALL about this,

The word "sovereign" means to be in supreme authority over someone or something, and to be extremely effective and powerful. Therefore, it is usually applied to gods, royalty and governments. We speak of kings and queens as sovereigns (even when they are figureheads), and of the sovereign rights of nations and States.

Personal sovereignty, then, would imply the intrinsic authority and power of an individual to determine his or her own direction and destiny. If that sounds suspiciously like free will, it's because personal sovereignty and free will are the same thing.

You're a voter, right? Should the law of the land allow free will for all women in America? Or should it allow Cathi Herrod to surreptitiously usurp that free will based on her whims?