“Rights of persons. All men and women are, by nature, free and equal and have certain unalienable rights — among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.”

This is the proposed amendment to add “and women” to the Iowa Constitution. If Iowans vote in favor of the amendment in the November 1998 elections, equal rights for women will be cast into Iowa law.

Approval of the amendment is vital not only to Iowa, but to the entire country. The Equal Rights Amendment was first put to the test in 1977, when the U.S. Congress handed it down to the states to be ratified. Over 30 states ratified it immediately, but with just a few more states needed to reach a majority, the 10-year time period to pass the amendment ended. Although ERA failed to pass on the national level, the move would make another mark toward an American resurgence in favor of equality for women.

Last Thursday, Jan. 31, the Iowa Senate voted 48-0 to hand the issue to Iowans in the form of a vote in next year’s elections. On Jan. 29, the Iowa House of Representatives voted 97-0 to back the proposal.

Equal rights for women is important to our society. But this amendment and the national ERA movement are long-overdue. The conception of ERA began 20 years ago with massive support. Although Iowa is moving in the right direction, proposing a watered-down version of the amendment that will have little effective use is impractical.

Take it from Governor Branstad himself. After the proposal, the governor said he plans to vote in favor of adding “and women” to the Iowa Constitution, but he also said it will have “no practical effect.”

If the amendment will have “no practical effect,” what is the use of passing it? The purpose of government is to create effective law.

Branstad opposed 1980 and 1992 versions of ERA, which were also voted down by Iowans. The earlier proposals said that state and local governments couldn’t, “on the basis of gender, deny or restrict the equality of rights under the law.” This controversial sentence, which is not in the current proposal, was opposed by many who feared it may strengthen abortion rights.

We are approaching the 21st century. As time passes, society believes it has become more sophisticated, more civil and more diverse. We believe we will become wiser as time passes, but too often our old ways are reinforced, making it harder for change.

Iowa’s ERA proposal needs to actually affect its citizens. During Senate debate of the proposal, some members said the amendment is more than just semantics. In other words, they said that adding “and women” would have an effect on the lives of Iowa’s women and men. But from what Branstad said about the practicality of the amendment, Iowans won’t be affected.

Lawmakers need to decide whether “and women” will affect the state. And if it does, to enforce the law so that it isn’t just a matter of semantics. If the proposal doesn’t change anything, but just adds a couple of words, let’s create a better and practical proposal. What is most mind-boggling is that the governor would sign into effect a law that wouldn’t affect his constituents. That would defeat the purpose of having Iowans vote on the measure at the polls.

Legally speaking, “and women” should be added, but it should reach beyond two words. It should do what Sen. Mary Lundby, R-Marion, says it will do. “When the voters pass it, it will put into print in perpetuity that women are truly equal, that women are significant,” said Lundby.

And as we approach the 21st century, it is about time for people to realize something that is overdue, women are truly equal. It is also time for people to realize something that has always been true, women are significant.

---

Erin Payne is a junior in journalism and mass communication and political science from Rock Rapids.