Chris Smith: “The most recent Marist poll found that 7 in 10 Americans, including nearly half who identify as pro-choice, want…”

“The most recent Marist poll found that 7 in 10 Americans, including nearly half who identify as pro-choice, want significant restrictions on abortion. Yet, the ERA as written will be used in an aggressive litigation strategy to nullify those restrictions, including the Hyde amendment, waiting periods, parental involvement, women's right-to-know laws, conscience rights, and the late-term abortion bans like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. NARAL Pro-Choice America has said: ``The ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion'' and ``require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws.'' The National Organization for Women said: ``An ERA--properly interpreted--could negate the hundreds of laws that have passed restricting access to abortion.'' Abortion activists, Madam Speaker, successfully litigated using State ERAs in both New Mexico and Connecticut to compel taxpayers to pay for abortion on demand. Last year, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke on the legal impermissibility of extending the deadline for ratification and said she ``would like it to start over.'' I couldn't agree more. Madam Speaker, two leaders of the National Organization for Women (NOW) wrote: ``During the 1972 ERA ratification campaign, several prominent women's leaders denied that an ERA would apply to abortion . . .''.…”