On the recordFebruary 13, 2020
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. Listening to people on the other side say that there is a cornucopia of benefits awaiting women should the ERA become a part of the Constitution, I am here to ask Members on both sides of the aisle to look past what looks nice on a bumper sticker or a 40-second sound bite to realize that there are going to be many consequences that will hurt women should this be ratified. I will just talk about insurance, because insurance is regulated by the States. Girls get substantially lower rates on auto insurance because they are better drivers. With the ERA and the State regulation, that would become unconstitutional, and girls are going to have to pay boy drivers' rates for auto insurance, which really does not reflect the actuarial exposure of that at all. Secondly, look at life insurance. Women live longer than men and, as a result, in life insurance, also regulated by the States, you see women's rates being lower than men's rates becoming unconstitutional, and women are going to be paying more to life insurance companies for the coverage that they decide on. I could go on and on and on. We had a lot of hearings on this in 1973. I am here to say that, when the ERA was originally passed in 1972, women's rights were not enshrined in a lot of State laws. There has been tremendous progress in this area both at the Federal level and in the States. The proponents of this resolution completely ignore that happening. We don't.…





