This blog today by Erin Matson focuses, like my blog today, on pay equity and the Paycheck Fairness Act.  These are just some of the several issues we are both passionate about. In addition to providing another perspective on paycheck fairness, she also goes into some detail about introducing yourself to and talking to members of Congress. As this is part of my recommendations in the blog I just wrote and posted, I decided to reblog her so that you have more information to help successfully advocate for pay equity and civil rights for all.

Erin Matson

This is the first in what will be a regular series, Your Activism Guide, designed to make feminist activism more accessible and help you take the power you deserve. 

Purpose: Introduce yourself to your members of Congress.

Process: Set up meetings now to drop by local offices (even if you don’t have a specific request, even if the legislator tends to vote against your interests).

Payoff: Existing relationships can bring the most unexpected of benefits.

A few days ago, the American Association of University Women and National Women’s Law Center hosted a Tweet Chat to commemorate the fourth anniversary of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which reversed a Supreme Court decision that had effectively gutted the ability to sue for wage discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Joining the conversation to answer questions was Lilly Ledbetter herself.

This is a topic that gets me all hot…

View original post 1,246 more words

Paycheck Fairness Act and the ERA

Yesterday, a reporter from the local newspaper contacted me regarding a press conference that was held by Senator Robert Casey, Jr. (D-PA). During that press conference, Senator Casey discussed a report highlighting the fact that women in Pennsylvania earn 18.3 percent less than their male peers.

This earning differential is known as the Pay or Wage Gap.  The commonly used measure to determine the wage gap is the ratio of women’s to men’s median annual earnings for full-time, full-year workers.  Nationally, in 2011, women earned just 77 percent of what men earned.  That’s a national wage gap of 23 percent.  Although Pennsylvania appears to be doing better than the nation on pay equity, we are still being short-changed.

For women of color, the wage gap is even worse.  According to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Asian American women have the smallest wage gap, earning 91 percent of what the average white man earned in 2010. White women are next, earning approximately 81 percent of white men’s average income. African-American women (70 percent) and Hispanic women (60 percent) have the largest wage gaps as compared to white men.

So why did Jessica VanderKolk call me for a comment about Senator Casey’s press conference? The message she left on the phone was that she was interested in what I thought of Casey’s stance on pay inequity, partly as a follow-up to an article she did on this issue in May 2012, where I was also quoted.  She wanted to know why I thought there had been almost no change in wage gap in the last year and what I thought needed to happen in order to eliminate this problem.

My first statement to her was that pay inequity is unfair and unjust.  She quoted me in the news article this morning,

“It takes just as much to feed a woman’s family as a man’s family and put a roof over your head,” Tosti-Vasey said. “Gender should have no basis [in determining] your salary.”

We then went on to discuss the main point of Senator Casey’s press conference: his support and co-sponsorship of the Paycheck Fairness Act.  This bill was introduced again for the fourth time on January 23, 2013 (Casey signed on as a co-sponsor on January 30, 2013 right after announcing his support of S.R. 84).

The Paycheck Fairness Act updates and strengthens the Equal Pay Act of 1963. It gives women the tools they need to challenge the wage gap itself.  According to the ACLU, both S.R. 84 and H.R. 377 include the following remedies and programs to help remove pay inequity:

  • Require employers to demonstrate that wage differentials between men and women holding the same position and doing the same work stem from factors other than sex.
  • Prohibit retaliation against workers who inquire about their employers’ wage practices or disclose their own wages.
  • Permit reasonable comparisons between employees within clearly defined geographical areas to determine fair wages.
  • Strengthen penalties for equal pay violations. The bill’s measured approach levels the playing field by ensuring that women can obtain the same remedies as those subject to discrimination on the basis of race or national origin.
  • Encourage proactive enforcement of equal pay laws by re-instating the collection of wage-related data and providing for training for the workers who enforce our equal pay laws.
  • Modernize the Equal Pay Act to make it more in line with the class action procedures available under Title VII. It would not extend class action protections beyond what is available under other anti-discrimination laws.
  • provide important safeguards for businesses, including:
    • providing an exemption for small businesses;
    • instituting a six months waiting period from the time of enactment and requiring the Department of Labor to assist small businesses with compliance; and
    • Recognizing employers for excellence in their pay practices and strengthening federal outreach and assistance to all businesses to help improve equal pay practices.

Yet if people in general understand that paying someone less for doing the same job is unfair, why is this bill now in its fourth iteration? I was asked this question by Jessica Vandervolk during our phone call.  She paraphrased my comment, stating that Senator Casey and I agree on this issue:

[Tosti-Vasey] said the lack of action so far may have to do with the conservative climate, and Casey added that he hopes the 2012 election makes a difference.

The paraphrase is accurate, but somewhat incomplete.  I said that I believed that the lack of passage was mostly due to conservative legislators.  I continued by stating that this is particularly true in the US House of Representatives but also occurs among conservatives in the US Senate.  Why?  Just follow the campaign money.  These legislators listen to lobbyists and business honchos who want full control over how much they pay others. If employers can get away with paying less and discriminating against one segment of their workforce, then they will lobby and work to defeat any effort to change this scenario.  When elected officials’ campaign war-chests depend upon funds from uncaring, well-financed business owners and lobbyists, they vote no.

So I agree with Casey.  We have a slightly more caring House and Senate as a result of the November election and maybe we can get the Paycheck Fairness Act to become law during this session of Congress.  As constituents, let all of your legislators–both Senators and your US Representative—know that you want them to cosponsor (if they are not already a sponsor) and vote for the Paycheck Fairness Act as soon as possible.

You can find out where your representatives stand on the Paycheck Fairness Act by going to In the search box in the middle of the page, type in “Paycheck Fairness Act” and click search.  On the next page, 2 bills will show up—SR 84 and HR 377.  If you then click on “cosponsors” for each bill, you can determine if your representatives are publicly supporting the bill or not.

Meanwhile this might never have come up as an issue to fight in Congress OVER and OVER and OVER again if the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) had been ratified by 38 states and was now part of the US Constitution.  I recently blogged about why having an ERA is important, so check that out as well.  Once you have done that, go to the White House petition site and tell President Obama that you want him to work with Congress to finally get the ERA ratified.

Trial on the Constitutionality of PA’s Voter ID Law Scheduled

In 2011, the Pennsylvania General Assembly introduced a discriminatory Voter ID law that went into effect in the spring of 2012.  At the time of the introduction of this bill, I was President of Pennsylvania NOW and blogged about this law on the Pennsylvania NOW blog website.

In 2012, the new law was challenged in Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court.  Plaintiffs in the voter ID case are represented by the Public Interest Center of Philadelphia, Advancement Project, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and the Washington, DC law firm of Arnold & Porter.

The initial hearing held the week of July 31, focused on the lack of time available to implement the law.  I one of the people who testified at this hearing of the problems obtaining a photo id that I observed at the local PennDOT driver’s license center.

Initially Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson upheld the law as timely.  It was then appealed to the PA Supreme Court and the majority of this court remanded the case back to Judge Simpson telling him that unless he could affirm that no one would be adversely impacted by the new law, he would have to enjoin (delay) implementation.

Which is exactly what happened.  So in the November 2012 election, people were asked, but not required to show a photo id.  As a matter of protest, I was one of many who refused to present my id on November 6, 2012 because of the disparate effect that this law would have on low-income people, non-drivers, the elderly, people of color, students, and people with disabilities.

After Judge Simpson enjoined (stopped) the implementation of the law, the plaintiffs filed a second complaint alleging that the law is unconstitutional due to its disparate impact on women, people with disabilities, and people of color.  The initial filing of these arguments occurred in December, 2012.  This morning, Judge Simpson announced that a full hearing on the constitutionality of the law would commence on July 15, 2013; he expects the hearing to last about one week.

Meanwhile he also announced that by March 21, 2013 he will decide whether or not to modify the injunction he wrote last fall.  If he does not modify it, the law will be in full effect for the Primary on May 21, long before the constitutionality of this law is determined.

For more information on this announcement, click here (Associated Press) and here (ACLU of PA).

More thoughts on Roe at 40 from a young, proud and pregnant feminist actively working for reproductive justice.

Erin Matson

Today is the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the decision that affirmed a woman’s constitutional right to legal abortion. As an activist for reproductive justice, I have celebrated this day for several years.


But something has changed since this photograph was taken on a previous Roe anniversary: I’m pregnant. To be exact, I’m 21 weeks pregnant. I’m starting to show. And as I’ve written about, pregnancy has made me more committed to realizing the promise of reproductive justice – a world where the human right has been secured to prevent pregnancy, to end pregnancy, to pursue pregnancy, to get prenatal care, to be respected and supported adopting or bearing children regardless of race, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, to health care and accurate education provided freely on the basis of science and medicine, to celebrate sexuality as a source for joy and humanity rather than shame and restriction in…

View original post 523 more words

A fellow NOW member in Oregon posted this blog in honor of Roe v. Wade’s anniversary this morning. In addition to my personal blog on Roe that I just posted, this blog provided more background on Roe and includes a call for action. It asks people to sign the Trust Women’s Silver Ribbon petition.
Please take time to read and then go to and sign their petition.
Thanks and Happy Anniversary, Roe v. Wade!

Nel's New Day

Today is the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade that protects a woman’s right to have an abortion within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. Because this right is being threatened across the United States, a coalition of over 50 organizations,  The Trust Women/Silver Ribbon Campaign, is working to keep this family-planning ability.

Almost half of all pregnancies are unplanned, and at least one-third of all U.S. women have an abortion sometime during their lives. Without legalized abortion, women live in shame and pain—and sometimes don’t live at all because illegal abortions kill.

According to Ellen Shaffer, abortion continues to be stigmatized by the well-funded minority movement, many of whom promote violent acts to stop women from seeking their legal rights. Every clinic in the U.S. that provides abortions has experienced systematic harassment, and doctors who perform abortions have been targeted and murdered. In 2009…

View original post 1,077 more words

Women’s Health and Roe at 40

Today is the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision declaring that women have a constitutional right to privacy and reproductive justice, including access to abortions. In recognition of this milestone, I participated in a local NOW chapter round-table reproductive justice discussion on the impact of Roe over the last 40 years at a local café and bookstore. We had a great discussion on the history of Roe, reproductive justice through the lens of class and race, and expected Pennsylvania-based legislation on reproductive health during the 2013-2014 legislative session.

In addition I wrote an op-ed piece for the Centre Daily Times Opinion page. It was printed in this morning’s paper. You can see the original piece by clicking here. I am also embedding it in this blog since my local paper archives articles starting about a week after they have first been published. Just click on the link below to see and read a pdf version of this op-ed.

CDT Joanne Tosti-Vasey _ Women’s health a voter issue _ Opinion _ 1-22-2013

President Barack Obama’s Inauguration Speech: Standing for Equality

This morning, on the holiday celebration of Martin Luther King’s birthday, President Barack Obama was publicly sworn into office for his second term as President of the United States.  His inaugural speech was 2,095 words long. It covered many different issues from the role of government to freedom, poverty, the military, education, international interactions, and climate change.

Its over-arching message to me is that as a country and as individuals, we need come together to stand up for equality for all.

President John F. Kennedy, Jr. said something similar in his 1961 inaugural speech when he asked all Americans to help each other. He said then, “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.”

Martin Luther King expressed similar sentiments in his “I Have a Dream Speech” in 1963:

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character….I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of ‘interposition’ and ‘nullification’ — one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers….I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; ‘and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.’

I hope that Barack Obama’s words resonate as well. In that vein, here is how I think he best spoke about equality for all. Maybe part of this will become part of the lexicon of great Presidential speeches in the future.

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.

It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote. Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country. Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm.

Our journey is not complete until every one is equal, cared for, cherished, and safe from harm.  Thank you for your inspiring words, Mr. President. May all of usfrom you as leader of the US to each of us in our homes and communitieswork together  to create a better, more accepting country and world.

Why We are Pushing for Ratification of the ERA (the Equal Rights Amendment)

Today at noon, President Barack Obama was sworn into office in a private ceremony.  Tomorrow, he will be publicly sworn in for and give his second-term Inaugural speech on the western steps of the US Capitol. He won his second term much to the efforts and votes of women and people of color.

We have come a long way since the 14th Amendment was ratified, ending slavery and adding people of color to full protections under our US Constitution.  Yet after all this time, the women who helped put President Obama into office for his second term do not yet have that same level of protection.

Women worked to end slavery and put men of color on the same constitutional footing as white, land-owning men. It’s now our turn.

I have been working with an amazing online group of women and men dedicated to equality for all. Our current effort is to gain 25,000 signatures on a White House ERA petition by February 10, 2012.  There are now three weeks left before this deadline is reached; so far, we have gathered over one quarter of the necessary signatures required.  When we reach the 25,000 signatures, President Obama’s administration has agreed to respond to our request to

Vigorously support women’s rights by fully engaging in efforts to ratify the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).

Many people have asked, “Why this amendment is needed,” or “Isn’t it already part of the US Constitution?”  The bottom-line question being asked, “Why should I sign this in the first place?”

One of my colleagues has put together a well-written, cogent argument to answer these questions and I asked her to submit a guest blog.

Marti J. Sladek graciously agreed.  Ms. Sladek is an attorney in Chicago. She owns “Speaking Up & Speaking Out” through which she speaks, writes and advocates on women’s issues, work, the law and public policy. You can find her on Twitter, Facebook and Linked In. Here’s what she has to say…

Yes, the Equal Rights Amendment is back. No, it is not already the law of the land, although 3/4 of Americans believe it is. A new generation of feminist leaders has joined and breathed new life into the fight to put equality and equal protection for women and girls into the US Constitution. The first version, written in suffragette days and resurrected by the 70s “women’s libbers’, was passed by 2/3 of Congress then fell three states short of the necessary 3/4 for ratification. That is why you see references to the “three-state strategy” in efforts to resurrect the Amendment.

There was very little activity surrounding the effort on this amendment for more than three decades. This raises questions about whether, even if three more states vote for it, the ratification would be valid, because the legislation that began it did not address whether there was a deadline; some say that after such a long dormancy, the issue was DOA. Others, including some formal legal opinions, say if no deadline was part of the law, then the amendment still lives. Note: if you want to refresh your knowledge on how the Constitution gets modified, read Article V.

One way or the other, we have to get it done. Justice Scalia himself underscored the need when he told a legal publication in the fall of 2011 that the 14th Amendment does not protect women as its intent was only racial equality.

Did you know that “gender” was inserted into some civil rights bills in the 60s as a protected class for discrimination purposes primarily in a failed effort to defeat civil rights legislation? So some of the protections we women have are somewhat accidental!

Lately, we have seen serious attacks on gains women have made through legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964–Title VII, employment discrimination; Title IX, discrimination in education at all levels; Title X, gender equity in health care, including reproductive rights–and even laws governing equal pay. Wisconsin rescinded their state Equal Pay Act last year. As we saw during the 2012 campaign season, efforts to limit or gut these and other civil rights laws such as the Voting Rights Act are underway at the state and federal level.

Courts have further eroded the impact of these laws. The Congress is less likely to overturn negative decisions from the Supreme Court than in even the recent past. Some GOP members who used to sponsor ERA have withdrawn support for fear of the Tea Party. New state legislatures could even try to rescind previous ratification of ERA! “Personhood” for embryos and eggs–but of course, not sperm–as well as restrictions on plain vanilla birth control, redefining rape, forced vaginal probes…the list goes on.

The arguments against ERA in the 1970s were speculative then and have been proven silly over the last thirty years. The horror of unisex washrooms? Give me a break: they exist all over the world, both public and in all our homes. Drafting women? No more military draft, and women are serving, yes, even in combat, albeit unofficially. The list goes on. And some bugaboos have been superseded by discrimination cases and the economic reality of women working outside the home. Plus the states that do have equal protection for females in their own constitutions are doing fine, thank you. It will be interesting, entertaining and angering to watch opponents claim, oh so wrongly, that we simply don’t need it.

Why do we need Equal Rights Amendment? Because, as we have seen, state and federal laws can be changed relatively easily. Because the courts do not give as much consideration to gender as they do to race, which is specifically mentioned in the (amended) constitution. When a government body has a policy that tends to treat one race differently than another, there is a high level of scrutiny: they have to have a truly compelling reason to get away with that kind of discrimination, along the lines of legal analysis for violating freedom of speech. Gender only gets “intermediate” scrutiny. Just a pretty good reason for treating women differently suffices. ERA could well change that.

Likewise, that kind of “logic” is reflected in analysis of issues such as sexual harassment, civil cases that generally involve private employers, landlords, etc. When a person is singled out because of race, called names, etc. the cases reflect the presumption that such conduct was unwanted and is inherently offensive (the “N” word for example). In sexual harassment, the victim must meet an initial of burden of proof that the inappropriate behavior (the “B” or even “C” word) is unwelcome and creates a hostile work environment, an extra legal hoop to jump through compared to other kinds of discrimination. The ERA could help change that, too.

So the ERA is NOT “just” symbolic, as important and critical as the symbol is. Think the symbolism is not important? Then think of how we wear religious icons as jewelry, or wave the flag on the Fourth of July. And think of that symbolism as we try to tell emerging democracies to give a fair shake to women. Such hypocrisy when we don’t have equality even on paper here! How do we explain this to them, let alone our own daughters and granddaughters? (I had a tough time trying to explain this in Cuba where women have had legal equality for decades, albeit aligned against cultural machismo; A Cuban legislator advised me, “Keep fighting!”)

The ultimate decision is with the States, generally your state legislatures. Believe it or not, it is buried in committee again if it exists at all in many states and was actually defeated in Arkansas, Florida and Virginia in the last two legislative sessions. The old red herrings about gay agendas, ordaining women as pastors in conservative religions, and, in Virginia, admitting women into the Citadel military academy prevailed. Or simply “too costly” or “not a high priority.” Even in a blue state such as Illinois, it doesn’t get out of committee despite being reintroduced year after year in the General Assembly; ironically, Illinois put gender equality into our new state constitution in 1971 but did not pass the federal one in 1982–go figure!

For those who think all this women’s rights stuff is passé here, think about something that struck me recently. My Mom is still alive, old but going strong, and an active voter in a swing state. (Oh, how we agree to disagree on politics!) Women got to vote in the federal election for the first time in HER lifetime, only one generation back. How far have we really come, baby? I believed back-in-the-day that I would be around long enough to see a woman in the White House, long enough to see the Constitution specifically address my rights. I have waited long enough. Have you?

ERA words button

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

This is all it says; why such controversy?

So… take a moment, go to, sign in (or create) your White House account, and then sign the petition.  Once done, please spread the word to your friends, colleagues, and family to do the same.

Message from VP Joe Biden on Gun Safety

I received an email this morning from Vice President Joe Biden that he wrote yesterday, January 16, 2013 after President Obama announced his Gun Safety Plan called “Now is the Time to Do Something About Gun Violence.”  Here’s the message with his Call to Action:

White House Logo

Hello —

Today President Obama announced a plan to help protect our kids and communities from gun violence. You’re going to hear a lot about it, but I wanted to make sure you got a chance to get the facts, straight from me.

After hearing from Americans from across the political spectrum, we decided to focus on some key priorities: closing background check loopholes, banning military-style assault weapons, making our schools safer, and increasing access to mental health services.

The ideas we sent to President Obama are straightforward. Each of them honors the rights of law-abiding, responsible Americans to bear arms. Some of them will require action from Congress; the President is acting on others immediately. But they’re all commonsense and will help make us a little safer.

Now is the time for all of us to act.

Read about the events that brought us to this point, learn about the plan we’ve proposed to help protect our kids, and then add your name in support to help build momentum for this plan.

Here’s what we’ve put together:

We’re calling for requiring background checks for all gun sales and closing the loopholes that allow dangerous individuals to make their purchase without going through one of these checks.

We’re asking for a new, stronger ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that allow a shooter to fire dozens of bullets as quickly as he can pull a trigger. And we’re asking Congress to help protect law enforcement by make it illegal for members of the public to possess armor-piercing bullets.

We’re going to give law enforcement more tools and resources to prevent and prosecute gun crimes, and we’re going to end the freeze on gun violence research that prevents the Center from Disease Control from looking at the causes of gun violence.

We’re calling on Congress to help make schools safer by putting up to 1,000 school resource officers and mental health professionals in schools and ensuring they have comprehensive emergency management plans in place.

And we’re going to increase coverage so that students and young adults can get access to the mental health treatment they may need.

We know that no policy we enact or law we enforce can prevent every senseless act of violence in our country. But if we can save the life of even one child, we have a deep responsibility to act.

Now is the time to come together to protect our kids. Learn about the plan, then add your name alongside mine:


Vice President Joe Biden


We Can Do It! Alice Paul and a New White House ERA Petition

If she was alive today, Alice Paul would be 138 years old.  Ms. Paul was born on January 11, 1875. After the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution granting women the right to vote was ratified in 1920, many of the suffragettes thought women’s rights were won.  Alice Paul disagreed, saying that until women were fully written into the US Constitution, our rights would always be at risk and we could (and would) be treated as second-class citizens.  In 1923, Ms. Paul introduced and then continued working for passage of what became known as the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) for the rest of her life.

The ERA passed Congress in 1972. It has not yet been ratified by three-quarters of the state; it needs three more states to sign on.  It is short but to the point:

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.

In honor of Alice Paul’s birthday, a group of women supporting the Madison Amendment or “three-state” approach for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment started a second petition on the White House petition website.

I recently wrote about the ERA and the first of these petitions. Unfortunately because of the lack of organization surrounding the first petition, it is highly unlikely that it will receive the 25,000 signatures required by its January 17 deadline in order to get a response from the White House.

This new petition, in contrast, looks like it has a much better chance of reaching the 25,000 signature threshold.  In the first 6 days of this petition drive, there have been over 4800 signatures received.  That’s an average of 800 signatures each day.  With 25 days left (deadline is February 10)—and if the momentum keeps up—we could make it.  Between now and then we need to average a total of 840 additional signatures each day.  Your help is needed.

So I am once more asking people to sign on and tell President Obama that you want him to:

Vigorously support women’s rights by fully engaging in efforts to ratify the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).

Once you sign the petition, please let your friend, family members, and colleagues know about the petition and ask them to sign as well.  Like the WWII poster says, “WE CAN DO IT!”

We Can Do It poster

“We Can Do It!” poster created by J. Howard Miller for the War Production Co-Ordinating Committee during World War II and later associated with “Rosie the Riveter”