North Dakota

State Director Linda Thorson quoted in The Washington Times.  Check it out!

Hear Sen. Janne Myrdal’s radio interview about Equal Rights Amendment, HCR 3037, given on April 3, 2019.   Former state director, Sen. Myrdal, describes the reasons the House Concurrent Resolution 3037 to clarify the Equal Rights Amendment, which was voted down by just one vote, was good legislation. The interview begins at the 11:11-minute mark.

A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both.” James Madison wisely warned us that we need to be informed. 

The Senate Government and Veterans Affairs Committee will be hearing a piece of important legislation on the Equal Right Amendment (ERA). The House Concurrent Resolution, HCR 3037 clarifies that the 1975 Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was valid only through March 22, 1979!

Thankfully, the deadline of seven years given for the ratification of the ERA by three-fourths of the states (38 states) did not occur! Even with a Time Extension resolution to extend the time limit for ratification to June of 1982, the proponents failed to deliver on the 38 states necessary for ratification! 

HCR 3037 makes it clear that the ERA’s deadline has come and gone, nearly 40 years ago! It further clarifies that North Dakota should NOT be counted by Congress, by lawmakers in any other state of the Union, or by anyone else, as still to this day, being on record with a live ratification of the ERA 40 years after the ratification deadline came and went! Read HCR 3037 here.

North Dakota State Senators need to hear from you! Members are being contacted by “Women’s Rights” proponents to vote down HCR 3037. They need to hear from those who support HCR 3037!

The Equal Rights Amendment is a poorly worded amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which if ratified again, would restrict all laws and practices that make any distinctions based on gender.

The ERA is not about equal rights; it is about the promotion of a genderless agenda through the suppression of natural differences between men and women. It is not about equal rights for women. If it were, it would duplicate the 14^th Amendment, the equal amendment clause of our Constitution that covers gender or sexual distinction and gives all equal protection under the law.

Those that ignore the 1982 deadline of the ratification of the ERA want to use the amendment to mandate Medicaid funding for elective abortions. Any attempt to restrict a woman’s access to abortion, under the ERA, could be considered a form of sex discrimination as women could not be singled out for a characteristic that is unique to them and be treated differently based on that physical characteristic, such as pregnancy.   

The ERA could also end conscience clauses for nurses, doctors, and hospitals who do not want to participate in performing abortions. Courts do not allow conscience clauses in race discrimination, and they would not be able to allow it under the ERA.

Status: On March 5, CWA of North Dakota submitted testimony in support of HCR 3037 to the House Government and Veterans Affairs Committee members. The resolution passed the House with 67 yeas and 21 nays! You can read my submitted testimony for both the House and the Senate here. 

Immediate Action Needed!

Send an email message to all state senators asking for a yes vote on HCR 3037, clarifying the 1975 ratification by the 44^th Legislative Assembly of the proposed 1972 Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. 

Suggested email message:
Dear Senator,
Please vote in favor of HCR 3037, clarifying the 1975 ratification of the proposed 1972 Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution of the US. The Amendment to the Constitution was valid only through March 22, 1979. The ERA is not about women’s rights if it were it would duplicate the 14^th Amendment, the equal amendment clause of our Constitution.
Sincerely,
Your Name, town

(Highlight email addresses below, copy and paste to the send box of your email.)

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Pray! Concerned Women for America, Founder, and Chairman of the Board of Directors, Beverly LaHaye, one of the most important pioneers of the conservative feminist movement, founded CWA in 1979 because she believed that women needed voices in the public sphere that represented their beliefs and values. It was the 1975 Equal Rights Amendment that gave Mrs. LaHaye motivation to begin the mission of CWA, as it remains today, to protect and promote Biblical values among all citizens – first through prayer, then education, and finally by influencing our society – thereby reversing the decline in moral values in our nation.

Thank God for the ways He chooses to use our lives and our voices for His glory, to protect and promote His ways. Thank God for Mrs. LaHaye and her obedience to lead others to promote Biblical values in our culture.

“For if you remain completely silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. Yet who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” Esther 4:14

Media coverage of the ERA, including CWA of North Dakota State Director, Linda Thorson’s views, can be watched here.

Linda Thorson

State Director
CWA of North Dakota
nd.cwfa.org
[email protected]
Facebook: Concerned Women for America of North Dakota

March 28, 2019
Senate Government and Veterans Affairs Committee
Testimony in Support of HCR 3037

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Linda Thorson, the State Director of Concerned Women for America (CWA) of North Dakota. We are the state’s largest public policy women’s organization and country’s largest public policy women’s organization with hundreds of thousands of members across the country.

On behalf of our North Dakota members, we submit testimony in support of HCR 3037, a House Concurrent Resolution clarifying that the 1975 ratification, by the North Dakota 44^th Legislative Assembly, of the proposed 1972 Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was valid only through March 22, 1979.

Originally the ERA was given a deadline of seven years for ratification, beginning March 22, 1972, and expiring March 221979. When it became clear that three-fourths of the states (38 states) would not ratify ERA, Congress passed an ERA Time Extension resolution to extend the time limit for ratification to June 30, 1982. Even with this extension the ERA proponents failed to deliver on the 38 states necessary for ratification.

This poorly worded amendment to the U.S. Constitution states in 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.” If ratified again, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) would restrict all laws and practices that make any distinctions based on gender.

The ERA is not about equal rights; it is about the promotion of a genderless agenda through the suppression of natural differences between men and women. The ERA is not about equal rights for women. If that was the case, it would duplicate the 14^th Amendment, the equal amendment clause of our Constitution that covers gender or sexual distinction and gives all equal protection under the law. In the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Reed v Reed in 1971, the court decided the 14^th Amendment did prohibit unequal treatment on the bases of sex and declared sex discrimination a violation of the Amendment. REED V. REED, 404 U.S. 71 (1971).

Men and women are biologically different, and we must retain the ability to legally provide for these differences.

• Despite claims of protecting women’s interests, the ERA actually hurts women.

The ERA would eliminate the exemption of women from the military draft and compulsory front-line combat.

In Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s book, Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, she writes that the ERA would require that all women be drafted into the military when men are drafted and placed on the front-line in equal ratios to men. “Women must not be exempted from military combat.”[1]

Women who feel they are physically able can choose to enlist in the military. Ms. Toni DeLancey, Concerned Women for America State Director of Virginia, graduated from the U.S. Military Academy and was commissioned as an officer in the U. S. Army and led other men and women in a Tactical Intelligence Unit. DeLancey states, “I didn’t need the ERA to accomplish this.” Like her fellow female graduates, Ret. Officer DeLancey volunteered to serve our country and was able to contribute based upon her individual strengths and abilities.[2]

• The ERA will be used to mandate Medicaid funding for elective abortions.

Any attempt to restrict a woman’s access to abortion, under the ERA, would be a form of sex discrimination. Women could not be singled out for a characteristic that is unique to them and be treated differently based on that physical characteristic, such as a pregnancy.   Abortion proponents (including the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood) have long argued in court filing that state-level ERAs guarantee a right to abort children with public funding. State courts in Connecticut and New Mexico have agreed with this interpretation.

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled unanimously that under their state ERA since only women undergo abortions, the denial of taxpayer funding for abortions is “sex discrimination” (N.M. Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 975 P.2d 841, 1998) [3]. As a result, New Mexico now provides Medicaid funding for elective abortions.

By adopting the ERA, Connecticut’s state superior court ruled that the state should no longer be permitted to disadvantage women because of the sex including their reproductive capabilities. “It is therefore clear, under the Connecticut ERA, that the regulation (prohibiting Medicaid funding) discriminates against women, and, indeed, poor women.” (Doe v. Maher, 515 A. 2d 134)[4]

• The ERA could end conscience clauses for nurses, doctors and hospitals who do not want to participate in performing abortions.  

Courts do not allow conscience clauses in race discrimination, and they would not be able to allow it under the ERA.

Be aware, the ERA empowers courts, not women. Because the language is so vague, courts would be called upon to interpret its application to innumerable situations – some of which were not even contemplated in the 1970s, such as the meaning of “sex.” Thus, citizens’ right to govern themselves on contentious present-day issues would be usurped by unaccountable federal courts.

• Women will continue to use established law to make progress

Through established law such as Amendment 14, Title IX, Equal Opportunity Act of 1963, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and Equal Pay Act, women have made huge strides against institutional discrimination against women in education, employment, sports, politics, and many other aspects of society. Where other inequalities may exist, women will continue to use established law.

Women do not need the ERA to flourish in America. Women are thriving and succeeding as in no other time in history. They have done this without the assistance of ERA. Since 2008, women have earned more doctoral and bachelor’s degrees than men. They have outnumbered men in graduate school, as well.[5]

There is one thing women can agree on – women want to advance their careers because of hard work and achievement, not because of pity handouts, or a government equality scheme. Even Hillary Clinton recognized this fact when she said in 2015, “There has never been a better time in history to be born female.”[6] We are doctors, lawyers, and governors. We are CEOs and astronauts.

As far as wages are concerned, the ERA would add nothing. For more than a half a century, existing Federal law has made it illegal for an employer to pay a female worker a lower salary than a male employee preforming equal work. President John Fitzgerald Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act of 1963 into law on June 10of that year. If a woman feels that her salary is lower due to her sex, she may avail herself of the 56-year-old Equal Pay Act of 1963 and seek to redress in court today, without the ERA. The proposed 1972 ERA to the Constitution of the United States, a poorly worded Amendment, should not be counted by lawmakers in any state, any court of law, or any other person, as a live ratification to the Constitution of the United States. Just as rules are rules, deadlines are deadlines – and the ERA’s deadline came and went literally 40 years ago this month.

We, again, urge your “Do Pass” vote on HCR 3037.

[1] Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code”, 1977, University of Maryland, p 26, 218, https://www2.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr12se9.pdf

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m-5Wcosqoc

[3] http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/NMSC/1999/1999-NMSC-028.pdf

[4] http://www.ct.gov/chro/lib/chro/Warner_v_NERAC_denial_motion_to_dismiss.pdf

[5]Schow, Ashe, “Women Earning More Doctoral and Master’s Degrees than Men”, Washington Examiner, September 19, 2016, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/women-earning-more-doctoral-and-masters-degrees-than-men

[6] https://mashable.com/2015/04/24/hillary-clinton-women-in-the-world-summit/#5SpWX2Y3mgqi

We need YOUR VOICE!

HB 1546, the Prohibition of Human Dismemberment Abortion bill was given a “Do Pass” recommendation from the Senate Judiciary Committee members!

The bill was heard in committee three times – March 4, March 25 and again on March 27.  After lengthy debate regarding amendments, the bill was given a “Do Pass” recommendation by the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

First, thank you to all who have contacted lawmakers about this important pro-life legislation! However, we need to continue to speak out! This is no time to be silent!  The egregious act of a dismemberment abortion must never be legal in North Dakota! 

HB 1546 could be voted on by all 47 members of the North Dakota Senate as early as Thursday, March 28. Please take a moment today to contact the senators to urge them to vote for HB 1546.

Status:  On January 21, CWA of North Dakota submitted testimony in support of HB 1546 to the House Human Services Committee.  This bill was passed by a vote of 78 yeas and 13 nays!  Then on March 4, I testified on behalf of CWA of North Dakota members in support of this bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee members.  Today, Committee members gave the bill a 5-1 Do Pass recommendation!
Your voice for life is needed!  Will you take a moment and contact the members of the Senate?  Ask them to vote yes on HB 1546.  Let’s be very sure every senator hears from North Dakota citizens who support this bill!

Suggested email message:
Dear Senator,
Please vote in favor of HB 1546, the Prohibition on Human Dismemberment Abortion bill.  Dismemberment is an inhumane abortion procedure that we must not ever allow to be done in North Dakota.
Sincerely,
Your Name, town

(Highlight email addresses below, copy and paste to the send box of your email.)
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Pray!  We know prayer is a powerful force!
Dear Heavenly Father, you are the Creator of all things seen and unseen.  We stand today and ask for protection for our children created in Your image.  Provide wisdom to every one of our North Dakota State Senators, today.  May they vote to protect children from harm.

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh.  For the weapons for our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.”  2 Corinthians 10:3-5

Linda Thorson
State Director
CWA of North Dakota
nd.cwfa.org
[email protected]
Facebook: Concerned Women for America of North Dakota

Dear Friend,

Just last week, HB 1336, the Abortion Pill Reversal Informed Consent bill, passed the State Senate after a unanimous “Do Pass” recommendation from the Senate Judiciary Committee members! HB 1336 now sits on the governor’s desk waiting for his signature!

HB 1336 is a pro-life, pro-woman bill that amends the informed consent requirements to include information that it may be possible to reverse the effects of the abortion pill (mifepristone). Information and assistance with the reversal possibility is to be includedin printed materials provided to women seeking an abortion. The printed consent material would also include the locations of facilities that provide medical services in the reversal of abortion-inducing drugs.

HB 1336 allows women seeking a medical abortion to receive information about their health decisions. Women not only have the right to be informed; they want to know their options. Read CWA of North Dakota testimony here.

Take Action: Your voice is needed to ensure HB 1336 becomes state law.
Please contact Gov. Doug Burgum today through his online contact form and respectfully urge him to sign, HB 1336.

Gov. Doug Burgum is receiving pressure from the pro-abortion crowd: Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota Political Action Fund, Planned Parenthood of North Dakota Advocate and Rewire. Rewire News, an online pro-reproductive rights/pro-abortion news publication is asking the governor to veto HB 1336.

Spread the message to your family and friends. Let’s be sure Gov. Burgum hears from North Dakota citizens that support life! 

Suggested email message:
Dear Gov. Doug Burgum,

Please sign HB 1336, the Abortion Pill Reversal Informed Consent law. Women seeking an abortion deserve the right to complete information regarding their health decisions.

Sincerely,

Your Name, town

“Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you complete in every good work to do His will, working in you what is well pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.” Hebrews 13:20-21

Linda Thorson
State Director
CWA of North Dakota
nd.cwfa.org
[email protected]
Facebook: concerned Women for America of North Dakota