With a name like “Equal Rights Amendment,” it’s not too hard
to frame the debate to make conservatives look like the bad guys. The rallying
cry of feminists was the same as it is today: “Freedom and choice!” They argued
that ERA would open new doors for women by giving them more choices in their
supposed new-found equality. However, looking below ERA’s surface revealed legislation
much more focused on forced compliance than on “choice.” That was the theme of
the March 1973 Phyllis Schlafly Report,
which explored the question “Should Women Be Drafted?” Of course, this is still
a matter of contention to this day, so it is just as important to arm ourselves
with the facts to fight the forces of political correctness and social
engineering.
ERA was not about giving women more choice, and the draft argument proved it. While Phyllis held to the conviction that most feminists who called for the draft were outside of drafting age, she did have this to say to draft-age girls who wanted to be in the military: “Run, don’t walk, to the nearest recruiting office and volunteer. . . . You have your freedom of choice to serve if you want to. But please don’t take away from the rest of the girls their present exemption from the draft.” Freedom of choice is not at stake with the draft as it stands. Any woman who can fulfill the basic requirements can be in any branch of the Armed Forces.
Even more importantly, a gender-neutral draft would further devastate
families with young children, not just the individual women themselves.
Throughout American history, whether fathers would be drafted has depended on
the scope of the national crisis. Phyllis said, “We could not have won World
War II without drafting fathers.” Under ERA, it would be unconstitutional for
mothers to be exempted from the draft unless fathers were exempted as well.
Although the importance of having a father in a child’s life is great enough,
the prospect of forcing a mother away from her child to fight in active combat
and possibly be killed is absolutely irreconcilable to the American way of life.
The bond between mother and child has always been considered sacred in American
law and jurisprudence. Since the 1970s, many patriotic women have campaigned
against attempts to “draft our daughters,” but Phyllis Schlafly knew that we
need to fight even harder against drafting our mothers.
Throughout her life, Phyllis Schlafly cut through the
political rhetoric, bringing political circuses back to reality. That is why
she constantly reminded Americans that “Military combat units draw their
strength from ‘unit cohesion,’ not diversity.” Beyond the political
implications, the liberal cries for “equality,” and the malicious attacks on
the family, no one on either side of the political spectrum can deny that the
purpose of the Armed Forces is not social experimentation. The purpose of our
military is to "field the finest troops possible to defend our nation and win wars." Whether feminists feel equally endangered by enemy combatants
is not material to the conversation. However, the feminist agenda does not care
about the safety of the troops. They care only about forcing women onto the
front lines. Phyllis wrote in the March 1973 Phyllis Schlafly Report that ERA proponents specifically rejected
attempts to add language that would shield women from the draft. Clearly, the
forced drafting of women was always a part of their hidden plans.
Do not be fooled when liberals try to control the dialogue
by using loaded language like “freedom of choice.” Removing the draft exemption
from women does nothing but remove the common-sense choice that women have been
able to make since the beginning. The March 1973 Phyllis Schlafly Report warned America that forcing women into
military service can actually happen. Under the ERA, it unquestionably would
have happened. Unfortunately, the death of the ERA did not mean the death of
this debate. Just as Phyllis predicted, the feminists have brought us closer to
drafting girls than ever. Women would do well to pick up the weapon of
Phyllis’s arguments and fight for their right to decline military service.
Otherwise they may find themselves fighting a much more literal battle in the
very near future.
No comments:
Post a Comment