Kamala Lopez is an award-winning filmmaker and actress who had appeared in over 30 feature films. A Yale graduate in Philosophy and Theatre Studies, she was born in New York City to an Indian mother and a Venezuelan father. In 2016, Kamala's documentary Equal Means Equal won Best U.S. Documentary (Audience Award) at Michael Moore's iconic Traverse City Film Festival. In addition, her documentary was a New York Times Critics' Pick. The film was the catalyst behind a national civil rights movement resulting in the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Kamala founded Equal Means Equal, a national non-profit organization dedicated to the immediate publication, adoption and enforcement of the original Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the U.S. Constitution, which became enforceable federal law on January 27th of 2022.
Equal Means Equal is hosting a free webinar, open to the public on Wednesday, December 6th at 8:00 pm EST (5:00 pm PST) entitled: Why Are Pro-Choice Lawyers Undermining Women's Rights in Abortion Lawsuits?"
Readers can join Equal Means Equal and top women's rights attorneys and doctors as they discuss several abortion rights lawsuits and the disturbing trend of "pro-choice" groups to not only refuse to cite the ERA, but also ask courts to enforce second-class rights for women under state constitutions. Register here.
Meryl Ann Butler: Thanks for visiting with us, again, Kamala! You've worked long and hard to get the ERA finalized, thank you for that! I understand you have just filed an intervention in a Texas lawsuit because the abortion rights groups are failing to use the ERA to save a woman's right to her body. Can you explain more about what is going on with that?
Kamala Lopez: Yes, thanks for asking!
On November 9th, EQUAL MEANS EQUAL, along with Elizabeth Cady Stanton Trust and The Women's and Children's Advocacy Project filed pleadings to intervene in an abortion rights case now pending before the Texas Supreme Court (Zurawski v Texas).
We criticized the plaintiffs--abortion rights groups--and accused them of committing legal malpractice against all women. Key among our criticisms is that the case was filed only under the Texas Constitution; the lawyers failed to also cite the federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) even though it affords women maximum legal protections and would provide additional support for their case!
Despite questions concerning the ERA's validity, many members of Congress and constitutional scholars have declared the ERA valid. This important document by Constitutional scholars on the ERA's validity provides much needed clarity.
What is even more shocking, is that while the plaintiffs asserted a claim under the Texas Constitution's equivalent of the federal ERA, they failed to cite the McLean case- that is a Texas Supreme Court decision that requires maximum legal protection for all women's rights. Instead, the plaintiffs cited only cases from other states, which the Texas Supreme Court can ignore because of the fact that they are not Texas rulings.
So, the Texas Supreme Court would be required to follow McLean as its own precedent, but only if the plaintiffs cite it in their case. So why wouldn't they include this?
So we filed in order to request that the Texas Supreme Court apply and follow the McLean case and the Federal ERA. We want to nudge them to rule that women are entitled to maximum legal protection of their rights, on par with the rights of all other people in Texas.
We emphasized in our brief that the Court's ruling will have broad-sweeping implications for all women's rights in Texas, not just abortion rights, because the Court is poised to decide whether the Texas Constitution's state ERA requires equal treatment of women under any laws.
We are stunned, frankly, that an abortion rights group would claim to be fighting for women's rights yet fail to assert the best possible legal arguments on behalf of women. Numerous members of Congress have stated in formal documents currently on file with Congress, that the Equal Rights Amendment is currently the Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These same members of Congress agree that the ERA affords women maximum legal protections for their rights, including abortion rights.
So why would an abortion rights group that claims to be fighting for women's rights fail to ask the Texas Supreme Court to apply the ERA? Why would they instead ask for weaker legal protections under the Texas Constitution when they know the Equal Rights Amendment has stronger legal protections, so it is better for women?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
