Phyllis Schlafly Lawyer and political activist Phyllis Schlafly was the most prominent opponent of the ERA. Her organization, STOP ERA, campaigned against the amendment in critical states and helped to halt ratification. Women’s magazines, the women’s pages of newspapers, and television and radio talk shows have been filled for months with a strident advocacy of the “rights” of women to be treated on an equal basis with men in all walks of life. But what about the rights of the woman who doesn’t want to compete on an equal basis with men? Does she have the right to be treated as a woman — by her family, by society, and by the law? . . . The laws of every one of our 50 states now guarantee the right to be a woman — protected and provided for in her career as a woman, wife, and mother. The proposed Equal Rights Amendment will wipe out all our laws which — through rights, benefits, and exemptions — guarantee this right to be a woman. . . . Is this what American women want? Is this what American men want? The laws of every one of the 50 states now require the husband to support his wife and children — and to provide a home for them to live in. In other words, the law protects a woman’s right to be a full-time wife and mother, her right not to take a job outside the home, her right to care for her own baby in her own home while being financially supported by her husband. . . . There are two very different types of women lobby- ing for the Equal Rights Amendment. One group is the women’s liberationists. Their motive is totally radical. They hate men, marriage, and children. They are out to destroy morality and the family. . . . There is another type of woman supporting the Equal Rights Amendment from the most sincere motives. It is easy to see why the busi- ness and professional women are supporting the Equal Rights Amendment — many of them have felt the keen edge of discrimination in their employmentElizabeth Duncan Koontz Elizabeth Duncan Koontz was a distinguished educator and the first black woman to head the National Education Association and the U.S. Women’s Bureau. At the time she made this statement at state legislative hearings on the ERA in 1977, she was assistant state superintendent for public instruction in North Carolina. A short time ago I had the misfortune to break my foot. . . . The pain . . . did not hurt me as much as when I went into the emergency room and the young woman upon asking me my name, the nature of my ailment, then asked me for my husband’s social security number and his hospitaliza- tion number. I asked her what did that have to do with my emergency. And she said, “We have to be sure of who is going to pay your bill.” I said, “Suppose I’m not married, then.” And she said, “Then give me your father’s name.” I did not go through that twenty years ago when I was denied the use of that emergency room because of my color. I went through that because there is an underlying assumption that all women in our society are protected, dependent, cared for by somebody who’s got a social security number and hospitalization insurance. Never once did she assume I might be a woman who might be caring for my husband, instead of him by me, because of some illness. She did not take into account the fact that one out of almost eight women heading families in pov- erty today [is] in the same condition as men in families and poverty. . . . My greater concern is that so many women today . . . oppose the passage of the ERA very sincerely and . . . tell you without batting an eye, “I don’t want to see women treated that way.” And I speak up, “What way is that?” . . . Women themselves have been a bit misguided. We have mistaken present practice for law, and women have . . . assumed too many times that their present condition can- not change. The rate of divorce, the rate of desertion, the rate of separation, and the death rate of male supporters is enough for us to say: “Let us remove all legal barriers to women and girls making their choices — this state cannot afford it.”1. Schlafly and Koontz have different notions of what it means to be a woman. Explain what these differences are and how they inform the authors’ distinct views of the ERA.

Phyllis Schlafly Lawyer and political activist Phyllis Schlafly was the most prominent opponent of the ERA. Her organization, STOP ERA, campaigned against the amendment in critical states and helped to halt ratification. Women’s magazines, the women’s pages of newspapers, and television and radio talk shows have been filled for months with a strident advocacy of the “rights” of women to be treated on an equal basis with men in all walks of life. But what about the rights of the woman who doesn’t want to compete on an equal basis with men? Does she have the right to be treated as a woman — by her family, by society, and by the law? . . . The laws of every one of our 50 states now guarantee the right to be a woman — protected and provided for in her career as a woman, wife, and mother. The proposed Equal Rights Amendment will wipe out all our laws which — through rights, benefits, and exemptions — guarantee this right to be a woman. . . . Is this what American women want? Is this what American men want? The laws of every one of the 50 states now require the husband to support his wife and children — and to provide a home for them to live in. In other words, the law protects a woman’s right to be a full-time wife and mother, her right not to take a job outside the home, her right to care for her own baby in her own home while being financially supported by her husband. . . . There are two very different types of women lobby- ing for the Equal Rights Amendment. One group is the women’s liberationists. Their motive is totally radical. They hate men, marriage, and children. They are out to destroy morality and the family. . . . There is another type of woman supporting the Equal Rights Amendment from the most sincere motives. It is easy to see why the busi- ness and professional women are supporting the Equal Rights Amendment — many of them have felt the keen edge of discrimination in their employmentElizabeth Duncan Koontz Elizabeth Duncan Koontz was a distinguished educator and the first black woman to head the National Education Association and the U.S. Women’s Bureau. At the time she made this statement at state legislative hearings on the ERA in 1977, she was assistant state superintendent for public instruction in North Carolina. A short time ago I had the misfortune to break my foot. . . . The pain . . . did not hurt me as much as when I went into the emergency room and the young woman upon asking me my name, the nature of my ailment, then asked me for my husband’s social security number and his hospitaliza- tion number. I asked her what did that have to do with my emergency. And she said, “We have to be sure of who is going to pay your bill.” I said, “Suppose I’m not married, then.” And she said, “Then give me your father’s name.” I did not go through that twenty years ago when I was denied the use of that emergency room because of my color. I went through that because there is an underlying assumption that all women in our society are protected, dependent, cared for by somebody who’s got a social security number and hospitalization insurance. Never once did she assume I might be a woman who might be caring for my husband, instead of him by me, because of some illness. She did not take into account the fact that one out of almost eight women heading families in pov- erty today [is] in the same condition as men in families and poverty. . . . My greater concern is that so many women today . . . oppose the passage of the ERA very sincerely and . . . tell you without batting an eye, “I don’t want to see women treated that way.” And I speak up, “What way is that?” . . . Women themselves have been a bit misguided. We have mistaken present practice for law, and women have . . . assumed too many times that their present condition can- not change. The rate of divorce, the rate of desertion, the rate of separation, and the death rate of male supporters is enough for us to say: “Let us remove all legal barriers to women and girls making their choices — this state cannot afford it.”1. Schlafly and Koontz have different notions of what it means to be a woman. Explain what these differences are and how they inform the authors’ distinct views of the ERA.