Until equality is constitutionally guaranteed for women, it is outrageous to require women to register for the draft. Fix that, then proceed.

Urge the United States House of Representatives, the United States Senate, and President Obama to pass H.J.RES.15/S.J. RES. 15 which is the Three-State Strategy to verify the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment as part of the Constitution. H.J.RES.43/S.J. RES. 15? H.J.RES.51/S.J. RES. 15, sponsored by U.S. Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-CA 14) and U.S. Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD), is the bill resolution for the Three-State Strategy to verify the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment as part of the Constitution. H.J.RES.51/S.J. RES. 15, would eliminate the time limit for ratification of the equal rights amendment (prohibits discrimination on account of sex) proposed to the states in House Joint Resolution 208 of the 92nd Congress, second session. It declares that such amendment shall be part of the Constitution whenever ratified by the necessary number of additional states. What is the Equal Rights Amendment? The Equal Rights Amendment is an amendment that promotes gender equality in the United States constitution. It states, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." (http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/">www.equalrightsamendment.org) Since the United States has been a country, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has not become a part of the United States Constitution. What is the Equal Right Amendment Three-State Strategy? The Equal Rights Amendment, passed by Congress in 1972, would have become the 27th Amendment to the Constitution if three-fourths of the states had ratified it by June 30, 1982. However, that date passed with only 35 of the necessary 38 state ratifications. Instead, the 27th Amendment is the "Madison Amendment," concerning Congressional pay raises, which went to the states for ratification in 1789 and reached the three-fourths goal in 1992. The fact that a 203-year ratification period was accepted as valid has led ERA supporters to propose that Congress has the power to maintain the legal viability of the ERA and the existing 35 state ratifications. If so, only three more state ratifications would be needed to make the ERA part of the Constitution. Legal analysis supporting this strategy was developed in 1995 by Allison Held, Sheryl Herndon and Danielle Stager, then third-year law students at the T. C. Williams School of Law in Richmond, VA. Their article, "http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/misc/W&M%20law%20article.pdf">Why the ERA Remains Legally Viable and Properly Before the States," was published in the Spring 1997 issue of William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law. Article V of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to propose an amendment and to determine the mode of ratification, but it is silent as to the power of Congress to impose time limits or its role after ratification by three-fourths of the states. It is important to note that Congressional promulgation is not a necessary feature of Article V. In the history of the amendment process Congress has promulgated only two amendments, the 14th and the 27th, following the final state ratification. In addition, the requirement for ratification within a "sufficiently contemporaneous" time frame and the chronological definition of "contemporaneous" are now open to question in light of the Madison Amendment experience. Despite arguments by proponents that the Equal Rights Amendment should go to the states without a time limit in the tradition of the 19th Amendment, the ERA passed Congress in 1972 with a seven-year time limit in its proposing clause. If the time limit had been placed in the text of the amendment itself, that restriction would not be subject to alteration by Congress after any state legislature had ratified. However, the ERA language ratified by 35 states between 1972 and 1982 (see above) did not contain a time limit for ratification. By transferring time limits from the text of an amendment to the proposing clause, Congress retained for itself the authority to review the limit and to amend its own previous legislative action regarding that time limit. In 1978, Congress clearly demonstrated its belief that it may alter a time limit in the proposing clause when it passed an extension of the original seven-year limit for ERA ratification and moved the deadline from March 22, 1979, to June 30, 1982. A challenge to the constitutionality of the extension was dismissed by the Supreme Court as moot after the deadline expired, and no lower-court precedent stands regarding that point. The Coleman decision asserted that Congress may determine whether the states have ratified in a "reasonable" time or whether the amendment is "no longer responsive to the conception which inspired it." Congress therefore could determine that the time period since the ERA went to the states for ratification in 1972 is "reasonable" and "contemporaneous" (particularly in light of the fact that it deemed the Madison Amendment's 203 years to be so), and it could decide that the ERA remains "responsive to the conception which inspired it" (indisputably so, since the fact that women's equal rights are not constitutionally affirmed will remain unchanged until the Constitution is amended or interpreted to establish unequivocally that women and men have equal rights). Therefore, under the principles of Dillon and Coleman, and based on the fact that Congress voted to extend the ERA time limit and to accept the 203-year-long ratification period of the Madison Amendment as sufficiently "contemporaneous," it is likely that Congress has the power to legislatively adjust or remove the time limit constraint on the ERA if it chooses, to determine whether or not state ratifications which occur after the expiration of a time limit in a proposing clause are valid, and to promulgate the ERA after the 38th state ratifies. Why do women need the Equal Rights Amendment? The fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution grants c...

The Hillsboro School Board recently voted 4 to 3 to prevent the school-based health center at Century High School from providing students with access to contraceptives. There are 4 men and 3 women on the board—can you guess who voted for access to contraception? That's right: all 3 women stood up for women's reproductive health care. This is one of the many reasons why having women leaders in public office matters. It's unacceptable for men to make this health care decision for young women—when they've never known what it's like to be in their position. Tell the Hillsboro School Board: Provide birth control in the school-based health center! In Congress and in Hillsboro, I'll always stand up against attacks on women's health. Despite the national attacks on Planned Parenthood, Oregon has been a leader– we've reduced teen pregnancy rates by 55% between 1988 and 2014 through the expansion of comprehensive age-appropriate and science-based sexual education and access to contraception. This decision from the Hillsboro School Board sets us back and can hurt the future of young women. I'm proud to stand with the three women on the Hillsboro School Board who fought for the young women they serve. It's not the 1950's—we know that refusing to provide contraception to high school students does not stop them from having sex. Sign the petition: Provide access to contraceptives in Hillsboro's school-based health center!

We, the undersigned, are appalled by the partnership that has developed between Uber and the government of Saudi Arabia, the only country in the world where women are not allowed to drive. Uber is profiting from this ban, generating tremendous revenue by providing male drivers to Saudi women who are not allowed to drive themselves. On top of that, Uber has now accepted $3.5 billion in investments from this repressive, misogynist Saudi government through its Public Investment Fund. To seal this sordid deal, Uber has granted a seat of its Board of Directors to Yasir Al Rumayyan, managing director of the Saudi government fund. Saudi women have been fighting for decades for this basic right that women have all over the world. They have gathered petitions, solicited the King, conducted acts of civil disobedience, and gone to prison. Uber should not be on the side of their oppressors but should be supporting the brave Saudi women.

Brock Allen Turner, a Stanford University student, was convicted of raping an unconscious woman on the Stanford campus after two graduate students found him on top of the woman, behind a dumpster, outside of a fraternity party. But California Judge Aaron Persky sentenced Turner to just six months in a county jail. As a Stanford graduate, I am disgusted that this rape occurred, and I am outraged by Judge Persky's sentence. Instead of justice, Judge Persky handed convicted rapist Brock Allen Turner the lightest possible sentence for raping an unconscious woman, saying that prison would have “a severe impact on [Turner].” It's worth noting that Turner’s father had called on the judge to give him only probation, saying he had already “paid a steep price" for “20 minutes of action." This rape culture cannot continue. Rapists must be held accountable for their actions, and judges who refuse to do so must resign. There is precedent for calling for a judge's resignation: Back in 2013, when Judge G. Todd Baugh sentenced a former high school teacher to just 30 days in prison for repeatedly raping a 14-year-old student, MoveOn member Kate Olp started a petition calling on the judge to resign. After thousands of MoveOn members and allies joined Kate's call, the Montana Judicial Standards Commission filed a formal complaint against the judge, and he ultimately did not seek re-election. Will you stand with me, just as MoveOn members stood with Kate Olp, and speak out against rape culture by calling for Judge Persky to resign?

Judge Aaron Persky sentenced convicted rapist Brock Allen Turner to just six months in county jail and probation after he was found guilty of raping an unconscious woman outside of a fraternity party on the Stanford campus. In his remarks at sentencing, Judge Persky justified this light sentence out of concern for Turner's future and the impact the verdict will have on his life. As a Stanford graduate, I'm disgusted that this rape occurred and I am outraged by Judge Persky's lenient sentence. Rapists must be held accountable for their actions, and judges who refuse to hold them accountable must be removed from the bench. The Committee on Judicial Performance has the authority to remove a judge. If enough of us speak out and demand justice, we can ensure judges like Judge Persky must value the life of the woman who was raped over the consequences of a just sentence for the rapist.

A judge just sentenced a Stanford University star athlete--who was caught in the act of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman--to only six months in jail. Why? Because the judge, Aaron Persky, worried that a prison sentence would have a "severe impact on him"--yes, the rapist--and said, "I think he will not be a danger to others." It's a horrifying example of rape culture: when a judge is more concerned with the well-being of a rapist than with justice or public safety. This judge has no business staying on the bench. Now the story is making headlines around the country and Judge Persky is coming under fire. If we all speak out, we can generate enough outrage to force California's judicial oversight commission to remove Judge Persky from the bench--and send a message to judges and law enforcement everywhere that rape culture has no place in our courts. Will you add your name?

The Oklahoma Legislature just passed a bill that would make a doctor who performs an abortion guilty of a felony and subject to a prison sentence of up to three years. The legislation would prevent any physician who performs abortions from securing or renewing a license to practice medicine in the state. The bill would undermine the right to abortion in Oklahoma and punish women's health care providers. It's on its way to Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, who has a reputation for being an anti-abortion Republican. But the governor, who's also acknowledged to be a potential running mate for the presumed GOP nominee for president, Donald Trump, has not yet said publicly if she will sign the bill into law. This is the first such bill in the nation. We absolutely cannot allow it to become law. That's why we need to reach Gov. Fallin immediately with a clear call for her to veto this reckless and dangerous bill.

The Oklahoma state legislature just passed a bill that proposes to charge doctors who perform abortions with felonies which could come with associated prison sentences of up to three years. The bill also also denies any physician who performs abortions from securing or renewing a license to practice medicine in the state. It's on its way to Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin who has a reputation of being an anti-abortion Republican. But the governor has not yet decided if she will sign the bill into law. This is the first such bill in the nation. We can't allow it to pass, which is why we need reach Governor Fallin immediately with a clear call for her to veto this reckless bill, which restricts women's rightful access to necessary health care.

HB 386 is working its way to the Governor in Louisiana. This bill would extend the mandatory waiting period for an abortion to 72 hours. Under the bill, women who live as far as 149 miles away from a clinic would be forced to drive over three hours to the clinic, take three or more days they may not have off of work, and find child care and a motel room to sit and wait out the government's intrusive clock. All for a common, safe procedure that 1 in 3 women will undergo. But some women cannot wait this long due to personal need or medical circumstance, and those who can will travel to other states. That means waiting periods for everyone. States that have passed similar laws have wasted millions defending them in court also, and Louisiana is about to do the same. Aren’t we in a budget crisis? Governor Bel Edwards and the legislature should focus on fixing the budget rather than attacking women.

Florida women can’t afford irresponsible and inconsistent representation in Congress.

The Florida State Legislature recently passed a law defunding Planned Parenthood, which Governor Rick Scott signed. This action would force Planned Parenthood clinics across the state to close later this year. As a result, millions of low income women will be left without basic reproductive health care. They will be unable to receive screening and diagnostic tests that prevent the spread of cancer, std's and other diseases, at an affordable cost. They would also be unable to access birth control, which prevents the need for abortions in the first place. How many women will die because of the actions of Governor Scott and the Florida legislature?