Be sure to check out the editorial on the new ERA push in Investor’s Business Daily today.  IBD rightly calls into question the consequences of the law, the myth of the wage gap, and even gives IWF a shout out.

On the ERA:

“The ERA, as it was called in the heady days of feminism back in 1972, was championed by supporters as a way to ‘put women into the Constitution.’ Women were said to not be full participants in either American democracy or the American economy. Phrases like ‘gender gap’ and ‘equal pay for equal work’ along with the famous ‘glass ceiling’ came into vogue.

“Concerns about the unintended consequences of its simplistic language and the power it might grant to litigious liberals caused it to fall short of ratification. For example, could insurance companies charge different rates even if actuaries determined women had different health problems and life expectancies?

“With Democrats back in control of Congress, the ERA is back as well, this time under an alias – the Women’s Equality Amendment. It was introduced in the Senate and the House last week. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., chairman of the House judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, says he plans hearings on the revived ERA.”

On the wage gap: 

“Wage discrimination has long been a hot-button issue for liberals. Sen. Hillary Clinton last month introduced something called the Paycheck Fairness Act, complaining that women continue to make ‘just 77 cents for every dollar a man makes.’ She says the bill would give government more power to make ‘an equal paycheck for equal work’ a reality.

“The problem with that figure is that it is both right and wrong at the same time. As Carrie Lukas, vice president for policy and economics with the Independent Women’s Forum, points out, surveys have long shown that ‘women tend to place a higher priority on flexibility and personal fulfillment than do men, who focus more on pay.’ The 77 cents fails to account for differences in experience, seniority, education and hours worked.

“Women tend to avoid jobs where travel and relocation are required. Their service is often interrupted, they take more hours off, and they spend less time in the office than men. On average, Lukas reports, women leave the work force for a decade to care for their children….

“Where genuine discrimination exists, it should be rooted out. But policy decisions should not be made by statistical anomalies resulting from individual choices. Nobody should be discriminated against on the basis of who they are. But in the real world there are differences between us, including the consequences of our free will, differences that cannot be legislated away.”

Read the full article here.