02/27/23 02/27/23 [captioning made possible by democracy now!] amy: from new york, this is democracy now! >> we really don't know about these things. these are not the 90 greatest experts on the internet. [laughter] amy: the supreme court has just heard two major cases that could reshape the very structure of the internet. we will speak to the electronic frontier foundation about what's at stake and why the future of free speech online could be in

jeopardy. then to malcolm harris, author of the new book "palo alto: a history of california, capitalism, and the world." and we look at a new partisan push to ratify the equal rights amendment a half-century after its passage. >> solution will help address centuries of gender discrimination in america by removing the unnecessary barriers that prevented us from enshrining the dignity, the community, and the quality of women into our united states constitution. amy: all that and more, coming up. welcome to democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. at least 62 people died over the weekend after a boat carrying refugees fell apart at sea after -- off of italy's calabrian coast.

at least one baby and 12 children were among the deceased. around 80 survivors from iran, pakistan, and afghanistan were pulled to safety after they were found in the water grasping on to pieces of the ship which had departed the turkish city of izmir a few days earlier. the latest migrant tragedy in the mediterranean came just days after the italian government of far-right leader giorgia meloni approved a new law making it harder for rescue vessels to carry out their missions. doctors without borders said their rescue ship was detained by italian authorities as part the new measures, blocking it from going to see to save lives for at least 20 days. in the town of crotone, where the bodies of the victims were being kept, community members gathered to pay their respect. this is bishop francesco savino. >> it is the hour of silence come up prayer, of deep

meditation but it is the hour in which we must also question ourselves responsibly about this new tragedy with respect to week risk all becoming accomplices. amy: israeli and palestinian officials have agree to measures to de-escalate tensions after meetings this weekend in jordan. israel said it would pause discussion of new settlement units for four months and halt new settlement approvals for six months. officials from israel, the palestinian authority, the u.s., jordan, and egypt took part in the meetings. but some palestinians, including members of hamas in gaza, condemned the negotiations. this is a university student from gaza. >> how should we accept such a meeting? a meeting that gives up rights and revokes the rights of resistance? amy: the talks came as more violence plagued the region. on sunday, israeli settlers ransacked and torched palestinian homes in hawara, near the occupied west bank city of nablus, killing at least one palestinian and injuring dozens

of others. the brutal attack followed the fatal shooting of two israeli brothers by a palestinian gunman. this is a young palestinian girl whose home was attacked. >> we started to hear sounds from outside the house. i moved to the windows but they were shooting so i moved down to the floor. my mother moved us to a corner because there was no safe place. amy: u.n. secretary-general antónio guterres condemned russia's invasion of ukraine and called on nations to recommit to the universal declaration of human rights as he made a speech earlier today for the 75th anniversary of the landmark international document. >> the russian invasion of ukraine has triggered the most massive human rights violations we are living today. it has unleashed destruction and displacements.

as attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure has caused many casualties and terrible suffering. amy: fierce fighting continues in ukraine as the world acknowledged the one year anniversary of the start of the war on friday with protests and vigils across the globe. meanwhile, ukrainian allies, incling the european union and the u.s., announced further sanctions against moscow. the biden administration also said it would provide another $2 billion in weapons to ukraine. in kyiv, president volodymyr zelenskyy made a somber but defiant television address on the one-year anniversary of the war. >> it was a year of endurance, a year of compassion, a year of bravery, a year of pain, a year of hope, a year of perseverance, a year of instability. his main conclusion is we have survived. we have not been defeated. amy: zelenskyy fired his top

ukrainian military commander sunday without giving a public reason though a number of high-profile officials were fired or resigned last month as part of an anti-corruption purge. in other war news, zelenskyy said he plans to meet chinese leader xi jinping to discuss beijing's proposal for ending the war. the african union condemned recent racist comments by tunisian president kais saied after he called for an end to sub-saharan migration to tunisia and claimed black undocumented migrants are part of a plot to alter tunisia's demographics. hundreds of people in the capital tunis took to the streets saturday to demonstrate against hate speech and anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies. >> there president and sighted people against each other. the level of racism was much lower in the past, not like now. now it is normal for you to be

assaulted for no reason, just because of your color. amy: this comes amid ongoing protests against president saied since he does -- dismiss the tunisian government in 2021 and consolidating power. last week, security forces arrested prominent opposition figure jaouhar ben m'barek as detentions of saied's critics and political opponents have been ramping up. in el salvador, human rights advocates are condemning the transfer of some 2000 suspected gang members to a newly opened mega-prison as part of president nayib bukele's supposed crackdown on crime. over the weekend, bukele shared images of prisoners wearing nothing but white shorts, being rushed into the prison, then sitting in rows with their heads down. the so-called terrorism confinement center has a capacity of 40,000 and is now considered to be the largest prison in the americas. bukele's government has been enforcing a state of exception since last march, suspending several constitutional protections and leading to the arbitrary arrest of an estimated 64,000 people, many without any

ties to gangs or access to due process. human rights groups say at least 80 people have died in police custody. here in the united states, federal personnel are going door to door in east, ohio, to conduct health surveys as fallout continues over the february 3 norfolk southern train wreck and release of toxic chemicals. meanwhile, residents of harris county, texas, are expressing outrage following news that toxic wastewater which was used to extinguish fires from the east palestine crash, is being transported to texas for underground disposal. a local environmental group said, "our county should not be a dumping ground for industry." in east palestine, ohio, prominent environmental advocate and whistleblower erin brockovich addressed community members friday during a crowded townhall. >> we often find out five and 10

years down the road after you were told it was safe, oops, houston, we have a problem. hold your ground, we will get you as much information as we can. like i said, some of it might surprise you and could scare you. but now you know more so you prepare better. amy: erin brockovich is involved in organizing a class action lawsuit against norfolk southern . this comes as republicans on the house oversight committee are launching into transportation secretary pete buttigieg's response to the disaster, citing what they called his slow pace following the crash. in related news, another norfolk southern train derailed on saturday, this time in lexington, north carolina. the company said the crash posed no danger to the public. "the wall street journal" is reporting the energy department has revised its assessment of the origins of covid-19, saying

the spread of the virus was likely an unintentional leak from a chinese lab. the agency, however, has only low confidence in the theory according to reports. the fbi has previously said it also believes with moderate confidence covid-19 is the result of a lab leak. the latest news widens the split in the u.s. intelligence community as the national intelligence council and four other agencies have concluded it covid 19 was naturally transmitted by an infected animal. in other coronavirus news, the fda has given emergency authorization for the first over-the-counter combined covid and flu test. it's not yet clear when the test, manufactured by lucira health, will be available consumers in the u.s. and how widely it will be covered by health insurance. it costs over $70. a "new york times" investigation is exposing the forced labor of migrant children at factories across the united states.

"the times" spoke to over 100 unaccompanied migrant children, largely from central america, who described gruesome and often dangerous working conditions, being subjected to long hours and late night shifts at facilities that manufacture products for well-known corporations such as hearthside food solutions -- the makers of cheerios, fruit of the loom, walmart, j.crew, and frito-lay. others were forced to work as cleaning staff at hotels. and coffee harvesters in states like hawaii. some of the children were as young as 13 years old. a growing list of media outlets will stop publishing the long-running dilbert comic strip after its creator scott adams made racist comments on his youtube show. dilbert's distributor has also cut ties with adams after he said black americans are part of a "racist hate group" and advised white people to "get the hell away from black people."

the remarks were made in response to the results of a poll that asked respondents if they agreed with the statement "it's ok to be white." a number of major publications sever ties with adams, including "the new york times," "the washington post," "the los angeles times," and "usa today. and here in new york, uber and lyft drivers led a 12-hour strike from noon until midnight sunday at laguardia airport as they continue to demand fare wages. this is the third strike since december in response to a lawsuit filed by uber that blocked a pay increase for drivers, approved by the taxi and limousine commission, and that was supposed to go into effect in december. this is an uber driver speaking from the picket line yesterday. >> all they see is the money. all they see is the money. but you are the ones who make the money. the money does not make us.

the money does not make us. we make the money. do you believe that? so let's stick together and do the fight together until the end . amy: and those are some of the headlines. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. we begin today's show looking at two supreme court cases that could reshape the future of the internet. both cases center on section 230 of the communications decency act of 1996, which has shielded internet platforms from being sued over content posted on their sites by outside parties. backers of section 230 say the law has helped foster free speech online. the electronic frontier foundation has described section 230 as "one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the internet." on tuesday, justices heard arguments in gonzalez v. google. the case was brought by the

family of nohemi gonzalez, who was killed in the paris 2015 terror attack. her family sued google claiming the company had illegally promoted islamic state propaganda videos. then on wednesday, justices heard arguments in the case of twitter v. taamneh. this case was brought by the family of nawras alassaf who was killed, along with 38 others in an 2017 isis attack on a nightclub in turkey. during oral arguments on the twitter case, justice elena kagan made this comment which was met with laughter. >> we are court. we really don't know about these things. these are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet. [laughter] amy: for more, we're joined by aaron mackey senior staff , attorney with the electronic frontier foundation. welcome to democracy now!

it is great to have you with us. can you talk about the significance of the supreme court and the internet last week, the idea that based on their decision, it could change the internet as we know it for all time? >> good morning. the two cases that were heard were the first time the supreme court has actually ever come across and potentially interpreted section 230. what section 230 is and why it is so important is because his legal protections for online intermediaries powers sort of the underlying architecture that we all use every day. so when internet users use email, set up their own websites, use social media or create their own blogs -- all of that is powered and protection -- protected by section 230. the concern in these two cases is the supreme court might interpret it narrowly so that internet users will not have

those similar opportunities in the future to organize online, speak online, to find their communities online because the law might be narrowed and internet services might react in a way that limits opportunities for people to speak online and limit the protected forms and the type of speech we can have online. amy: explain what happened with nohemi gonzalez and a 2015 and what this case is based on. >> the central allegations in the complaint are not that youtube played any role in the attacks that resulted in nohemi gonzalez*'s death but you two provided a number of features and services to either members of isis or isis supporters that allowed them to recruit, engage, or help or assist isis and terrorist goal. based on that, they filed a

complaint under the antiterrorism act for aiding and abetting isis. so the courts have been basically interpreting section 230 uniformly to say fundamentally, those claims are based on the content of user speech so posts on youtube and twitter and therefore the court upheld section 230 applies and sort of bars those claims. so that is the underlying claim. i think what the supreme court, what you heard last week is struggling with where do you draw the line sort of impose liability on youtube or twitter or any online service when these claims are very in sinew it in from the harm that has occurred in these cases and our concern is if you put the sort of liability on those platforms for such sort of tin you waited

roles in the claims here, you deter the from hosting any speech that even remotely deals with this -- this will likely follow in a number of organizations, reporters, fall on people who are trying to seek access and document atrocities across the globe. so that is what we are concerned about. amy: so when the supreme court justices were speaking, they used hypotheticals like public payphones to try to deliberate on these cases. can you talk about their ability to understand and regulate the internet? >> i think what they were struggling with was trying to really sort of find an analogy that works in terms of the relationship that an online service has with say millions -- hundreds of millions of users and indicates that twitter and billions of users and indicates

of youtube. they were using analogies like cell phone companies or beeper companies to try to -- what liabilities should exist or should have existed for those types of companies when providing communication service generally open to anyone, and then someone uses that service in a way that could be harmful or could create culpability either criminal or civil liability. so what you do to deter or what should the law do to deter the service from extending their services to those types of individuals? i think what they struggled with is where do we place that liability without actually undermining the entire purpose of section 230 or generally the people's first amendment rights and users first memo rights to make these platforms and use

these platforms to speak online. y: what direction do you think the justices were going in based on their questioning and how concerned are you? >> continue to be concerned because this case in gonzalez particular was section 2, the plaintiffs have proposed a test that saysf any platform i recommending what they call sort of promoting user generated content, that promotion or recommendation would fall into section 230. so the potential danger there is platforms organize all of our content in a variety of ways, whether it is organing it by letting users vote things up and down in the case of reddit or allowing recommended videos, we saw you watch this on youtube and we think you might like this next. the danger is twofold. the first is the platform is not going to host certain types of information because it is it

wanting to be accused later. and second, the platforms will not organize content in a way that we have grown accustomed to. the plaintiffs propose to make the services like search engine where we as the users have too on and find things. i think that makes it dficult for us to easily access material we want and for individual creators and speakers to find audiences that they desire. amy: i wanted to ask you about a lawsuit against san bernardino superior court seeking transparency of search warrants used by law enforcement from cell phones in criminal investigations. this involves cell site simulators. can you explain what is at stake? you see one case in one local area can determine law ultimatelyn the unedtates. >> in san bernardino county,

news reports had shown law enforcement were filing more search warrants and were potentially using cell site simulators at a higher rate than any county in the entire state. a cell site simulator opetes by mimicking a cell phone tower and pretends to be one so everyone in therea near a simulator -- the phone connects to it. they vary but our concerns are -- amy: they are like stingray places. >> that was her brand name created by the harris corp. we were concerned everyone's private information is captured by these devices and they create these odd searches. you can deploy one near a sensitive site like a health facility and you can have the potential to collect a variety of information about people who are totally unassociated with

any criminal activity or that particular investigation that the police are seeking authorization to deploy it. our concerns with the employment of these types of surveillance tools is theyre generally done in a broad fashion at the race potential for them, concerns for everyone who happens to be in the facility and subject to these searches but is not under -- amy: has information gained from people who are just randomly picked up, swept up in the search bn used in court against them? >> i think that is a big question that we don't know. we know and a variety of other context that law enforcement use what is known as parallel construction where they obtained material and variety of ways that might violate the fourth amendment but sort of paper over it by using sort of other documents and claiming about how they got this information. that is the concern that once police have this information, they may misuse it and go after

pele for a variety of benign behavior or even protective first amended activity. amy: aaron mackey, thank you for being with us senior staff , attorney with the electronic frontier foundation. we are staying with the internet and its origins. we will talk to malcolm harris, author of the new book "palo alto: a history of california, capitalism, and the world." then we will talk about the e.r.a.. stay with us. ♪♪ [music break]

amy: this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. as we continue our look at big cap and the internet, we're joined by author malcolm harris. he has just published a fascinating new book called "palo alto: a history of california, capitalism, and the world." it is a history of silicon valley and so much more. now come harris grew up in palo

alto. he "also had the good luck to make it out alive." in the years he attended palo alto high, students killed themselves at a rate between four and five times the national average, walking to the deaths on the train tracks that leland stanford built to escape the unrest of san francisco more than 100 years earlier. now come harris joins us now from washington, d.c. --malcolm harris joins us now from washington, d.c. we were looking at the supreme court cases last week that could redefine what these big tech companies can do. can you put this all in historical context for us? you are not just talking about the internet, you're looking at these big tech companies and talking about the history of capitalism in this country. >> absolutely. it is important to see the internet in its history as its

relation between capital and government is often told just cold war story the defensive plan for america but the internet really was an offense of to coordinate americans abroad and in the united states. it is important to see this link . amy: talk about the history of palo alto. talk about the history of leland stanford, the history of the companies that would lead to the number of billionaires, the surge and billionaires that we are seeing today and why that affects everyone. >> it is a long history but you can start in the 1870's were leland stanford, the front man for the railroad and really capital in the west, is facing a situation where workers are yelling outside his house all the time. he lives on the biggest house, fanciest hill.

the workers know where to find him. like many other rich people trying to escape class conflict, his solution is to move his family to the suburbs. unfortunately, the suburbs don't exist yet so he has to create a suburb to move his family to in order to escape this class conflict he has created. that is the original story of palo alto. you can follow that line to the next 150 years. amy: take us through that line right through you growing up in palo alto and the load i just read from "the los angeles times" talking about the number of kids taking their own lives on the railroad tracks that leland built. >> this is a tension i point to at the heart of the town which is this contrast between the greatest wealth explosion in the history of man which happens over this 150 yrs, not just in

the 1960's and 1980's and the 2000's but this whole period, california stands for huge amounts of wealth. at the same time, it builds this haunted patina and culture of tragedy that i saw firsthand. amy: go back to reagan's time. talk about the attorney general john ashcroft. >> john ashcroft is the attorney general for -- amy: i'm sorry, george w. bush. >> when we talk about section 230 or the telecommunications act, we talked about the 1990's, the atari democrats, bill clinton, new green bridge, we sort of let george w. bush and ashcroft and that administration off the hook but if you look at the record when george w. bush gets elected any appoints ashcroft, the tech industry is super excited. they could not be more hype about the naming of john ashcroft.

for those of us that were involved politically at the time, it is surprising because john ashcroft is this hard right wing christian conservative character, famous for the 10 commandments fight, but also really well known as being protech down to the betamax case in the 1980's. when he came in, he was very friendly with the tech companies. the first thing he did was drop the antitrust suit against microsoft, which was a huge decision for the justice department and really sets the stage for the internet as we understand it now. he also targeted file sharers for individual prosecution. he set up internet situation we have now were individual users might be liable if they post the wrong thing. to an fbi raid. at the large tech companies themselves are insulated even from monopoly questions. amy: talk about the specific billionaires that were created

in palo alto in silicon valley. >> there are so many, you can't even list them all. one important thing to look at, especially around this historical hinge is larry ellison at oracle w made his money as a cia contractor for oracle and leads the tech industry into a new patriotic position after 9/11. he goes to the government and says, i want to create a national id program for you, i want to put every -- require every immigrant to have a national id card and have a national database. he gets democratic support for this policy. in the last moment of libertarian right and left wing association, that since then come it has been larry ellison running things. amy: talk about others. >> you can draw straight line from him to elon musk to the

google guys to every tech billionaire that we have got has drawn one way or another from this big pile of money and the people have gotten bridge on the y2k bubble at or around the same time. there putting money into new opportunities and creating more rich guys like themselves. amy: you started writing this book after being part of occupy wall street. talk about what most surprised you in your research. >> what most surprised me is how short california history really is. we're only looking at 150 years since anglo-american colonization, and that means the indigenous peoples have been expropriated very recently historically. it is not the same stories we have on the east coast. so to write one story about an

american colonization is to lump everyone together in an inaccurate way. if there's one message i can get across, how shallow this history is. amy: you conclude arguing stanford university should return some of its land to the descendants of the indigenous people. >> there are 614 registered members of the tribe, politically organized group of people. they will be lobbying the government next month, continue to lobby the federal government for the restoration of the federal recognition. that is something stanford has supported. they have acknowledge them as the titleholders at this land. how do you move back to restoration? how do you move back to returning that land and returning that federal recognition? that is something people can call their congressman about. amy: you continually refer to the palo alto system. explain this term you have coined. >> i did not coin it, it was

coined in the 1870's with leland stanford and charles marvin as head horse traders looking for a new way to train the youngest, fastest versus in world. this is how palo alto started as a horse stock farm. that palo alto system where they are applying new kinds of science and profit-directed tools to create life and monitor the production of life underlies palo alto, even if people don't know that history. amy: you talk about the suicides of classmates when you went to palo alto high. you also talk about the suicides of apple workers in china. talk more about that. >> this is something i knew about but until i was really doing the research had not connected these waves of suicides, conceived as clusters, are really happening at the same time. two young people who tend to be around the same age, these are

young workers at foxconn plants, for example, and the idea these are disconnected phenomenon struck me as hard to believe when we know the connection between palo alto and the connection between these iphone factories is so tight. it seems like the kind of hauntings that affected this town from its beginning. amy: you also talk about the roots of eugenics at stanford university. explain. >> stanford's first president was a leading eugenicist and he helped make the school will center for eugenics in the united states. including by recruiting the man who refound the iq test as a test of quality at stanford. stanford promulgates these ideas of human hierarchy and the hierarchy of races throughout the world in the 20th century, culminating with, william shot ockney, jr..

amy: more than 100,000 workers in u.s.-based tech companies have been laid off so far this year. 11,000 metalworkers, 10,000 microsoft. talk about the connection between the layoffs and labor organizing. >> we saw this wave of layoffs, which also pales in comparison to all the hiring of the same companies in the years previous. sort of cosmetic offering to the financial markets to show silicon valley still can control its labor costs. silicon valley is still capable of laying off thousands of people at a time without facing any consequences or any disruption. so it has -- they are signaling

something to the markets. that signaling has been very successful. the companies that have done it have benefited on their stock price disproportionately. amy: if you can talk about the black panthers in palo alto, this history of california capitalism in the world? >> the black panthers, as a bay area focused or located primarily most important communist party and the american postwar period, have a huge effect not just on the bay area and not just on the country itself, but on the whole world. this question of why is california a hotspot in the history of anticolonial revolt and in the 20th century asks us to consider california natural global historical context as opposed to just part of national history. the panthers signal something important about that. amy: i want to thank you,

malcolm harris, journalist and author of "palo alto: a history of california, capitalism, and the world." coming up, we look at a new bipartisan push to finally ratifyhe equal rights amendment a half-century after it was passed. stay with us. ♪♪ [music break]

amy: this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. we look now at what may be a historic next step in the push to codify gender equality in the u.s. constitution. the equal rights amendment has been introduced in every session of congress since 1923 and

finally passed in 1972 -- but it was never ratified by the states. this comes as women continue to face discrimination throughout their lives. in one of the most clear examples, women today are still paid 83 cents for every dollar men earn. well, on tuesday, the e.r.a. will get its first hearing in 40 years when the senate judiciary committee meets to discuss a joint resolution to finally affirm it after removing an arbitrary seven year deadline on the ratification process. the house voted in 2020 to remove the deadline when virginia became the 38th, and potentially pivotal, state to ratify the e.r.a., but the senate didn't pick up the measure. this is decratic congressmember ayanna pressley speaking at a press conference

in support of the e.r.a., which was introduced by democrat senator dick durbin. >> it is not lost amid the first time the equal rights amendment was put forward was 100 years ago. the coalition was not as diverse nor as inclusive, so i am especially encouraged and emboldened to demonstrate today we are leading and working in an intersectional and inclusive way to advance this priority. our resolution will help address centuries of gender discrimination in america by removing the unnecessary barriers that have prevented us from enshrining the dignity, the humidity, and equality of women into our united states constitution. and a cut that is congress member ayanna pressley. for more, we go to washington, d.c., to speak with zakiya thomas, president and ceo of the e.r.a. coalition. and linda coberly, who is the chair of the legal task force at the e.r.a. coalition and also a partner at winston & strawn. we welcome you both to democracy now!

zakiya thomas, let's begin with you. i'm sure a lot of people are saying, oh, my gosh, the e.r.a., what happened to that? would you explain its history and why tuesday is so significant? >> thank you for having us. the equal rights amendment would be an amendment to the constitution that would enshrine protections against discrimination in the u.s. it was first introduced in commerce about 100 years ago. since then it has been posed by both houses of congress and in 2020 ratified by virginia of the 38 state. it is love the land. we just need to make sure congress affirms that and we will have equality enshrined in our constitution. amy: canoe explain how the e.r.a. came about to begin with and how many decades this has been going on? >> this is the 100th anniversary

of equal rights and minutes been introduced in congress. it was originally introduced by suffrage -- leaders of the suffragette movement. this is a progression from earning the right to vote and now the equality under the law. as we have seen we are not -- we do not consider women for the constitution and having the equal rights a minute would have protections. amy: linda coberly, you've been working on this for years. talk about this whole issue of the seven-year deadline. what happened in 1972, that incredible moment -- but then not only its passage, but the fact it had to be ratified by the states and what all that means. >> good to be with you this morning.

the process for amending the constitution set forth in article 5 and it has very specific requirements which have been met by the e.r.a., the first requirement is that congress must pass the amendment and propose it to the states by two thirds vote. that happened in early 1970's. the second is three quarters of the state ratify it. there are couple of ways that can happen. congress chose to have the legislatures to the ratification. there is nothing in article 5 that talks about the time limit. for the first 150 years or so, there were no time limits on proposed amendments. the last amendment added to the constitution took 203 years to ratify. it was proposed by james madison . it became part of the constitution only recently. in the early 20th century,

congress began to use time limits for ratification. initially, propose those time limits as part of the amendment itself. for a short period of time, the time limits were removed into the preamble. that is where the time limit is for the equal rights amendment. the proposing clause says the amendment will become valid as part of the constitution when ratified by states within seven years. what does that mean? because the time limit was placed in the proposing clause to the amendment, it is something congress has changed. congress has already changed the time limit. in the late 1970's, voted by simple majority, to extend the time limit. what we are asking congress to do now is to declare that no standing any time limits

included in the original motion, the e.r.a. is valid and part of the constitution. amy: explain what happened. so it is ratified -- it is past, but talk about the states. the history of the states approving it and how it was virginia it was only recently. >> the e.r.a. was very widely supported in the early 1970's. state after state ratified quickly after the amendment was originally proposed. by the end of the 1970's, the number of ratified states stayed at 35, which is quite -- not quite enough. we needed 38. all we had at the end of the 1970's was 35. the time limit past and decades past and the support for the e.r.a. continued, bills supporting the e.r.a. and new versions of the e.r.a. are

proposed every year in congress for decades. but it wasn't until 2017 the states began to ratify the original e.r.a. one more time. the state of nevada ratified in 2017. shortly after the women's march, part of the #metoo movement and the renewed attention to the issue of sex equality. the state of illinois ratified in 2018. virginia ratified in 2020. we now have the last three states and we have the number required under article 5 to be amended. amy: i want to turn to opposition of equal rights amendment especially from the right. this is independent women's forum senior policy analyst inez stepman speaking to c-span's jesse holland on washington journal. >> we already have legal equality. the question is what changes with the e.r.a.?

what changes is we move from legal equality to the law being rigid and unable to recognize situations in which the differences between men and women matter. i'm sure we will get into a lot of these different examples but fundamentally, i worry the e.r.a. will replace the equality under the law that women already enjoy in this country with the sameness or interchangeability between men and women that could actually put women in harm's way. >> give us an example. >> for example, we have laws about social security benefi. if you stay home -- and thvast majority of those who ay he are women who stay home to take care of their kids- that law amounts to a subsidy according to some proponents of the e.r.a. for stay-at-home mothers. therefore is a violation of equality principle even though it no longer says men and women, just has spousal social security support. amy: linda coberly, if you can respond? >> first of all, there are a lot

of critiques of the e.r.a. that started in the 1970's but don' make a lot of sense anymore. in the 1970's, there were legal distinctions based on sex. for example, with benefits, and alimony and palimony and that sort of thing where men and women were treated differently. a lot of those changes -- a lot of those differences have already been eliminated last three years because the law recognizes and we recognize in shaping the law that distinctions on the basis of sex are often arbitrary. i think the important thing is the e.r.a. is not a rigid law in the sense like laws are passed by congress. the e.r.a. is a principle. like all of the principles reflected in our constitution. courts will interpret that principle if it becomes part of the constitution.

and will look for instances where the government has a very strong interest in drawing a sex sting should and will weigh them. i know constitutional right -- extensive case law around the first amendment, for example. the other thing i wanted to mention is the e.r.a. is not -- it is not something that would replace or eradicate the existing constitutional order. inez mentioned there is nstitutional equality already, and maybe she is referring to the 14th amendment. having read the dobbs decision, i'm concerned about that authority that finds protections against sex discrimination and the 14th amendment. the majority of the supreme court has made clear it will interpret the constitution based only on the words that it contains and will interpret

those words based only on the understanding of the people who included those words in the constitution. that means according to this supreme court, the meaning of the 14th of them is frozen in time in 1868 at a time when no one understood that the 14th amended would protect against disco nation on the basis of sex. so to the extent we already have legal equality, there is a real risk that inequality will be eroded. and statutes can be changed. a lot of the other sources of legal equality we have in our system today are vulnerable to political change. for that reason, we think it is critically important to have an amendment in the constitution it recognizes a principle of constitution. amy: zakiya thomas, can you talk about organizing going on and what specifically will be

happening in the senate judiciary committee on tuesday? >> on tuesday, we will have the chance to discuss the importance of the equal rights amendment and why it is a law of the land and why congress should affirm it as such. you'll hear from constitutional scholars, lieutenant governor of illinois, and advocates about the work that has been done but also how the e.r.a. impacts everyday life. we are excited to have the opportunity to talk about the importance of the equal rights of men and why it is relevant and why it is so important for all of us to be protected under the constitution with constitutional equality. amy: let me play a clip of senator dick durbin. >> nothing in the constitution prohibits us from declaring the e.r.a. as law of the land as it should be, so we're going to get the job done. we're going to start the senate judiciary committee with the hearing said the people of america know what is at stake and what we are fighting for,

then we will bring it to the floor and vote and get it on record as it should be. it is time for us to vote for equality. amy: that is senator did durbin. then they will take it to the floor and then there is the house. >> we also have the identical legislation being put forward in the house as well. ayanna pressley is leading the effort as the main sponsor of the resolution in the house. once we get through the fight in the senate to make sure we have the support -- which we think we do -- to get the e.r.a. affirmed , then we take the battle to the house and we will do the same there. we do have bipartisan support for both bills, which is a wonderful occurrence for all of us to have. it shows there is extreme -- there's a large amount of support for the equal rights amendment in both parties and both houses. amy: i want to go to a quote of

professor catherine frankie who wrote -- linda coberly, if you can continue from there and your response to what she is saying? >> i think the professor addressed the issue i mentioned in dobbs where the current majority of the supreme court has said it will limit its

reading of equality to the meeting that those who ratified the 14th of emmett had in their minds when they voted to ratify. the late justice ginsburg advocated for very long time, both as an advocate and ultimately as a supreme court justice, her finding some protection agast discrimination on the basis of sex and the 14th amendment. she was successful. but given the move within the supreme court, i think that win, that protection is vulnerable. the late justice scalia was very explicit about that, and he said he did not recognize any protection against discrimination on the basis of sex and into constitution. that is exactly why we need -- amy: what would it mean if the equal rights a minute were actually ratified, were passed? in the case, for example, what is about to come down any day now that texas judges decision

that could block access to the common abortion medication but prestone? this abortion pill, vacation abortions, are used more than half the abortions in the u.s. so how would it affect this and overall reproductive rights in this country? >> that is a great question and also it is a question tt will be decided by the court. but we think reproductive health is part of equality and if there is a statute or state regulation or something like that that prevents access to health care on the basis of sex, then the e.r.a. would stand in the way of that. i think the exact permutations of how that worked for something that will be loved by courts, probably many years. the fact this is going to be in the courts is not a surprise.

all of the constitutional position -- we have ongoing litigation and court decisions interpreting amendments. that is why we have the cost -- the constitution is something you can put in your pocket, unlike u.s. code which requires a whole room of books to capture. so the principles and the constitution are designed to be high level. there to be interpreted by courts. but we believe reproductive health care is an important aspect of equality in the e.r.a. would help to sure that up. amy: zakiya thomas, what is your sense, especially among younger women, of their awareness of what is going on right now around the e.r.a.? 2026 is the 250th anniversary of the u.s. constitution which the government is planning to mark with major events.

what would it mean if the e.r.a. were a lot of the land and the constitution? >> imagine a world or country in which women and men were paid equally for the work they do. imagine a country in which lgbtq+ individuals were asked to protected against disco nation because it is who they are. imagine a world where we can all be sure we have equality and our rights will not be infringed upon because of things that are different. that is the foundation and the principal that the equal rights of emmett provides. we see overwhelming support in this country for the equal rights amendment. 70% of the country thanks we should have an equal rights amendment in our constitution and men and women should be created equally -- treated equally under the law. it is unfortunately 73% think we already have e.r.a. and our constitution.

that is why this is so important to get the word out about the e.r.a. come about this moment in history that we have the opportunity to change the future for this country and all of our people. amy: zakiya thomas, thank you for being with us president and , and ceo of the e.r.a. coalition, and linda coberly is

♪ hello and there and welcome to nhk "newsline." i'm catherine kobayashi in new york. western leaders have tried throughout the war in ukraine to isolate russia financially and militarily. they've warned others not to supply any weapons that might fuel the war effort. now they're wondering why an ally of president vladimir putin is heading to china. u.s. officials have directed many of their warningsar