- Well tonight on Capitol Hill,

new efforts to revive theexpired Equal Rights Amendment.

- Tomorrow, the fullHouse is expected to vote

on a resolution to remove the deadline

for states to ratify it.

If approved by the Senate,

it would allow theamendment known as the ERA

to be added to the Constitutionafter Virginia, last month,

became the 38th state to approve it.

Today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

joined ERA proponents ahead of the vote.

- Here we are in this Congress,

during which time we will observe

the 100th anniversary ofwomen having the right to vote

and the ERA is still notenshrined in the Constitution.

As a result, women still faceinequality under the law.

With this resolution, we take a giant step

toward equality for women,progress for families,

and a stronger America.

- But many legal experts and critics say

this latest effort by Democrats won't fly,

adding that women alreadyenjoy equal rights protections

under the Constitution.

- Well here with us now is Penny Nance,

CEO and President ofConcerned Women for America.

Penny, thanks for being with us.

- It's great being here, thanks, happily.

- Penny, on the surface,the Equal Rights Amendment,

sounds pretty uncontroversial,noncontroversial,

something I wish we can all agree,

but your organizationsays, if it becomes law,

the ERA would actually

remove protections for women, explain.

- In a couple of ways actually.

The ERA, let's just remember,

the ERA is something that'sbeen around since the '70s

and actually couldn't gainenough traction in enough states

to actually become law, it wasnever ratified by 38 states.

Couple states added it later,

Virginia was the last, just recently,

but that time table hadexpired and meanwhile,

several states wanted torescind the ratification.

So that's why Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

said that they needed to start over,

proponents need to start over legally

for it to actually happen.

But beyond that, this is an issue,

and I'm not just saying this,

NARAL has specificallytold their constituents,

that this is about breaking down

any prohibitions in anystate against abortion.

This is really aboutcreating the inevitability

on a federal level forabortion to be legal,

any reason, any number, allpaid for by the taxpayer.

And this is not something we just made up,

we've already seen it happen in both

Connecticut and in New Mexico,

in which they used state ERA's

to break down the abilityfor there to be limitations

on taxpayer funding for abortion.

So there's a couple of different issues.

There's an issue of abortion on demand,

that this would create.

And then also of coursethere's about 800 laws

that are sex specific.

That particularly protect women.

Like the Pregnancy Discrimination Act,

the Equal Opportunity Act,

others that have specificprotections for women

and this would take away

the ability for there to besex specific legislation.

And it's the oppositeof what it claims to be,

it actually is very hurtful and harmful

to the well-being of women,

and we're gonna stand forthand speak truth into it.

- To your point,

this would remove legaldistinctions of gender.

Penny, what would theimplications there be

and what's kind of the fear?

- Well, and you kindof touched on it there

when you said the word gender.

The question of our day, really,

and we're seeing that playout through the Equality Act,

we're seeing it in court cases,

is the definition of sex.

Does sex mean male andfemale biological sex

or does it mean however you feel?

And if you break down the distinction,

that there is certain rulesthat need to protect women,

biological women needs specific help,

maybe it has to do with lawsdealing with sex crimes.

Should women be forced to register

to be in the military?

Which was an early issue right?

So that's the question of the day,

do we deserve specialprotection in certain areas

because biologically we needthem or should those all end?

- Penny you alluded tothis in the last answer.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg,supreme court justice,

one of the little icons on the bench,

said that she would like tosee the effort start over,

if that's how she feels,

what does this say about howthis legislation would fare

if it was held up in apotential court battle?

- Well in a court battle Ithink that they would lose

based on the facts of the case.

You even have, again, Ruth Bader Ginsburg

cannot vote with them.

And so she's the far left of the court.

So I think that it's important though,

that we speak into this issuebecause it sounds so pretty.

It's really about everythingrelating to abortion,

that's what the ERA really stands for.

- What are you encouraging your supporters

to do on this issue?

- They need to talk to their senators,

and of course the House is voting,

I think tomorrow, on this.

So they can talk to theHouse members and senators

and speak out against it.

And as women, and remember,

it's women that defeatedthe ERA the last time.

Concerned Women forAmerica came into being

because Beverly LaHaye wasout front working along

with Phillis Schlafly and others,

in order to speak up forwomen, speak up for the unborn,

speak up for women who were receiving

social security benefitsbecause they were widows

or they were homemakers.

All of that's at risk.

- All right Penny Nance withConcerned Women for America.

- Thank you.