One argument she addresses is the argument that this amendment will not solve the problem of sex discrimination, which she also states is completely irrelevant. “If the argument were used against a civil rights bill, as it has been used in the past, the prejudice that lies behind it would be embarrassing. Of course laws will not eliminate prejudice from the hearts of human beings. But that is no reason to allow prejudice to continue to be enshrined in our laws.” She also appeals to the fact that this amendment is necessary to clarify underlying issues throughout our legal system. A major issue she represent in her speech is that “In some States, restrictions are placed on a married woman who engages in an independent business. Women may not be chosen for some juries. Women even receive heavier criminal penalties than men who commit the same crime.” In her essay, Chisholm addresses the main argument against her thesis, the idea that “Opponents of the amendment claim its ratification would throw the law into a state of confusion and would result in much litigation to establish its meaning.” However the opponents overlook
One argument she addresses is the argument that this amendment will not solve the problem of sex discrimination, which she also states is completely irrelevant. “If the argument were used against a civil rights bill, as it has been used in the past, the prejudice that lies behind it would be embarrassing. Of course laws will not eliminate prejudice from the hearts of human beings. But that is no reason to allow prejudice to continue to be enshrined in our laws.” She also appeals to the fact that this amendment is necessary to clarify underlying issues throughout our legal system. A major issue she represent in her speech is that “In some States, restrictions are placed on a married woman who engages in an independent business. Women may not be chosen for some juries. Women even receive heavier criminal penalties than men who commit the same crime.” In her essay, Chisholm addresses the main argument against her thesis, the idea that “Opponents of the amendment claim its ratification would throw the law into a state of confusion and would result in much litigation to establish its meaning.” However the opponents overlook