| | ''N.M. Right to Choose/Naral, Abortion & Reprod. Health Servs., Planned Parenthood of the Rio Grande v. Johnson'', 1999-NMSC-00 ¶¶ 43, 61, 43126 N.M. 788, 802, 806, 975 P.2d 841, 855, 859 (Nov. 25, 1998). | | ''N.M. Right to Choose/Naral, Abortion & Reprod. Health Servs., Planned Parenthood of the Rio Grande v. Johnson'', 1999-NMSC-00 ¶¶ 43, 61, 43126 N.M. 788, 802, 806, 975 P.2d 841, 855, 859 (Nov. 25, 1998). |
| | + | More generally, courts have held that state ERAs or similar “equal treatment” clauses in state constitutions require taxpayer-funded abortions in Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Colorado ''See Doe v. Maher'', Conn., 1986; ''State v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska'', 2001; ''Simat Corp. v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys.'', 2002; ''Humphreys v. Clinic for Women'', (Indiana 2003); ''Right to Choose v. Byrne'', (N.J. 1982). ''New Mexico Right to Choose — NARAL v. Johnson'', (1998); ''Colorado Civil Rights Commission v. Travelers Insurance Co.'' (1988).<ref>https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/leftists-resurrecting-equal-rights-amendment-to-make-us-constitution-pro-abortion</ref> |
| | The purpose of the ERA was to prohibit many legal distinctions between men and women, and boys and girls. An all-male draft or male-only combat regiments would presumably have become illegal.<ref>Anti-ERA Phyllis Schlafly quote</ref> But equal representation of boys and girls on sports teams, and the termination of all-boys or all-girls sports teams, could have been required by [[judicial supremacy]]. | | The purpose of the ERA was to prohibit many legal distinctions between men and women, and boys and girls. An all-male draft or male-only combat regiments would presumably have become illegal.<ref>Anti-ERA Phyllis Schlafly quote</ref> But equal representation of boys and girls on sports teams, and the termination of all-boys or all-girls sports teams, could have been required by [[judicial supremacy]]. |