Most women do not want to go into the

Most women do not want to go into the Army—at least not in a combat position. Proponents deny women will be forced into combat, yet in the ABC-News special report on ERA, broadcast on Jan. 22—an hour-long program that was heavily in favor of the Amendment—backers of ERA publicly admitted that the amendment would subject women to combat. The ERA would invalidate all state laws that require the husband to support his wife and family, because the Constitution would then prohibit any law that imposes an obligation on one sex that it does not impose of the other. For example, Colorado, one of the few states to adopt a state ERA Amendment as part of its state constitution, has given us a forecast of what absolute equality means when applied to the marriage contract. Under the Colorado law, a wife now shares equally in the obligation to support her family under pain of criminal conviction of a class-five felony. This is what equality means. No longer is it a crime in Colorado for a husband to abandon his wife.

State laws designed to help the widow would be nullified. For example, Florida has a law that gives a property-tax advantage to widows. It is a measure of the vindictiveness of the militant women that one of the leading female pro-ERA lawyers joined in (when the case was being heard by the Supreme Court) to try to persuade the Supreme Court to void this widows' advantage. Many pro-ERA lawyers cite the Florida law as an example of discriminatory legislation that ERA will eliminate.

In addition to aggressively pushing for abortion and comprehensive federal day care centers, ERA advocates have begun urging that every husband whose wife is not employed outside the home be required to pay doable Social Security taxes.

Finally, do we want a shift of power from state to federal by allowing Congress, for the first time, to legislate on such matters as marriage, the family, divorce, etc.?

GRACE N. BLAIR Viewtown