National Organization for Women

Message to all NOW Members from President, Betty Friedan

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN

TO: All members of NOW

FROM: Betty Friedan, President

DATE: January 15 1968

For your information, and to guide your action in 1968 as a member of NOW the enclosed documents constitute the basic reports and policy positions adopted by the Second National Conference of the National Organization for Women (NOW) in Washington, D.C., November 18/19, 1967.

Of the total NOW membership of 1,122, the conference was attended by 105 women and men from California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

The conference opened with the report of the president (Document I), detailing the progress of NOW in its first year of existence and proposing a Bill of Rights for Women in 1968 to be presented to all political parties and candidates as a touchstone for the coming election year.

The first article of NOW’s Bill of Rights for Women in 1968 is the long-delayed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. After a special all-conference discussion, the following resolution presented by the National Capital Area chapter of NOW was approved by a vote of 82 for, 3 against, with 12 abstentions:

“WHEREAS the National Organization for Women (NOW) is incorporated for the purpose of taking action to achieve equal rights and responsibilities in all aspects of citizenship, public service, employment, education, and family life; and

WHEREAS NOW is actively assisting women workers in seeking to invoke the protection of the United States Constitution to strike down statutes and official practices which deprive women of equal job opportunities; and

WHEREAS other classes of persons have been adjudged full recognition by the courts of complete equality without class distinction; and

WHEREAS the Equal Rights Amendment would unequivocally secure the right to equal treatment under the law without differentiation based on sex; and

WHEREAS opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment in the past was principally based on the presumed need for special “protective” labor legislation for women, the basis for which opposition Congress has removed by the enactment of the equal opportunity provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and

WHEREAS there are now pending in Congress various joint resolutions, such as S.J. Res.54 and H.J.Res.52, which would amend the U.S.Constitution to provide that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex”;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT NOW urge the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to immediately report favorably on the Equal Rights Amendment and call upon the Ninetieth Congress to approve this amendment, without qualification, for submission to the States for ratification.”

Articles 2 through 6 of the Bill of Rights (see Document I, page 5) were approved at appropriate points by vote of the conference. Article 7 was approved with slightly different wording, following the second all-conference discussion on the question of abortion. By a vote of 57 for, 14 against, the conference approved the following resolution:

“NOW endorses the principle that it is a basic right of every woman to control her reproductive life, and therefore NOW supports the furthering of the sexual revolution of our century by pressing for widespread sex education, provision of birth control information and contraceptives, and urges that all laws penalizing abortion be repealed.”

The position paper on which the all-conference discussion of the equal Rights Amendment was based was mailed to all members of NOW with the call to the national conference. The key section of the lengthy position paper on which the abortion discussion was based is included here as Document II. The other sections of the NOW position paper on abortion will be sent to chapter convenors and can also be obtained by writing to national headquarters. Copies of the entire NOW Bill of Rights for Women in 1968 will shortly be printed in final form and will be available in bulk to carry out the following resolution also adopted by the conference:

“BE IT RESOLVED THAT the national officers be directed to implement the Bill of Rights for Women in 1968 by urging support by appropriate officials of the executive and legislative branches of Government and other organization specifically the President of the United States and members of Congress and the State Commissions on the Status of women, and by the Republican and Democratic parties by inclusion in their party platforms.”

Document III details legal procedures to be used in job discrimination ease a blank to be used by individual victims of job discrimination or by NOW chapters aiding such victims, and certain economic facts about job discrimination as presented- and discussed at the Training Session on Fighting Job Discrimination which was conducted by the NOW Legal Committee and Aileen Hernandez NOW Vice President-East, formerly a member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The report of the Legal Committee was dramatized by the appearance before the conference of three victims of job discrimination, Georgiana Sellers, Anna Casey and Lena Moore, who were denied higher paying jobs with the Colgate Palmolive company in Indiana because of new weight limit restrictions imposed on women workers. With long-distance guidance from NOW’s Legal Committee, these women were able to act as their own lawyers in appealing pernicious court decisions on job discrimination which threatened to nullify Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as far as women are concerned. The conference urged the utmost haste in setting up and raising money for the tax exempt NOW Legal Defense and Educational Fund to help fight the increasing number of such cases seeking help from NOW. A major resolution later voted by the conference reads as follows:

WHEREAS NOW is vitally concerned with the existing and continuing disadvantages to working women raising out of state protective laws applicable only to women,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that chapters of NOW in states having protective labor laws applicable only to women, on a priority basis, seek to: (l) amend these laws to include men under those protections which establish fair labor standards, and (2) repeal those laws which raise barriers to employment based on sex.

Document IV comprises the reports of the NOW Task Forces on the Family, Discrimination in Education, Equal Employment Opportunity, Political Rights and Responsibilities, Women in Religion, Women in Poverty, and the Image of Women, as well as the report of the NOW Campus Coordinating Committee. Each one of the reports was approved by the conference, with separate votes also taken on the specific action resolutions recommended for NOW priority in 1968.

Every member of NOW is urged to read carefully all of these documents, for they comprise in total the national policy of NOW for 1968, implementing our Statement of Purpose in terms of the most urgent needs for our action during the crucial year ahead. Not every member or chapter of NOW will be equally interested in every aspect of our national program. Every chapter and member of NOW is urged to be creative in proposing and carrying out actions that will be most effective achieving any or all parts of this program in accordance with your own local situation. On the issues of our greatest national priority we shall continue to devise concerted national demonstrations, as we did most successfully in our National Day of Demonstration, December 14, 1967, against EEOC laxity in the matter of sex- segregated Help Wanted ads. This day of demonstration, which was voted as one of the final acts of the national conference, saw concerted activity of NOW members in New York, Washington, Atlanta, San Francisco and Chicago, joined by Milwaukee, Madison, Indiana and Iowa. On some issues, not the same kind of action may be appropriate in every state, For instance, NOW members in New York, where Governor Rockefeller has called for immediate reform of the abortion laws, may wish to take action on the abortion question which members in some other states where this has not even been publicly discussed might not consider appropriate at this time. In such states NOW members are urged first to educate themselves, in order to begin educating the public, by studying NOW position papers on the policy adopted by NOW, which is the first public expression of the voice of women, as well as men, on this. NOW’s stand, as set forth in the enclosed position papers, is not the same so-called “abortion reform” position, and in fact is a new position in the United States.

Document V consists of the press release issued at the press conference held Monday morning in Washington following the close of the national conference, and the report of the NOW Public Relations Committee. Local chapters or NOW leaders might use some local action endorsing this program or pinpointing a local target for it, as a lead in issuing this same press release to your own newspapers, radio, and TV. You will find in the press release a list of the officers and board members elected for the coming year.

Dedicated as we are to action and not just words in NOW, many of those attending the conference stayed over in Washington to go to Capitol Hill on Monday to present our Bill of Rights for women in 1968, and our sentiments about the failure of the Administration to adequately enforce the sex discrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act, to John Macy, who met with us on behalf of President Johnson and to the offices of Senators Eugene McCarthy, Robert Kennedy, Charles Percy, and our own Senators and Congressmen. Now it is up to every member and chapter of NOW to act to bring our Bill of Rights for Women in 1968 to the attention of local political representatives and Candidates as well as to your representatives in Washington, and to devise new ways of exposing and combating sex discrimination in employment, education, the political parties, churches, and mass media. In a year when women will represent at least 51% of the vote, we can, if we begin to act now, direct major national attention to our unfinished revolution of full equality for women in truly equal partnership with men.

Finally, the Financial Report of the Secretary/Treasurer, indicates that although we have over 1,100 members of NOW our bank balance at the end of 1967 was only $1,062.35 and that, with this mailing, will be close to the vanishing point. In order to implement the goals we have agreed upon for 1968, it is urgently necessary that every member use the enclosed envelope to pay their dues and make any further contribution possible.

Happy New Year for NOW!

Betty Friedan

President

National Organization for Women

EEOC Nationwide Demonstrations

(12/14/67)

NOW held simultaneous demonstrations at EEOC field offices across the country. The demonstration sites included New York, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Chicago, and Atlanta, and emphasized the EEOC’s failure to end sex-segregated job advertising. Demonstrators in San Francisco included national NOW Treasurer Inka O’Hanrahan, Vice President Aileen Hernandez, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon.

NOW demonstrates at EEOC field offices across the country!

NOW held simultaneous demonstrations at EEOC offices across the country including New York, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Chicago, and Atlanta. Among the demonstrators in San Francisco were national NOW treasurer Inka O’Hanrahan, Vice President Aileen Hernandez, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. These demonstrations came after the failure of the EEOC to end sex-segregated job advertising.

Join NOW in this fight!

NOW Supports Cindy Judd Hill!

At the post-national conference press briefing, NOW announced support for Cindy Judd Hill, a music teacher, in her fight with a Pennsylvania school district. Hill was deprived of sabbatical study pay and later fired after she gave birth to a baby while on sabbatical leave obtaining her master’s degree. She had fulfilled all the requirements of her leave and received the degree, but had taken off one week to have the baby.

Stand with NOW to support Cindy Judd Hill, too!

Minutes from the Second National Conference of NOW

Minutes of the National Organization for Women Conference

The annual meeting of the National Organization for Women was held in the meeting rooms of the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC, November 18, and 19, 1967. The meeting was called at 9:00 AM, Saturday, November 18, 1967, in the Chinese Room.

President Betty Friedan presided over the meeting; Nancy Homer was the recording secretary.

Officers present were:	Kathryn Clarenbach, Chairman of the Board
	Betty Friedan, President
	[???], Vice President East
	[???], Vice President West

Officers absent were: Caroline Davis, Secretary Treasurer

About 100 members were present

An introduction to the meeting was given by President Betty Friedan, outlining the policy of NOW and the work done in the past year. NOW is working for the enforcement of the sex clause in the 1964 Civil Rights Bill by helping women in job discrimination cases. NOW is tired of window dressing and would wish women to be represented in all major policy making decisions of government, state, and local organizations. In the 1968 elections let us make it clear that women demand representation in political parties. Congressmen, et al. must be told that we will not support them unless women are considered.

At this conference these propositions shall be considered: 1. Considering the rights of women: Pregnant women must have a right to work. A woman must recognize her rights of an American citizen not only as a mother. Child care money should be deducted from taxes in a working home. Women’s right to work laws must be enforced. And lastly, the right of every woman to control her sexual life shall be considered.

Throughout the world the state of women is the same. Only in Sweden does it seem men and women are working together and achieving.
Legal Forces Report: Made by Marguerite Rawalt

Thirty members of NOW who are lawyers and judges are working on job discrimination cases without fees. There has been no meeting of this committee due to the geographical distribution problem.

NOW must adopt the by-laws of the organization to get a tax exemption. We must also set up a legal and defense fund—there are already 25 job discrimination NOW is handling.

So far there has not been a single court decision that has enforced section 7 of the Civil Rights Act. Neither the Attorney General nor the EEOC has intervened.

Credential Committee: Report made by Barbara Ireton

There are 89 registrants for the conference excluding officers. Rooms to be used for the conference are the Pan Am, Chinese, and Maryland rooms.

Betty Friedan announced the Task Force meetings would meet for 1 ½hours. The committees would report back to the delegates Sunday morning.

Task Forces:

Women in Employment
Women in Poverty
Women in Education
Marriage and Family
Image of Woman
Women in Religion
Political Rights of Women

Adjourned 11:00 AM

Reconvened 2:00 PM, Saturday, November 18, 1967

President Betty Friedan presided.

Betty Friedan: The purpose of this afternoon meeting is to discuss and vote upon two resolutions: A resolution urging the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to approve the Equal Rights amendment and to call the Ninetieth Congress to approve this amendment, for the submission to the States for ratification.

And a resolution endorsing the principle that it is a basic right of every woman to control her reproductive life, and that those laws preventing abortion should be repealed.

As a preliminary to discussion of the Equal Rights Amendment, an example of what the law would amend was introduced. If an Equal Rights Amendment was passed, job discrimination would be outlawed. As of now, women are discriminated against by state protective laws. If the Equal Rights Amendment was passed and enforced, if the fair practices section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was enforced, state protective laws would be illegal.

An example of a job discrimination case NOW helped was the case of three women from Indiana who were denied higher paying jobs with the Colgate-Palmolive Company because of new weight-limit restrictions imposed on women workers. Georgiana Sellers, Ann Casey, and Lena Moore filed a complaint against the company for job discrimination, basing their complaint on Title 7 of the Civil Rts. Act. In the state of Indiana there is no state protective law prohibiting women from lifting 35 lbs. or more. To win the case, the company employers went beyond the borders of the state and enforced the protective law in their factory because in two other of their factories in different states they had the protective laws. The judge ruled in the company’s favor. The case is on appeal.

Pauli Murray recommended a fund be set up for job discrimination cases. The recommendation was set aside for future discussion.

The resolution calling for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment was passed out and read aloud:

Resolution

WHEREAS, the National Organization of Women (NOW) is incorporated for the purposes of taking action to achieve equal rights and responsibilities in all aspects of citizenship, public service, employment, education, and family life; and

WHEREAS, women have been unsuccessfully seeking equal rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution through litigation extending over a full century; and

WHEREAS, NOW is actively assisting women workers in seeking to invoke the protection of the United States Constitution to strike down statutes and official practices which deprive women of equal job opportunities; and

WHEREAS, other classes of women persons have been adjudged full recognition by the courts of complete equality without class distinction; and

WHEREAS, the Equal Rights Amendment would unequivocally secure the right to equal treatment under the law without differentiation based on sex; and

WHEREAS, opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment in the past was principally based on the presumed need for special “protective” labor legislation for women, the basis for which opposition Congress has removed by the enactment of the equal employment opportunity provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and

WHEREAS, there is now pending in Congress various joint resolutions, such as S.J. Res. 54 and H.J. Res. 52, which would amend the U.S. Constitution to provide that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

BE IT RESOLVED THAT, NOW urge the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to immediately report favorably on the Equal Rights Amendment and call upon the Ninetieth Congress to approve this amendment, without qualification, for submission to the States for ratification.

The resolution was read and followed by discussion from the floor.

Wilma Heide: Before we do anything, we must agree on the policy and principal of the resolution, not on timing or strategy.

Pauli Murray: Would like to make a substitute motion at a later time.

P. Indritz: The amendment will not be passed at this time. This amendment does not protect against company discrimination, just against state and federal discriminatory laws. We must have strategy and timing. This time is not good. No attention will be paid to the bill. First let us occupy ourselves with building a large membership, building a large fund, knowing where the areas of discrimination are and then attacking those areas.

Barbara Burris: This resolution is a tactic to be used. Either way the amendment goes— passed or not—women would know which senators are interested or not.

Patricia McDonald: We should focus our attention on this amendment. If we got support from others, then we would also be supported by the senators.

Elizabeth Farians: We must put support behind this bill.

Grace Cox: 61 men and women have placed their names on this petition: We support this resolution whether it passes or not. We must vote yes in support of this resolution.

Julia Arri: Moved the resolution.

Pauli Murray: I would like to make a substitute resolution.

(Unparliamentary discussion among delegates as to whether this is proper, to make a substitute motion when a move to vote on the resolution was just called for.)

Hernandez: We must have all sides heard—both positive and negative.

Parliamentarian: Parliamentary Procedure calls for an open debate. The discussion must continue if a party does not want the debate closed.

A motion to close the debate was defeated by a ⅔ majority.

Ben Newfeld: As far as tactics and strategy is concerned, does the board decide this?

Betty Friedan: Yes, strategy and tactics are involved in board decisions.

Newfeld: Even if NOW organization gets votes in support of the amendment, three fourths of the states are required to pass the amendment; it is very

doubtful that we will get that kind of support.

Farians: We should, instead of pushing it, put it down on record that we are in favor of the amendment and let it go at that.

Delores Alexander: I move we have two votes: one vote to decide how much time we will spend on this discussion and the other to vote on the resolution itself.

Pauli Murray: We should not take action on this serious proposal at this meeting. Let us consider alternatives.

(Unparliamentary discussion among members.)

Pauli Murray: The substitute motion I make is this: We must first consider whether women’s rights are covered under the 5th and 14th amendments before we consider this resolution. If NOW takes a strong stand on the resolution as it stands we will alienate organizations who have given us support until now. We would form a committee to study the question!

Barbara Ireton: We have many organizations behind us already.

(Unparliamentary Discussion)

[???]: We don’t want to appear like women who just want to make noise.

[???]: In Maryland the amendment was passed unanimously. Why couldn’t we get support?

Grace Cox: The alternative motion must be heard.

Dorthy Haener: This is not an opportune time to give NOW support to the resolution supporting the Equal Rights Amendment. The UAW, which I officially represent, supplies NOW with supplies and services such as free paper, printing, mailing etc. If this resolution is passed, since the UAW is against it, then the services will no longer be supplied. I think we need support from organizations, and although I am personally in support of the resolution, I do not see how the support of the amendment will accomplish much at this time. Consider Pauli’s substitute motion.

Cruthers: We must get our rights. In the political area, if the Equal Rights amendment is not passed, it will hamstring women in politics.

Delores Alexander: Will NOW be split because of the Equal Rights resolution?

[???]: Why shouldn’t we bring the Equal Rights bill before Congress? Many bills have not been passed the first time they appear before the Congress. At least we will make a start.

Symchat: If we give this Rights Amendment support, many organizations who are supporting us will withdraw.

Marguerite Rawalt: In 1923 the 1st bill on civil rights was brought to Congress. It did not succeed. We received the protective amendment in lieu of civil rights. We have never had an equal job law, as yet we have had no decisions favorable under Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act—All we have is the right to

vote.

Inka O’Hanrahan: We must stand up and be counted. We are individuals and we want equal opportunity under law. Vote against the substitute motion.

A motion was made and seconded to vote on the substitute motion.

The substitute motion was read: To set up a committee to study the question whether or not women’s rights were covered by the 5th and 14th amendments, and when the study is completed the board will bring up the question again.

Vote on substitute motion:

Yes 15
No 82

The substitute motion was defeated, and the debate on the Equal Rights Amendment.

[???]: I move that instead of the word equal we change the resolution so it will read human rights.

Pauli Murray: I am in favor of this.

Pat Trainer: I am in favor of the equal rights amendment. I must resign from NOW if human rights is substitute for equal rights. Human rights is too watered down.

[???]: I make a motion we should close debate on the first resolution. Vote on the resolution, then as a second motion we should discuss the wording of the resolution as to whether it will read equal or human rights.

The motion was made and seconded.

A vote on the motion to close debate on the Equal Rights resolution was passed by a ⅔ majority.

The resolution was read:

BE IT RESOLVED THAT, NOW urges the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to immediately report favorably on the Equal Rights Amendment and call upon the Ninetieth Congress to approve this amendment, without qualification, for submission to the States for ratification.

Vote on Resolution

Yes 82
No 3
Abstentions 12
The Abstentions are recorded.

The second motion, made stating that we should discuss the wording of the resolution was not voted on. It was decided the wording could be worked out later.

There was a short break before the meeting discussed the resolution on abortion.

Announcement by Grace Cox: NOW will be incorporated in DC in two weeks.

The meeting discussed that the following proposal be added as an amendment to the United States Constitution:

The right of a woman to prevent conception and with proper Medical safeguards to terminate her pregnancy shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state.

Alice Rossi read her paper on the subject of abortion entitled:

Sociological Argument In Support of Effect of Denial of Right to a Woman to Control Her Own Reproductive Life

AND added that reform bills aimed at revising the abortion laws were first presented in 1959. Since that time there have been thirty states in which bills were presented and only in a few states had the bills passed.

Discussion from the Floor:

[???]: It is the constitutional right of each woman. This is part of the sexual revolution.

[???]: This resolution would be a step to overcome the plight of the poor.

[???]: We must have responsible parentage.

[???]: Negro women are forced to get abortions so they will not lose their welfare checks.

[???]: So far not a thought has been given to women, who are the most concerned on the question of abortion. A conference that was held in Washington a while ago had not one woman in attendance.

[???]: We must have an education campaign.

[???]: How old must you be to be sexually free?

Rossi: If no harm will come of it, People should be free to do as they chose. If they want pre-marital relations, then let them.

Indritz: NOW should not support pre-marital relations.

Edith [???]: I suppose few of you have heard of disexity. This is a relatively simple, painless operation performed on the male to prevent conception. This is the safest possible way but this is never considered in any discussion on birth control—

Page Palmer: People will not join this organization if we adopt this resolution.

Kevin Sweeney: People will not become members—the American Law Institute’s bills are sufficient.

Rossi: The ALI bills are very limited. Abortions may be performed only in the case a woman’s physical or mental health would be impaired, or in case of rape, incest, or other felonious intercourse. The abortions may be okayed only by a panel of five—this committee may stall around if they want to—by then it is too

late to obtain an abortion or take your case to another panel. It is a woman who is responsible for the care of a child. Let it be her decision.

[???]: If we do not take a stand, a strong stand on this issue we will take a loss in membership of girls in their 20’s. We women must have courage to take this stand.

[???]: Any reform must result from pressure for that reform. I joined NOW to take a stand on this issue and to apply pressure for reform.

Farians: The Catholic members of NOW will quit even though many things are changing in the church. Some avant-garde theologians are already debating the question of abortion.

[???]: I am against murder.

[???]: What are you putting on Me? Each woman has a right to decide whether or not she will or will not have an abortion.

[???]: This stand on abortion is not especially controversial. People are very interested in the question of abortion.

[???]: There are other organizations devoted to this question. Why does NOW have to be? Show me another organization and I’ll back out of this one.

[???]: There are other, new responsibilities. I recommend we bring this question up next year—

[???]: We need to get started on the RIGHT tract—

Fox: WE have a grave responsibility to other members. Don’t table the abortion stand but don’t alienate people in the process.

Rawalt: We have our newspaper image to think of. Why not leave local chapters to okay abortion or not?

[???]: We must be cautious. We don’t want to be considered a NUT group.

[???]: This is not a radical consideration. This is a major question.

Eliza Pashal: This is not a radical question. In Atlanta, Georgia, a group of men came to me to ask what I thought of them organizing a committee to study the problems of abortion.

Wilma Reido: We want social change—this is institutional change. Should we not instead educate people?

Graham: To influence the legislature we must be a strong, large, powerful organization. This organization will never be large and powerful—but we can be controversial. Our ideas will be heard. NOW will be in the forefront we have to take a stand now.

Rossi: If we decide to go along with the ALI reform bills instead of the resolution—then we aren’t concerned with the people— e.g. the negro communities’ problems of control of illegitimacy. We don’t want to be associated with ALI. Abortions are unlawful, but in order to receive government welfare checks, negro women must break the law to receive the abortion law that the same government made.

Psychiatrists rarely tell the real reason abortions have such an emotional effect on women—it could be because it is unlawful and they feel guilty but instead they say it is sado-masochistic; a woman wants an abortion so she can feel guilty about the sexual act. This is silly.

[???]: We must take a bold stand on principle.

[???]: A person must take good care of the children one wants.

[???]: To be against abortion is the clergy’s idea— not God’s decision. There has been so many reforms in the Catholic Church—these reforms have not been made by God but by men. Today clergy can marry, but for centuries it has been assumed it was against God’s will that priests should marry.

O’Hanrahan: All things concerned are decided by the individual. This is the age of the individual, no the age of tutelage by dogma.

[???]: How much abortion:

Rossi: moved and seconded that the resolution be put to a vote.

(Unparliamentary discussion.)

The meeting ended with Muriel Fox making a substitute motion: She proposed to meet with Alice Rossi to form a new statement.

Vote on the substitute motion.

Yes 32
No 42

The substitute motion should have been defeated.

The meeting was adjourned.

Reconvened 8:30 PM Saturday, November 18, 1967 in the Chinese Room.

Rossi read the substitute resolution: We offer an alternative. We withdraw the first resolution and offer instead:

NOW endorses the basic policy of women to control their own reproduction. We therefore encourage sex education, distribution of contraceptives, and the reappraisal of existing abortion laws.

Discussion from the floor

Ti-Grace Atkinson: This substitute is a questioning not a stand, not a principle. It is a compromise.

[???]: Rights and equality come with responsibility. If women want rights in other areas they must be responsible for their own reproduction.

[???]: The revised statement is good. It can benefit the progressive state of New York and also the others.

[???]: Most states have studied this issue as it is stated in the present substitute motion. Won’t legislatures say they have already studied it?

Rossi: Senators should want to hear of this principle.

Indritz: The words of the resolution should be changed. Instead of reappraisal use the word challenge.

Friedan: We can’t weaken NOW. We must get a statement that most people will agree on.

New York delegate: People are worried about the press image. We must go onward.

Friedan: We should not compromise—we must pioneer. The basic dialogue must go on with the legislature.

Indritz: All laws penalizing abortion should be repealed. Substitute this phrase. We will not be watering down the resolution.

[???]: NOW should endorse the principle that woman control her reproductive processes and that it should be a matter between her physician and herself.

Burris: This question of abortion can only be answered yes or no.

Ti-Grace Atkinson: We are faced with an issue of integrity. We want to be pioneers, but we can not—so we should let people who want to be, be the pioneers. Be courageous or stay silent.

[???]: There are many variables in the opposition to a watered down resolution.

[???]: A husband can divorce his wife if she obtains an abortion without his permission in some states.

[???]: We either take a stand on abortion or not. Why do we need a conscience all of a sudden?

Discussion from the floor ended. A motion was made and seconded that a vote should be taken on the resolution. (Allowing for the change: “and all laws penalizing abortion shall be repealed.”)

Vote on the resolution concerning abortion

Yes 57
No 14

The resolution was passed.

The meeting then had a talk on job discrimination. Aileen Hernandez, a past employee of the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) introduced Sonia Pressman, a present employee of the EEOC, to talk on the subject of the action a woman can take against job discrimination and what part the EEOC takes in the case. Sonia Pressman briefly outlined what Title 7 covers, explaining that federal law in most cases conflict with state protective laws. Employers can not run segregated job ads in the papers. Insurance benefits must be equal for both men and women. AN employer can not refuse to employ a married women. There are many court cases resulting from Title 7; many more cases than were expected when the word sex was added to the Civil Rights act. Sonia Pressman then reviewed the legal procedures one should take in discrimination cases.

Aileen Hernandez: Title 7 is difficult to interpret. That is why women are having hard times wining cases. When the committee worked on the Civil Rights Bill and added the word sex, they did not believe it would be taken seriously;

The question of sex and that of race, many people think is too

different. The way in which the EEOC operated when I was employed by them, convinced me that there is little commitment of the US Federal government on the sex discrimination law. NOW has challenged the EEOC because they do not have fair representation of women in their committee. We must have equal representation.

The meeting was adjourned: 11:00 PM.

NOW’s Second National Conference, adoption of Bill of Rights for Women

At NOW’s second national conference on November 18th and 19th, the National Organization for Women adopted a Bill of Rights for Women which, among other things, calls on Congress to immediately pass the Equal Rights Amendment, and lists among its goals the repeal of all abortion laws and publicly-funded child care. NOW is now the first national organization to endorse the legalization of abortion.

Dr. Kay Clarenbach, Chair of the Board, and Betty Friedan, President, introduce the Bill of Rights for Women
Cred.: The Sisterhood by Marcia Cohen

Report of the Legal Committee to NOW

REPORT… OF THE LEGAL COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN

TO: The Board of Directors and the members of the National Organization for Women, at the First Annual Conference, Washington, D.C. November 18-19, 1967.

The organizing Conference of the National Organization for Women, at its October, 1966 meeting, authorized a Legal Committee to assist in litigation involving discrimination based on sex. The organizing conference was particularly concerned about the Mengelkoch case which had just been filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District, California, by women factory workers who were denied promotions to better paying jobs, and denied opportunity to earn time and a half for overtime because of a California law prohibiting women (but not men) from working more than 8 hours per day or 48 hours per week.

The Committee. There are at least 30 members in NOW who are attorneys and judges. We would like to regard every one of them as a member of the Legal Committee and to count upon each of them to serve as court attorney or as consultant, according to their circumstances. My Memorandum to all these members of the bar November 9, 1967 invited them to indicate whether they could serve as an attorney of record and enter appearance and conduct a case when one arose in their home jurisdiction; and whether they would be willing to take a case from beginning, either without fee as a NOW representative, or by referral, for a woman alleging sex discrimination, if the litigant is able to pay reasonable fees.

Because of geographical separation over the country, there have been no meetings of the full committee. Moreover, communication by correspondence has had the handicap of working without operating headquarters and staff. The attorneys in Washington area have met when developments in pending litigation demanded. It has been a single individual, or two or three together, who has carried the burden in each piece of litigation and in other assignments carried out by this Committee. Positions taken in litigation must be correlated through the Chairman so that the Organization might avoid being placed in irreconcilable positions in our efforts to achieve legal equality. It would be my pleasure to name each attorney and give individual credit for his or her efforts. Attorneys from California to New York to Washington, D.C. have worked without fee. However, this report will be made in the impersonal term of “Legal Committee” leaving individual laurels to other channels.

In one short year of existence, remarkable progress has resulted from the devotion and skill of attorney members who have worked in their “Leisure Hours” to contribute to NOW’s drive toward full partnership of women. Within such time, the Legal Committee has served as summarized below.

Bylaws. The Legal Committee hammered out the final draft of national bylaws which was then presented to and approved by the Board of Directors at its February 22-23, 1967 meeting in Chicago as correctly implementing the organizational conference directives and actions. These bylaws were then officially adopted by the corporation as the bylaws of the incorporated NOW.

The Committee was then called upon by the Board to draft standard bylaws for chapters, a task carried out through considerable correspondence. Standard bylaws were ordered and approved to simplify tax exemptions as well as to provide good framework for an organization to grow. After thorough discussion and refinement by the Board of Directors, it adopted a Standard Bylaws for Chapters consisting of 15 Sections. Provision is made therein for the chapter to adopt additional chapter bylaws to implement this necessary framework, and to meet the particular needs of the individual chapter, it being required only that there by no conflict with the standard and required sections. This will now pave the way for needed tax exemptions.

Incorporation. The legal services and drafting of necessary papers together with secretarial services involved, to bring about incorporation of the organization were the work of two members, acting under authority of the Board. A Certificate of Incorporation was issued February 10, 1967 by the Recorder of Deeds, District of Columbia, Washington, D.C. to the National Organization for Women under the provisions of the District of Columbia Non-profit Corporation Act.

Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Members of this Committee have from the beginning approved and urged the establishment of a Legal Defense and Educational Fund within the provisions of Section 501 (c)(3) Internal Revenue Code, which would thus be equipped to attract contributions which would be tax deductible, the fund designed to serve as the medium of giving legal assistance in court litigation. The Board of Directors, meeting in Madison, Wisconsin September 17, 1967 unanimously approved this recommendation of the Committee and authorized and directed the officers of NOW to “proceed forthwith to incorporate such legal and education fund” in New York. One of our prominent attorneys of New York is handling this matter.

Individual requests for legal aid. The Chairman has had aid and assistance of members in processing and replying to some 25 individual appeals for assistance or legal advice in cases of alleged discrimination. This requires the reading and analysis of pages of records and weighing the presented evidence against the law. The cases which seemed to have merit were answered as carefully as possible with our recommendations as to possible courses. We have not been in position of course to undertake to be counsel for these persons from widely separated areas of our country. As chapters grow in number, these instances can have better and more effective action there. We simply did our best on our own time and expense. A funded Legal Defense Fund is needed as the number of reported cases increases.

Court decisions. To the knowledge of this Chairman, there has not been a single court decision which has enforced the sex-discrimination provisions of Title VII. Nor, to our knowledge, has there been a single instance in which the Attorney General of the United States has intervened, as he may do under Title VII, on grounds of sex discrimination. Nor, has there come to knowledge or attention of this Committee, any instance of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission entering or assisting in litigation where sex discrimination was at issue.

On the other hand, there have been adverse court decisions under Title VII. In Thelma Bowe et al v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. the U.S. District Court Southern District Indiana, handed down a decision on June 30, 1967 upholding company policy regulations under which women factory workers were confined to lower paid “finishing” jobs on the ground that it is proper to “protect” women from jobs requiring the lifting of more than 35 pounds. There was no state law involved; the decision is a limitation on the Federal statute, Title VII in its alleged ban on sex-discrimination which can be broadly expanded to many other restrictions upon women employees. The NOW Board has authorized the Legal Committee to assist plaintiffs on appeal. Three of the plaintiffs only have sought the assistance of our organization.

The case of Mengelkoch v. State of California filed in Federal Court in October 1966, is still undecided. The pleadings therein challenge the maximum hours law of California as a violation of Title VII, and as unconstitutional under the 14th amendment, by denying the right to pursue lawful employment without due process of law and in violation of equal protection of the laws. As authorized, NOW members of the Legal Committee prepared a brief sustaining plaintiffs, which was proffered to the Court as an amicus curiae brief. The brief was later filed as the brief of plaintiff, Velma Mengelkoch, when her original attorney was superseded by a California attorney and member of NOW, the brief being signed by the Chairman of the Legal Committee, and the California attorney. The original attorneys in the case failed to argue and support the 14th amendment issue when the case was heard on a motion to dismiss. This case seeks a special three-judge court on the ground of constitutional issue. If upheld, appeal would lie direct to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Advertising guidelines under Title VII. The Committee prepared a petition filed in December 1966, urging that the discriminatory guidelines on sex-segregated classified advertising in newspapers be rescinded, and that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission substitute clear and unequivocal guidelines suggested by Congresswoman Martha Griffiths, the wording of which was included. This led to public hearings in May, 1967 by the EEOC on several issues under Title VII, including advertising, state labor laws, and pension and retirement plans. In connection with the May hearings, NOW submitted proposed guidelines on state labor laws as well.

Participation in interviews with officials. The Chairman and other Committee members have participated in face to face interviews by NOW delegations headed by President Friedan, insisting upon serious enforcement of the Sex-discrimination provisions of Title VII: On November 26, 1966 with all members of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; on January 12, 1967 with Attorney General Ramsey Clark; on January 13, 1967 with Chairman John Macy, Jr. and all other members of the Civil Service Commission, Mr. Macy being also Special Presidential Assistant.

The Committee has one recommendation: it urges the officers to take such action as will at the earliest possible moment set up and activate a Legal Defense and Education Fund as a means of furthering the most urgent needs of the organization.

In behalf of a loyal group, the Legal Committee:

Marguerite Rawalt, Chairman

1801 16th St. N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20009

President Johnson signs Public Law 90-130 giving women in armed forces equal promotion!

On the 8th, President Johnson, signed into law Public Law 90-130, while retaining combat limitations, allows women in the Armed Forces equal promotion and retirement rights. This law also removed the 2% restriction on the number of women who could serve in the Armed Forces.

Another step towards the equality of employment for women!

Executive Order 11375 - Update

On October 13, 1967, Presidential Executive Order 11375 amended Executive Order 11246 to prohibit sex discrimination in employment by the federal government and by contractors doing business with the government. A NOW victory!!

Join NOW in this continued fight for equal employment opportunity for women!

Formation of the Legal Defense and Education Fund

On September 17, 1967, the NOW Board of Directors, meeting in Madison, WI, voted unanimously to approve the formation of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund (NOW LDEF). Although the Legal Defense and Education fund has been founded by NOW leaders and will continue to collaborate with NOW on many feminist issues, the LDEF will be financially and operationally distinct from NOW.

National Organization for Women

Mission

Stay Updated

Message to all NOW Members from President, Betty Friedan