To the editor:

If the purpose of Marc Powers' front-page article Feb. 24 on the Equal Rights Amendment was to inform readers, why didn't it simply provide the wording of the amendment for the readers to evaluate for themselves? This is what the entire amendment says:

Section 1: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3: This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Please not that the amendment says nothing about abortion, nothing about same-sex marriage and nothing about females being victims.

Why Powers resorted to quoting a college sophomore concerning the ERA is a mystery, but he did. According to Powers, this student says, "Today's college women regard ERA as a non-issue." As a veteran university professor, I can assure you that today's college students, both men and women, do not consider the amendment a dead issue. The Feb. 16 lecture on the campus of Southeast Missouri State University given by Mary Mosely, executive director of the Missouri Equal Rights Amendment Fund, was attended by both female and male students, faculty, staff and citizens from the community. It was followed by a lively question-and-answer period.

If readers of the Missourian want to test the meaning of the ERA for themselves, they can simply replace the word "sex" with "race," "religion" or "color of skin."

It's hard enough for the average person to stay informed about current legislation, so why deliberately confuse the issue? Why kind of informed person would want to oppose equal protection of rights under the law for any citizen of the United States? The key word here is "informed."

The obvious bias of this article is predictable and tiring. More importantly, it insults the informed intelligence of the people of our city and region.

PAMELA HEARN

Cape Girardeau