♪ ♪ ♪ >> Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation next on "The Chavis Chronicles."

>> Major funding for "The Chavis Chronicles" is provided by the following.

At Wells Fargo, we are committed to diversity and understand our responsibility in supporting and empowering diverse communities.

Diversity and inclusion is integral to the way we work.

Supporting the financial health of our diverse customers and employees is one of the many ways we remain invested in inclusion for all today, tomorrow, and in the future.

American Petroleum Institute -- through the core elements of API's Energy Excellence Program, our members are committed to accelerating safety, environmental and sustainability progress throughout the natural-gas and oil industry in the U.S. and around the world.

You can learn more at api.org/apiEnergyExcellence.

Reynolds American, dedicated to building a better tomorrow for our employees and communities.

Reynolds stands against racism and discrimination in all forms and is committed to building a more diverse and inclusive workplace.

♪ ♪ >> We're very honored to have one of our nation's leading icons.

The name Eleanor Smeal is well-known not only in America, but throughout the world.

We're honored to have you on "The Chavis Chronicles."

>> Thank you so much.

I'm happy to be here.

>> Just talk to us about first your journey, Eleanor.

How did you become involved in being an advocate, a strong advocate, an organizer for the rights of women?

>> I started at Duke as an undergraduate for civil rights.

And then as I got older, I realized women didn't have any rights either.

Needed a lot of help.

And it was -- I don't know, it was natural almost.

At the time I got active, I was living in Pittsburgh and there was a lot of activity on abortion.

This is before Roe.

There was a lot of activity to make it legal.

And basically the National Organization for Women, the third chapter started in Pittsburgh and we were just in time.

We had a lot to do, let's put it that way.

But we thought we could do it all.

And we sued, we demonstrated, we picketed, and we saw a lot of change.

>> During the 1960s, there was a sort of a convergence between the civil rights movement and women's rights movement.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> What was it at Duke that really turned you on to start advocating for civil rights and women's rights?

>> Well, I got there, and I was so happy to get in.

But in those days, there was quota systems against women.

And in fact -- >> Even at the university?

>> Oh, yeah, yeah.

The quota system was very small.

And then I found out that there was tremendous discrimination.

I was shocked.

There was no African-Americans allowed, and very frustrated.

I did not know and got involved in the student movement.

You know, I couldn't quit because that would -- My parents were so happy that I got in and it was a top -- you know, one of the best schools in the country.

And so then I found out -- You know, I saw with my own eyes there was discrimination against Italian-Americans.

I am an Italian-American.

Not so many Catholics, not so many Jews.

Anyway, I found out I could stand up and we got involved, and they were picketing a nearby theater because Blacks were not allowed in the -- were allowed in the un-air-conditioned balcony, but not the main floor.

>> Right, could not sit downstairs.

You had to go around back up through the fire escalator and sit upstairs.

>> Right.

>> Which was un-air-conditioned.

>> Un-air-conditioned.

And, you know, it's hot there.

I was just shocked.

Anyway, a young woman came, who was a friend of mine, came and said, "NAACP is picketing.

Do you want to do it?"

And I said, "Sure."

And I asked her very recently, not so long ago, because we've stayed in touch, "Why did you ask me?"

And she said, "I knew you would say yes."

>> Well, you know, a lot has happened since the 1960s.

>> Yeah.

>> And, of course, in 2022, everybody was shocked by the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Tell us from your perspective, Eleanor, how important first getting the Supreme Court decision that protected women's reproductive rights.

>> Oh, it was big.

And there was a movement -- People who think that it just came out of nowhere -- We were -- The movement was growing in the country as a whole.

We were even then high in the polls.

This is the early '70s.

And then all of a sudden we won.

And the mistake is that everybody took it for granted.

And that movement, which had abortion justice associations, said, "It's over with," and they disbanded.

NOW didn't.

NOW was one of the first national organizations to go for legalized abortion.

But a lot of the single-issue groups thought, "Well, the war was over" or "The battle was over," and it hasn't been, as you well know.

And I think that they've done almost everything to shut us down.

I mean, you know, bombings and murders and arsons and threats and picketing that doesn't stop.

And I don't think the public realizes how much harassment the doctors have gone through and how important this is for women's lives.

The whole -- Their whole opportunities, when they can control their reproductive lives, it changes.

It's a foundation for equality.

I mean, Alito said it was a strong precedent and that it was even made stronger because of, you know, following cases that reaffirmed it.

But that decision that he wrote indicated that he thought it was, from the beginning, an egregious mistake.

So he just thought that now?

This is a man that had a well-developed judicial history before he was confirmed and before that testimony.

>> Well, it just shows that, you know, each of the three branches of government are susceptible to politics.

>> That's right.

>> You know, our democracy here in the United States depends on full civic participation.

How do you see women going to the polls?

Are they going to take the Supreme Court decision and not vote or are they going to come out in record numbers and vote?

>> I believe it will increase the vote.

And I also believe that this is high on their list, because every woman at one time or another, I think, went through that whole mental process on abortion, especially if they were sick or if they had -- for all sorts of reasons and basically are for, no question, overwhelmingly, for the right to abortion and thought they had a constitutional right.

See, part of the problem is that a lot of people don't -- they don't really realize how weak our guarantees are.

I mean, that's why I've also spent over 50 years fighting for the Equal Rights Amendment.

>> Yes.

>> I mean, these guys are originalists on the current court.

And originally we had no rights.

We didn't have the right to education.

We didn't have a right to own property.

You know, women -- >> Could not vote.

>> We couldn't vote.

I mean, if you're going back to 1789, we didn't have rights.

And these people are constantly talking about original constitutions and people think they have rights that they don't have, and especially, as I say, the right to choose, the right to privacy.

By the way, this is not just abortion.

Birth control stands on the exact same route.

It depends on there being a right to privacy under the 14th Amendment.

If there is no right to privacy, they can start limiting access to birth control.

And believe me, they have our opponents in the past.

There's no reason they wouldn't.

And if they say they won't now, who is to believe them?

>> Why would the Supreme Court then overturn this precedent?

>> That's what I'm really shocked by.

What I'm shocked by is not that they are opposed to abortion.

And we knew that.

I'm shocked that they are willing to take on a vast majority of the public.

And for what?

Because they're not going to stop abortion.

They're only going to make it unsafe.

Or frankly, who does this really affect the most?

It affects low-income people the most, low-income people.

It affects people of color the most.

It affects anybody that can't get to another state or know where to go.

>> Well, I think you pointed to something.

I think there's a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation because in some circles they portray the women's movement as a white-woman-led movement who don't care about minority women.

Can you talk about how the women's movement has fully embraced diversity, equity and inclusion?

>> Of course, we not only embrace it.

That's who we are.

We're people who believe in civil rights and human rights and diversity.

We might not always be perfect.

Nobody is, but the reality is that is our entire ideology.

It's our belief system.

And our leadership is quite diverse now.

I mean, it comes from all different people, but it always was.

We worked -- When I was active just as a member -- this is the late, early '70s in NOW -- when we took a lawsuit, we frequently took it together with the NAACP.

I mean, it wasn't like they were -- we weren't working together.

We really were.

We knew that we owed a great deal.

The women's movement owes a great deal to the civil rights movement.

I mean, let's face it.

That guarantee on employment, equal employment, it's Title VII of what?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Everything is -- Our legal rights are all intertwined.

And without the civil rights movement, I think that the women's movement would not have taken off as strong as it did in the '70s.

We owe a great debt.

But they always try to divide and conquer us.

They always try to say, "Oh, that's only a white women's movement" or "This is only for immigration."

We're all together in this.

And certainly the leadership.

But I also think the activists we recruit understand that.

They understand that we are together and trying to make a more perfect union.

But I feel it's very important for us to understand where we came from, but also where we're going.

And I'm very -- You know, obviously, like every person, you get discouraged.

I was very upset when this decision leaked.

But I also know one thing.

We're not going back.

>> Right.

>> We're going forward, and we're -- I hope we go forward fast enough.

>> Well, there's members of Congress now saying they may have to introduce legislation to make it a law rather than just opinion on the Supreme Court decision.

>> Right.

And what we're going to try to do is codify it, put it in our statutes that it's legal nationwide.

And that's going to -- But right now, we have a very weak majority in the Senate and we have this terrible filibuster.

We have to break these filibuster rules.

And I also think we have to do another thing.

We've got to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.

It is -- It gives a constitutional foundation.

>> How long have you been working on the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment?

>> The Equal Rights Amendment, I've been working on it over 50 years because NOW endorsed it in '68.

>> Different states have to ratify it.

Is that right?

>> Yeah.

So we now have ratified it in 38 states, which is the necessary number.

You have to have three fourths of the states.

And we passed it out of Congress with a two thirds vote in 1972, but it was very hard to get the 38 states.

We got them now.

We believe it has passed and there's a resolution in the House, H.Res.891, that says it has passed, that it's valid, it's been ratified and it's in our Constitution.

We want that to be passed by the House and the Senate.

So there's no mistake about it.

And then we have to make sure it's enforced.

But basically, it would give a constitutional foundation so that you couldn't treat women one way and men another way in healthcare.

In other words, when a man -- if people have the right to make their own decision about healthcare, women certainly have a right to make their own decision about reproductive life.

>> What's your perspective?

Do you see a coming together of a broader movement, rights movement for all people's rights in America?

>> Yes, I think that people -- more and more people are understanding that, as you said before, that today they're going to come after this group and the next group.

They're understanding that right now we have a serious right-wing movement in our country.

That is really not accurate.

Using prejudice, using hate to organize.

One day it'll be the immigrants.

The next day it'll be racism.

Some racial fear.

>> Right.

Some states are banning books.

>> Yeah, banning books.

Critical race theory they're talking about.

That's just -- that's just a subtle way of -- It's a racist attack.

There's no question about it.

So they created this thing called parental rights.

What, to fight?

So they're going to decide what book you're going to read?

Anyway, there's all those things and there's attacks on LGBTQ.

But it's more than abortion for a woman.

It's more than all of those things, because there is still employment discrimination, education discrimination.

Anyway, we can go on.

We have to unite so that we're going forward and not be deterred.

And we all have another problem.

There is a need for environmental justice and to be concerned about the climate change.

>> Yes.

What was your evaluation of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson being confirmed to the Supreme Court?

>> Oh, it's marvelous.

She was -- That's the kind of thing that gives you hope that we can break the historic injustice and open the doors.

I personally believe the court should be expanded in size so it can have more representation.

>> More women on the Supreme Court?

>> Of course, we should be at least equal, right?

But basically, it's too small.

The reason why I think it's too small as it takes forever to get a decision out of the Supreme Court.

You know, we were at one time taking a lot of employment cases about eight years before you get it through all the channels.

I mean, there's got to be some justice in timing, too, in a case.

And basically, we've talked a lot about a lot of issues.

You know, think of a sexual assault case taking that long, going through courts, making the person have to live it over and over again.

So anyway, I think it should be expanded.

And I also think there's got to be a better way of...

Confirmation hearings can't be a joke.

They can't be something, "Well, you say these things so you can get nominated."

No, I mean, it's got to -- We got to be much more demanding.

>> Well, you mentioned, you know, the confirmation hearings.

The candidate is under oath.

>> Right.

>> So it's just not going before Congress, saying what they think is popular.

The assumption is that once you take that oath that you're going to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

But we've seen the appearance of a lot of contradictions.

>> Right.

And we're seeing right now a court that public opinion is going against, starting to get much more critical, because, let's face it, the court, over the whole span of our country's life has been a reactionary force frequently.

I mean, it helped contribute to the Civil War, for heaven's sakes.

And if it becomes a reactionary body not going with the future, it would be terrible for the country.

>> Well, you just said something very important about the history of the country.

Most people don't know -- I'm glad you made note of it that the Supreme Court was ambivalent.

And their ambivalence led to -- in part led to the Civil War.

>> Absolutely.

Dred Scott decision.

>> Right, on a question of slavery, Dred Scott decision, Plessy v. Ferguson.

All these things have raised questions about whether or not there is going to be equal justice for all people, regardless of race, regardless of sexual orientation, regardless of gender.

>> Right.

And there's no question that we had segregation for how long because of Plessy v. Ferguson?

How can I say it?

The court's past has not been great in certain times.

Sometimes it's done great things like Brown v. Board of Education.

>> Thurgood Marshall.

>> Yes, Thurgood Marshall.

And so there has been some, you know, star -- some things you can be very, very proud of.

But we cannot allow it to sink to be the break, the crowd that turns you back.

There's no going back.

The country is not the same country.

>> Do you think this anti-women syndrome led by the Supreme Court of the United States, is this going to have a paling effect on women's desire to get involved in electoral politics, get involved in civic participation?

What's your perspective?

>> I think that it's going to make people, women more inclined to run for office.

I know one thing.

When I started, we were less than 3% of Congress -- women.

It was very hard to recruit until we started lobbying and they could see, "Well, I know as much as that person.

I could do that."

Now, they not only know they can do it and they have -- You know, we have doctors running, lawyers running, but also women who have been volunteers or women who worked as nurses or -- in other words, all different levels, nurses, teachers, whatever.

And they know they're needed.

They know that their perspective is needed.

I think this will make more women run, not less.

They will think that, "My God, if there was enough women in there, they would know how important being in control of your reproductive life is."

So, no, I think that -- In fact, we are escalating.

I couldn't get over -- We have a PAC, a NOW set of PACs.

I'm on NOW's advisory board still.

They've had a PAC since -- they, we -- since about 1977.

We've had a PAC since we formed in 1987.

And now there's EMILY's List and there are so many PACs.

There's local PACs, state PACs for women in fighting for women's rights.

But this year, when I'm looking through how many, oh, so many more women are running and so many more women are running for governor, attorney generals.

>> Great.

>> All different levels.

Secretary of states, state legislatures.

The pipeline is getting better all the time.

This is a very strong class right now, but we still have a long way to go.

As you said, we're only 27% of Congress.

We're not in our equal state yet.

But you can see it coming.

And I think that we'll get to a critical mass and people will not think it's so unusual for women to run for president.

Now we have a woman vice president.

Everything is changing in that direction, but we can't take it for granted.

>> Exactly.

Are you optimistic about the future or do you think that this Supreme Court decision points to something that may become irreversible in terms of future social change?

>> No, no, no.

I'm always optimistic.

For one major reason.

We have the young.

Overwhelmingly.

I mentioned polls.

>> Yes.

>> You almost don't even need polls among the young.

They don't even understand what this is all about.

They don't understand why these things are controversial.

They're totally living in a different world.

And they believe in it strongly.

And then you add to that the whole environmental questions, which environmental justice is obviously something we all need.

They know that.

And they're for it.

And they're for the future of less fighting and more working together.

>> So you see the ranks of the women's movement, the ranks of the civil rights movement, the ranks of the environment justice movement being replenished by these young activists from all across the United States?

>> Absolutely.

I mean, you know, when we were going to school, there was no women's studies, Black studies, you know, knowledge more about where we came from, Native Americans, the whole immigration issue.

We were there.

We're together, but there was not as many people.

Now, it is, oh, so many groups.

So many.

I'm saying that good.

I mean, I think the more involved, the better.

The more issues, the better because there's so much to do.

But I think the -- I know the civil rights movement is stronger, the women's rights movement is stronger in every way.

LGBTQ movement, immigration.

I think that we all are fighting for basic human rights and the young people, they get the global impact.

>> And the Internet.

I think, you know, social media people are able to reach people around the world instantaneously on social media.

>> One thing we're trying -- We should recognize that there's been all kinds of people.

No one type that becomes an activist.

So I keep encouraging people to take what you're doing seriously enough that you could change the world if you did something about something rather than just complain about it.

>> Well, we've made a lot of progress because of your leadership and other women like yourself.

And I just want, on behalf of "The Chavis Chronicles," to thank you, Eleanor Smeal, for all that you continue to do to make our country and our world a better place.

>> Thank you very much.

>> For more information about "The Chavis Chronicles" and our guests, please visit our website at TheChavisChronicles.com.

Also, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, Instagram and TikTok.

Major funding for "The Chavis Chronicles" is provided by the following.

At Wells Fargo, we are committed to diversity and understand our responsibility in supporting and empowering diverse communities.

Diversity and inclusion is integral to the way we work.

Supporting the financial health of our diverse customers and employees is one of the many ways we remain invested in inclusion for all today, tomorrow, and in the future.

American Petroleum Institute -- through the core elements of API's Energy Excellence Program, our members are committed to accelerating safety, environmental and sustainability progress throughout the natural-gas and oil industry in the U.S. and around the world.

You can learn more at api.org/apiEnergyExcellence.

Reynolds American, dedicated to building a better tomorrow for our employees and communities.

Reynolds stands against racism and discrimination in all forms and is committed to building a more diverse and inclusive workplace.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪