Equal Rights Amendment

From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed, but unratified, amendment to the United States Constitution, that would guarantee equal rights under law for Americans regardless of sex. It reads in pertinent part: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." As in the case of the Thirteenth and other amendments, it gives Congress authority "to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

While female U.S. citizens had gained the vote in 1920 with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Alice Paul, a suffragist leader, argued that the right to vote alone would not end legal sex discrimination. In 1923, Paul drafted the Equal Rights Amendment and presented it as the "Lucretia Mott Amendment" at the celebration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the 1848 Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments. The National Women's Party brought the Equal Rights Amendment to Congress in the same year, where Senator Curtis and Representative Anthony, both Republicans, introduced it for the first time. It was entered in every session of Congress between 1923 and 1972 but rarely received floor time; instead, it was usually bogged down in committee. In 1972, the amendment was finally approved by Congress and presented to the states for ratification. Initially, the pace of ratifications was quick, but it then began to slow. Congress had set a seven-year time limit for ratification, and by the end of that deadline in 1979 only 35 of the 38 required states had ratified and, in fact, five of those approving states actually later rescinded their ratifications of it. In 1978, as the 1979 deadline loomed near, Congress extended the ratification deadline until 1982, but no further states ratified during that additional period.

The political climate changed in the late 1970s, and the Republican Party withdrew its earlier bipartisan support for the ERA. Political opposition to the ERA was led by Phyllis Schlafly, a conservative Republican. According to its critics, the ERA would have granted more power to Congress and the federal courts, a position unpopular at a time when public opposition to judicial activism was growing.

Supporters of the ERA have re-introduced it into Congress every year since 1982, but without success. Some opponents of the ERA argue that if reintroduced, it would need to gain the 35 ratifications all over again, in addition to the three still lacking. Some--but not all--ERA supporters argue that the earlier 35 ratifications are still valid, and that only three more are necessary without Congress having to resubmit the ERA; other supporters go further and say that the remaining three ratifications could come after the deadline set by Congress, and then be recognized by Congress retroactively. They claim that the passage of the 27th Amendment over 200 years after it was first proposed supports this strategy. But there is a crucial difference: unlike the ERA, the Congressional legislation proposing the 27th Amendment did not set any deadline for ratification, nor has its addition to the Constitution ever been established or rejected by the federal courts. The Supreme Court declared the ERA to have irrevocably expired by dismissing a challenge to its extension as moot after the second deadline.

Opponents of the ERA argue that its passage would have far-reaching implications, obliterating sensible distinctions between the sexes. Women, they claim, would be required to register for the Selective Service System (the draft) just as men currently do, and serve in combat just as men do. They assert that the amendment would also remove laws that specially protect women, such as labor laws in heavy industry. Some states, such as Connecticut and New Mexico, have ordered the use of tax monies in the case of medically necessary abortions based on a state equal rights amendment, under the [[theory] that women must have full health care as men do. Some critics have argued that gay marriage could be ordered by courts based on ERA, as Hawaii considered doing based on its state equal rights amendment before amending its state constitution to state that marriage was a contract between a man and a woman. According to critics of the amendment, single sex schools or sports teams could be ordered to be integrated on the theory that men and women have the right to equality in access, as a Washington state court ordered a fraternal civic organization to admit women. Some opponents of the ERA simply felt that it was redundant, and that equal rights were already provided for in the Bill of Rights and in subsequent additions to the Constitution.

Despite the failure to ratify the ERA, many of its goals have been obtained legally through judicial interpretations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The successes of feminism in altering both the culture and politics of the United States since the 1970s, together with the significant inclusion of women in many fields traditionally dominated by men, have removed much of the political momentum behind the ERA.