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. The amendment reads as follows:
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.
History of the amendment
While the 1920 ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution had guaranteed the right to vote to women who were U.S. citizens, Alice Paul, a suffragist leader, argued that that right 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 75th 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. The initial pace of ratifications was rapid, but later slowed. 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. In fact, five of those approving states actually later rescinded their ratifications of it. (However, it is generally held that a state cannot rescind its ratification of an amendment. See Article Five of the United States Constitution.) 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 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 the amendment into Congress every year since 1982 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 argue that the history of the 27th Amendment—which was ratified over 200 years after it was first proposed—proves the validity of their approach. However, unlike the ERA, the resolution proposing the 27th Amendment did not set any deadline for ratification. The Supreme Court has also not ruled on whether the 27th Amendment is a valid part of the Constitution.
Opposition to the amendment
Opponents of the ERA argue that its passage would have far-reaching implications, obliterating traditional 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 taxmonies 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. Alice Paul, the author of the original ERA in 1923, was an opponent of this trend, and characterized abortion as "the ultimate exploitation of women".
Other critics have argued that the courts could rule that the ERA requires the recognition of gay marriage. Critics also argue that the ERA would require the integration of single sex schools or sports teams; they point to a decision by a Washington state court that ordered a fraternal civic organization to admit women. Finally, some opponents of the ERA argued that the amendment simply was not necessary, and that other provisions of Constitution provided sufficient support for equal rights.
Alternative paths to equality
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.
State ERAs
Since 1879, twenty states have added equal rights amendments to their state constitutions. All these amendments, like the federal ERA, prohibit discrimination based on sex. Thirteen of the amendments also prohibit discrimination based on race, national origin, or creed, and three prohibit discrimination on account of a physical handicap. The twenty states are: Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming.
See also
Last updated: 10-29-2005 02:13:46
