Culture

What Is The Equal Rights Amendment And Why Is It Back In The News?

Perhaps, like me, you remember learning about the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) towards the end of your American history class in high school. And it was just that – history. Now some members of the U.S. Congress are trying to resurrect the long-dead amendment, which fails to protect women at best and could actively harm them at worst.

By Evie Solheim3 min read
Activist Phyllis Schafly wearing a Stop ERA badge/Warren K. Leffler, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Warren K. Leffler/Public Domain

The ERA, an attempt to write so-called equal treatment of men and women into the U.S. Constitution, expired in the 1980s – long before many millennial and Gen Z women were born. But on Tuesday, February 28, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the ERA as multiple Democratic lawmakers (plus one Republican) push to make it the law of the land.

These lawmakers – including Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia – say they reject the “arbitrary” deadline placed on the ERA. Only 35 states ratified the ERA before its deadline, falling short of the 38 ratifications needed. But decades later, Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia ratified the ERA, prompting these lawmakers to give it one more shot.

“There must be no deadline on equality,” says Spanberger, a Democrat. “Generations of mothers, daughters, sisters, and granddaughters have pushed the boundaries of progress for women in the United States to get us to where we are now – only to have their lasting achievement blocked by an arbitrary deadline. But Congress has the power to remove that very deadline, and we are long overdue for action.”

That’s a lot of high rhetoric over a constitutional amendment that has failed to be ratified for decades. So what is this battle over the ERA really about?

Gender As a Hot-Button Issue

The renewed push for this constitutional amendment comes as gender is an issue dividing America. Biological women are finding themselves competing with biological men at women’s sporting events. Biological men are being allowed into women’s prisons after committing rape. A Supreme Court Justice has claimed she can’t define the word “woman” because she’s not a biologist.

Enter the ERA 2.0.

“It’s an outdated talking point that would not provide any needed rights to women; it would only empower men and ideologically motivated actors to neglect, harm, or take advantage of women,” Emma Waters, research associate with The Heritage Foundation’s Devos Center for Life, Religion, and Family, tells The Daily Signal

“We’ve passed countless laws to protect the distinctions between men and women since the ERA was first introduced,” Waters continues. “If we passed the ERA today, it would undo years of hard work.”

However, proponents of the ERA, including Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, say that it’s necessary because women still aren’t treated equally in the U.S.

“Despite significant gains for women’s equality, the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee women the same legal rights as men,” Murkowski states. “Men and women should be treated equally under the law. It’s as simple as that.”

Opponents of the ERA say that its supporters are relying on simplistic arguments. After all, is treating men and women equally the same as treating them fairly? For example, requiring women to register for the Selective Service in case of a draft – that may technically be equal treatment of the sexes, but is it fair? 

Is treating men and women equally the same as treating them fairly? 

Ironically, these arguments haven’t changed much since activist Phyllis Schlafly fought against the ERA in the 1970s.

“Schlafly posited that the differences between men and women are substantial enough that treating them as legally the same would have monstrous consequences for women,” Carmel Richardson writes in The American Conservative. “Rather than grant women greater ‘equality,’ the ERA would revoke many of their legal privileges.”

“Treating women as men would harm certain material privileges currently afforded to women, too,” Richardson continues. “Motherhood would be further penalized in the job market than it already is, particularly in terms of paid maternity leave: The net result of requiring equal compensation for both, as anyone may guess, is always less leave for women, not more leave.”

The ERA, the LGBT Movement, and Abortion

The ERA was first proposed in 1923. You have to wonder what the women’s rights activists who originated it would think of its modern spin as a pro-LGBT amendment.

“Our next generation of all women, including transgender women and gender non-conforming individuals, deserve better. We cannot wait any longer to formalize the ERA,” Hawaiian Sen. Mazie Hirono, a Democrat, says in a recent statement

Actress Alyssa Milano, who frequently weighs in on politics, echoes the senator in a recent Newsweek op-ed titled “The ERA Gives Us a Chance to Fix the Constitution. We Need to Take it.”

“While several developed nations have protections in place like the ERA, rights and freedoms for U.S. women and LGBTQ+ people continue to grow more endangered by the day. If the ERA wasn't so important, its opponents wouldn't be working overtime to keep it out of the Constitution,” Milano writes.

The focus has shifted from protecting women as a class to protecting other groups.

Clearly, the focus has shifted from protecting women as a class to protecting other groups. Proponents of the ERA claim it would “advance equality in the fields of workforce and pay, pregnancy discrimination, sexual harassment and violence, reproductive autonomy, and protections for LGBTQ+ individuals.” Regarding abortion, some observers say that the ERA is being resurrected as a reaction to the overturning of Roe v. Wade

“If the ERA was ratified in the Constitution, it would provide a constitutional basis for abortion,” Waters tells The Daily Signal. “Democrats argue that if a man has the right to not be pregnant, then women should also have the right to not be pregnant through abortion. This way, they could argue that the ERA ensures a constitutional right to abortion.”

Closing Thoughts

Proponents of the ERA are sounding the alarm that women’s quality of life is in danger without it. However, the numbers don’t lie – women have achieved great success in the classroom and the boardroom, but their happiness has decreased, as has their ability to find suitable partners.

“When you treat women identically to men, it turns out, society merely adapts standards to favor more feminine characteristics, enabling women to succeed but feminizing men in the process,” Richardson writes. 

So is it the Constitution that needs fixing, or our society? Schlafly passed away in 2016, but her words still apply today: “A lot of people don't understand what feminism is. They think it is about advance and success for women, but it's not that at all. It is about power for the female left. And they have this, I think, ridiculous idea that American women are oppressed by the patriarchy and we need laws and government to solve our problems for us.”

Don’t miss anything! Sign up for our weekly newsletter and get curated content weekly!