Isabella Carter
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would explicitly prohibit sex discrimination. The purpose of the ERA is to guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex. It was first introduced in Congress in December 1923 and has since been a topic of debate. The ERA has gained support from various activists and politicians over the years, but it has also faced opposition, with some arguing that it would remove protections for women. In 2020, Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the proposal, meeting the three-fourths requirement for amending the Constitution. However, the ERA is not yet in force, and there are legal debates surrounding the deadline for ratification and the validity of state withdrawals.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Purpose | To guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex |
| History | Written by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman and first introduced in Congress in December 1923 |
| Support | Middle-class women, National Organization for Women (NOW), union Democrats, social conservatives, Representative Carolyn B. Maloney |
| Opposition | Eleanor Roosevelt, Schlafly, some working-class women, the Trump administration |
| Ratification status | Ratified by 38 states, but not currently part of the Constitution |
| Deadline | Original deadline of 1979, extended to 1982, then revoked |
| Impact | Indirectly affect sex discrimination cases, raise sex equality to the status of a fundamental right |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)
The purpose of the ERA is to ensure that legal rights are not denied or abridged on account of sex, bringing sex under the scope of the 14th Amendment, which currently includes race, religion, and national origin. It would empower Congress to enforce the amendment's provisions through legislation, strengthening legal protections against sex discrimination in various areas, including gender-based violence, education, the workplace, and access to reproductive healthcare.
The ERA has faced opposition and support from different groups of women throughout its history. Initially, middle-class women were largely supportive, while those speaking for the working class were concerned about the removal of special protections for women regarding working conditions and employment hours. Over time, the ERA gained support from organisations like the National Organization for Women (NOW) and the Women's Equity Action League (WEAL), and prominent figures such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Betty Friedan.
Despite the ERA being ratified by the required 38 states, its inclusion in the Constitution is still uncertain. The amendment has faced resistance and procedural challenges, with questions arising about its relevance in the present day and the potential impact on existing protections for women. Supporters of the ERA argue that it is necessary to correct historical injustices and advance equality in the 21st century, while opponents worry about unintended consequences, such as the removal of protections for women and their potential inclusion in military drafts.
Who Decides on Constitutional Amendments?
You may want to see also
ERA's impact on sex discrimination cases
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that aims to explicitly prohibit sex discrimination and guarantee equal legal rights for all citizens regardless of sex. While the ERA is not currently part of the Constitution, it has been ratified by the required 38 states, and its ratification status is still debated. The ERA's impact on sex discrimination cases is expected to be significant, addressing inequalities in various contexts, including employment, education, and legal protections.
One of the key impacts of the ERA would be the prohibition of intentional government discrimination against women in legislation and executive action. While government discrimination against women is already considered unconstitutional, the ERA would likely subject it to a stricter level of scrutiny, making it even more difficult to justify. This would effectively render unconstitutional any intentional discrimination by the government in areas such as hiring, pay, promotions, and higher education.
Additionally, the ERA would likely lead to the Supreme Court imposing a rule of sex-blindness, preventing policies that aim to reduce sex inequality. While this may seem counterintuitive, supporters argue that it would ensure constitutional protection of sex equality and enshrine the principle that women are equal to men. However, critics argue that this could negatively impact affirmative action policies designed to promote sex equality, such as maternity leave policies and efforts to increase women's employment under government contracts.
Furthermore, the ERA would have implications for private entities as well. While the Fourteenth Amendment and various state ERAs already prohibit sex discrimination by state actors, some states have interpreted their ERAs to extend this protection to private entities as well. This means that individuals would have greater legal recourse against discrimination by companies and other non-state actors.
The ERA also has the potential to impact reproductive rights, single-sex institutions, and women's roles in the military, although the exact consequences are subject to ongoing debate. Overall, while the ERA aims to guarantee equal rights regardless of sex, there are concerns that it could inadvertently undermine existing protections for women and affect policies designed to promote sex equality.
Texas Constitutional Amendments: Special Election Explained
You may want to see also
ERA's effect on women's rights
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that aims to guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens, regardless of sex. The purpose of the ERA is to explicitly prohibit sex discrimination and ensure that legal rights are not denied or abridged based on one's gender. While it is not currently a part of the Constitution, the ERA has gained significant support over the years, particularly with the rise of the women's movement in the 1960s.
The ERA has been championed by various women's rights activists and organizations, including the National Organization for Women (NOW), which endorsed the amendment in 1967. The amendment was first drafted in 1923 by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman, two leaders of the women's suffrage movement, and introduced in Congress in December of that year. However, it was not until the 1960s that the ERA gained widespread attention and support.
The ERA seeks to address the historical inequality between men and women in the United States Constitution. When the Constitution was adopted in 1787, it guaranteed rights only to certain white males, and married women's legal identities were subsumed into those of their husbands. The ERA aims to rectify this by ensuring that the rights of women and men are equal under the law.
The potential impact of the ERA on women's rights is significant. Firstly, it would provide a constitutional remedy against sex discrimination, guaranteeing that legal rights cannot be denied or abridged based on sex. This would cover a range of issues, including divorce, property, and employment, ensuring that women and men are treated equally in these matters. Secondly, the ERA could help eliminate the gender wage gap and strengthen laws against pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. Additionally, it has the potential to restore the federal constitutional right to access abortion care, as seen in states like Connecticut, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania, where state-level ERAs have been used to strike down abortion bans.
While there has been opposition to the ERA, with some arguing that it would remove protections for women, the amendment has gained widespread support. A 2020 Pew Research Center poll found that 78% of Americans believed that the ERA should be a part of the Constitution. In 2025, President Joe Biden formally recognized the ERA as the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, marking a significant advancement in the fight for gender equality and women's rights.
Federalism's Flex: Amending the Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$9.99 $9.99
ERA's ratification status
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would explicitly prohibit sex discrimination. It is not currently a part of the Constitution, though its ratification status has long been debated. It was written by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman and first introduced in Congress in December 1923. With the rise of the women's movement in the United States during the 1960s, the ERA garnered increasing support, and, after being reintroduced by Representative Martha Griffiths in 1971, it was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives that year and by the U.S. Senate in 1972, thus submitting the ERA to the state legislatures for ratification. A seven-year, 1979 deadline was included with the legislation by Congress, which was later extended to 1982 by a simple majority of Congress.
However, the ERA fell three states short of ratification by the 1982 deadline. The 15 states that did not ratify the ERA before the deadline were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia. The failure to ratify the ERA was largely due to the efforts of prominent opponent Phyllis Schlafly, who led the Stop ERA campaign, defending traditional gender roles. Other groups that played a key role in preventing the amendment's ratification included the John Birch Society, the National Council of Catholic Women, and labor feminists.
Despite the missed deadline, there have been ongoing efforts to ratify the amendment. Between 1995 and 2016, ERA ratification bills were passed by one house of the legislature in two states (Illinois and Virginia). In 2017, Nevada became the 36th state to ratify the ERA, followed by Illinois as the 37th state in 2018. In 2020, Virginia became the 38th state to ratify, achieving the required number of states for ratification. However, the ratification process has faced legal challenges, with some arguing that the time limit for ratification has expired.
In summary, the ERA has a long and complex history, with ongoing debates and efforts regarding its ratification status. While it has achieved ratification by the required number of states, legal questions remain about the validity of the ratification process and the expired time limit.
Original Amendments: The Constitution's Core Principles
You may want to see also
Opposition to the ERA
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was first introduced in 1923 by Alice Paul, a socialist, suffragist, feminist, and women’s rights activist. The ERA was designed to guarantee equal legal rights for all citizens, regardless of sex. Despite gaining momentum in the 1970s, the ERA faced strong opposition from various groups and individuals, including conservative grassroots movements and prominent figures such as Phyllis Schlafly. By organizing grassroots women across multiple states, Schlafly played a significant role in pressuring state legislatures to stop or rescind ERA passage.
One of the primary arguments against the ERA was the concern that it would harm women and their unborn children by overturning laws and programs that benefited them. Opponents of the ERA criticized its vague and poorly written language, arguing that it failed to make necessary distinctions between men and women based on their biological differences. They warned that the ERA would be used to overturn restrictions on abortion, mandate taxpayer funding of abortions, and impact the privacy and safety of women and girls by removing gender designations in various spaces.
Additionally, critics argued that the ERA was unnecessary as women already had equal rights protections under existing laws. For example, the 14th Amendment and the federal Equal Pay Act of 1963 guaranteed equal pay for women, and the 1971 Eisenstadt v. Baird ruling established the right of unmarried people to possess contraception on the same basis as married couples. Opponents also claimed that the ERA would not erase the gender wage gap and that the quoted wage gap was a misunderstood statistic.
The opposition to the ERA also stemmed from concerns about traditional gender roles and power dynamics. Senator Sam Ervin, a Democrat from North Carolina and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was a prominent opponent of the ERA. He attacked the amendment based on traditional views of gender and argued that it threatened protective labor legislation for women. The ERA's potential impact on military service and child support laws further fueled opposition, as critics argued that it would require all women to be drafted and placed on the front lines of combat, removing exemptions currently in place.
The ERA faced a significant challenge due to the involvement of grassroots conservative movements and the efforts of individuals like Schlafly, who convinced women that equality between men and women was undesirable and would lead to a moral decline in society. Despite gaining significant support and momentum, the ERA encountered strong resistance, and the debate surrounding it continues to be a polarizing issue.
Evolution of the Moroccan Constitution: Amendments Through Time
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Equal Rights Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would explicitly prohibit sex discrimination.
The purpose of the ERA is to guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex.
The ERA was first introduced in Congress in December 1923. In 1972, Congress sent the ERA to the states for ratification, setting a deadline of 1979. A simple majority of Congress later extended the deadline to 1982, at which time only 35 states had ratified the measure. In 2020, Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the ERA, but its adoption as part of the Constitution remains uncertain due to legal debates surrounding ratification deadlines.
