Simone Lawson
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would guarantee equal rights for women and men. The ERA was first introduced in Congress in 1923 and approved in 1972. Since then, it has faced numerous challenges and controversies, including states rescinding their ratifications and debates over the legality of adding it to the Constitution. As of 2025, 38 states have ratified the ERA, and there are ongoing discussions and legal arguments regarding its inclusion in the Constitution. Supporters argue that the ERA is necessary to address the founding failure of the Constitution's silence on gender equality and to protect women's rights, while opponents have raised concerns about potential unintended consequences. The question of whether the ERA should be added to the Constitution remains a complex and highly debated topic in American politics and society.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Number of states that have ratified the ERA | 38 |
| Number of states that have rescinded their ratifications | 6 |
| Number of states needed to ratify the ERA | 38 |
| Year the ERA was introduced in Congress | 1923 |
| Year the ERA was approved by Congress | 1972 |
| Year the ERA was placed before the state legislatures | 1972 |
| Original deadline for ratification | 1979 |
| Number of states that ratified the ERA before the original deadline | 30 |
| Number of states that ratified the ERA after the original deadline | 8 |
| Year Virginia ratified the ERA | 2020 |
| Year the ERA received its last necessary ratification | 2020 |
| Year the US Administration refused to accept the ERA as legitimate | 2019 |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The ERA has met all constitutional requirements
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has been a long time coming. It was introduced in Congress in 1923, and it wasn't until 1972 that it was approved. The ERA is a proposed amendment to the US Constitution that guarantees equal rights for women. Despite receiving approval from 38 states, which is the threshold required for amendments to be added to the Constitution, the ERA has not yet been incorporated.
The push for the ERA's ratification has faced several challenges and controversies, including the argument that it would mean women would be drafted into the military and the concern that it would foster homosexual equality. Despite these challenges, the ERA has gained increased support from both Democratic and Republican parties, and has been ratified by 38 states as of 2020.
The question of whether the ERA has met all constitutional requirements hinges on two procedural questions. First, can Congress waive the lapsed deadline, as they had the power to set it? Second, can a state rescind or otherwise withdraw its ratification of a constitutional amendment? These questions remain unanswered, and the ERA's fate hangs in the balance.
The ERA is necessary to address a founding failure of the US Constitution—its silence on gender equality. The amendment would provide a constitutional remedy against sex discrimination and guarantee equal rights under the law regardless of sex. With women's rights under severe attack, the ERA is crucial to shield existing rights and expand protections for women, girls, and marginalized genders.
Exploring the Word Count of New Zealand's Constitution
You may want to see also
The ERA would improve equality for everyone
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the US Constitution that would guarantee equal rights for women. Despite having received the support of 38 states, the ERA has yet to be added to the Constitution.
Furthermore, the ERA would make sex a "suspect classification", similar to race, religion, and national origin. This would mean that cases of sex discrimination would be subject to "strict scrutiny", the highest level of justification in the US legal system. As a result, sex equality would be recognised as a fundamental right, and sex would be categorised as a "protected class".
In addition to protecting the rights of women, the ERA would also benefit men. For example, a federal judge recently ruled that the registration for the draft, which currently only applies to men, is an unconstitutional form of sex discrimination. By guaranteeing equal rights for both sexes, the ERA could help to address such forms of discrimination against men.
Finally, the ERA would send a strong message of equality and help to foster a culture of equal rights for all. This could lead to further progress in areas such as reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and the protection of marginalised groups.
In conclusion, the ERA would improve equality for everyone by guaranteeing equal rights under the law regardless of sex or gender. It would address historical inequalities and help to create a more just and equitable society for all Americans.
Exploring the USS Constitution's Sails: A Historical Overview
You may want to see also
The ERA's impact on reproductive rights
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would provide a fundamental legal remedy against sex discrimination for both women and men. The ERA would guarantee that the rights affirmed by the U.S. Constitution are held equally by all without regard to their sex.
The ERA has been an issue with both strong support and opposition since it was first introduced in Congress in 1923. The amendment would dedicate the nation to a new view of the rights and responsibilities of men and women, firmly rejecting sharp legislative lines between the sexes as constitutionally tolerable. Instead, it looks toward a legal system in which each person will be judged on the basis of individual merit and not on the basis of an unalterable trait of birth that bears no necessary relationship to need or ability.
The ERA would provide a constitutional guarantee of equal legal rights for all persons regardless of sex, which would have a significant impact on women's daily lives. It would help ensure equality in pay, job opportunities, and education for women and girls, as well as address sexual assault and harassment at the national and local levels. The ERA would also address issues of employment discrimination, sexual harassment, and equal pay, which are all rooted in inequality.
Obama's DACA Dilemma: Unconstitutional or Humanitarian?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The ERA's relation to single-sex institutions
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the US Constitution that would guarantee equal rights for women. It would provide a fundamental constitutional remedy against sex discrimination by guaranteeing that legal rights may not be denied or abridged on account of sex. The ERA would affirm the purpose that began with the writing of the US Constitution, the basic human right of constitutional protection.
The ERA would provide a constitutional guarantee of equal rights for both men and women, addressing issues of custody, employment, and fair wages that are important to both sexes. It would ensure that governmental actions that treat males and females differently as a class would be subject to strict judicial scrutiny, requiring the highest level of justification to be upheld as constitutional. This means that laws would have to be interpreted to advance equality of rights on the basis of sex, including sexuality.
The ERA's impact on single-sex institutions has been a point of contention. Some opponents have argued that it would eliminate single-sex bathrooms and enable same-sex marriage. However, these arguments often overlook the distinction between institutions perpetuating dominance and those addressing past discrimination. It is important to note that even without the ERA, Supreme Court decisions have increasingly limited the constitutionality of public single-sex institutions. For example, in Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, the Court found that Mississippi's policy of refusing to admit males to its all-female School of Nursing was unconstitutional, prohibiting discrimination against men as a class.
In conclusion, the ERA's relation to single-sex institutions is nuanced. While it would not make all such institutions unconstitutional, it would provide a stronger constitutional basis for challenging those that perpetuate the historical dominance of one sex. The ERA's focus on guaranteeing equal rights regardless of sex aligns with the fundamental principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the US Constitution and the legal systems of many states.
Constitution Party: Liberal vs. Conservative Views
You may want to see also
The ERA's impact on women in the military
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the US Constitution that guarantees equal rights for women. The ERA has been ratified by 38 states, but it remains uncertain if its protections for women will be added to the Constitution. The ERA would provide a constitutional remedy against sex discrimination, guaranteeing that legal rights may not be denied or diminished because of one's sex.
Women have served in the US military in various capacities for over 200 years, often overcoming significant obstacles and barriers to their participation. Despite these challenges, women have played crucial roles in the military, from supporting colonial militias during the American Revolution to serving as nurses during World War I.
The US military has a complex history when it comes to gender integration. While it has been praised as one of America's most progressive institutions in certain contexts, such as racial integration after World War II, it also embodies a traditional, conservative, and "macho" culture. Women were formally allowed to join the military in 1948, and they began entering military service academies in the 1970s. However, it was only during the Obama administration that all combat positions, including ground forces, were opened to women.
The ERA, if added to the Constitution, could have a significant impact on women in the military by providing a stronger legal foundation for equal rights and opportunities. It would firmly reject legislative distinctions between the sexes and promote a legal system that judges individuals on their merit rather than their gender. This could lead to increased gender integration in the military, building on the progress made in recent decades.
However, it is important to note that the military faces unique challenges when it comes to gender integration, particularly regarding physical strength requirements for certain roles and the complexities of deploying mixed-gender forces in austere conditions. While women have proven their ability to excel in combat roles, there may be logistical and operational considerations that the military needs to address as it continues to integrate women into all aspects of service.
In conclusion, the ERA has the potential to strengthen the legal framework supporting equal rights for women in the military, building on the progress made over the past two centuries. However, the military must also navigate the practical considerations of gender integration to ensure that women are fully and successfully incorporated into all areas of military service.
The Evolution of Minnesota's Constitution
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the Constitution that guarantees equal rights for women.
When the U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1787, the rights it affirmed were guaranteed equally only for certain white males. The ERA would embed the principle of sex and gender equality into the Constitution, addressing its silence on gender equality.
38 states have ratified the ERA, but it has not been added to the Constitution due to procedural issues and opposition. The debate continues over whether to pursue further state ratifications or start over with a fresh version.
Proponents argue that the ERA would advance equality for women and marginalized genders, providing legal protection against sex discrimination. Opponents have argued that it would lead to women being drafted into the military and encourage same-sex marriage, but these arguments have lost force over time.
