Eleanor Finch
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would explicitly prohibit sex discrimination. Despite amassing over a century of history, the ERA is not currently part of the Constitution. The ERA was first introduced in Congress in 1923 by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman, following the success of the women's suffrage movement. The amendment has faced opposition from conservative activists and religious groups, who argue that it would lead to issues such as gender-neutral bathrooms, same-sex marriage, and abortion rights. Despite gaining support in the 1970s with the rise of the women's rights movement and being approved by Congress, the ERA has not been ratified due to failing to meet the required ratification threshold of three-quarters of states. While former President Joe Biden issued a statement supporting the inclusion of the ERA in the Constitution, the president does not have the authority to unilaterally make such changes.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Date first proposed | 1923 |
| Authors | Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman |
| Content | "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex" |
| Current status | Not part of the Constitution |
| Reasons not part of the Constitution | Deadline for ratification passed, opposition from religious conservatives, and lack of authority from the president |
| Number of states that have ratified the ERA | 38 |
| Number of states needed to ratify | 38 |
| Number of states that rejected the ERA | 13 |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- The ERA has faced opposition from religious conservatives and anti-abortion groups
- The ERA has been debated for over a century, reflecting the cultural moment
- The ERA was not ratified by enough states by the deadline
- The President does not have the authority to add the ERA to the Constitution
- The ERA would have advanced gender equality and addressed systemic biases
The ERA has faced opposition from religious conservatives and anti-abortion groups
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has faced strong opposition from religious conservatives and anti-abortion groups. The ERA was first proposed in 1923 following the success of the women's suffrage movement and was revived in the 1970s with the rise of the women's rights movement. It seeks to explicitly prohibit sex discrimination and enshrine gender equality in the US Constitution. While the ERA has garnered significant support, it has also faced staunch resistance from certain groups.
Religious conservatives, including Southern whites, Evangelical Christians, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Orthodox Jews, and Roman Catholics, have been vocal opponents of the ERA. They argue that the amendment's vague and general wording could lead to unintended consequences and negatively impact women's rights and families. The concern is that the ERA, in its brief and simplistic form, might oversimplify and trivialize the complexities of gender inequalities. These groups also worry that the ERA could lead to the elimination of sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, sports teams, and schools, infringing on traditional values and cultural norms.
Anti-abortion groups have also been staunchly opposed to the ERA, fearing that it would be interpreted to allow legal abortion without limits and taxpayer funding for abortions. They believe that the ERA's guarantee of equal rights, without specific qualifications, could be used to justify unrestricted access to abortion and potentially enable public funding for such procedures. This concern has united anti-abortion activists with religious conservatives in their resistance to the ERA.
The opposition to the ERA from these groups has been fueled by their interpretation of the potential consequences of the amendment. They worry that the ERA, despite its noble intentions, might inadvertently lead to negative outcomes for women, families, and traditional values. Their stance reflects a cautious approach to legal changes that could significantly impact societal norms and cultural beliefs.
It is worth noting that the ERA's proponents argue that it is necessary to ensure equal rights and opportunities for all, regardless of gender. They believe that the amendment is a crucial step towards achieving true gender equality and justice. However, the opposition from religious conservatives and anti-abortion groups has been a significant hurdle in the ERA's journey towards becoming part of the US Constitution.
The Refugee Ban: Breaking the Constitution's Sacred Promise
You may want to see also
The ERA has been debated for over a century, reflecting the cultural moment
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has been a topic of debate for over a century, reflecting the cultural moment. It was first proposed in 1923 by Alice Paul, a leader of the women's suffrage movement, following the success of the 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote. The ERA aimed to explicitly prohibit sex discrimination and guarantee equal rights for women under the Constitution.
The ERA has undergone several iterations and has been supported and opposed by various groups throughout its history. In the 1940s, both the Democratic and Republican parties added their support for the ERA to their platforms. However, the amendment also faced significant opposition, particularly from religious conservatives who argued that it would guarantee universal abortion rights and the right for same-sex couples to marry.
The ERA gained momentum in the 1970s with the rise of the women's rights movement and was approved by Congress in 1972. However, it failed to be ratified by the required three-quarters of states (38 out of 50) by the original deadline of 1979, despite a simple majority of Congress extending the deadline to 1982. The campaign to ratify the ERA has experienced setbacks and resurgences over the years, influenced by cultural and political shifts, such as the MeToo movement.
As of 2020, 38 states have ratified the ERA, but its inclusion in the Constitution remains uncertain. The debate surrounding the ERA reflects the evolving cultural and social attitudes towards gender equality and the role of women in society. While some argue that the ERA is necessary to advance equality and address systemic biases, others believe that progress has been made without it and that the ERA could complicate other matters. The ERA's long and ongoing journey towards potential ratification exemplifies the complex and dynamic nature of constitutional amendments, shaped by the cultural and political climate of the time.
The Electoral College: Understanding Its Constitutional Foundation
You may want to see also
The ERA was not ratified by enough states by the deadline
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was first proposed in 1923, following the success of the women's suffrage movement. It was written by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman and introduced in Congress in December 1923. The ERA was revived in the 1970s with the rise of the women's rights movement. In 1972, it passed a two-thirds majority in Congress, but it needed to be ratified by three-quarters of the states (38 states in total) to become part of the Constitution.
The ERA faced opposition from conservative activists and religious groups who argued that it would lead to gender-neutral bathrooms, same-sex marriage, and women in military combat, among other things. Despite this, within a year of Congress sending the proposed amendment to the states, 30 of the necessary 38 states acted to ratify the ERA. However, the momentum slowed, and the ERA came up three states short by the original deadline in 1979. Congress extended the deadline to 1982, but the ERA still fell short of the required number of states for ratification.
The South Dakota Legislature, for example, adopted a joint resolution in 1979, stipulating that its 1973 ERA ratification would be "sunsetted" as of the original deadline. The resolution stated that Congress unilaterally altered the terms and conditions of the ratification process, affecting the established timeline.
While there have been recent efforts to revive the ERA, including ratifications by Nevada in 2017 and Illinois in 2018, and Virginia becoming the 38th state to ratify it in 2020, the ERA is not currently a part of the Constitution due to the missed ratification deadlines and the lack of authority of the president to unilaterally add it.
Adam Smith's Influence on the Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The President does not have the authority to add the ERA to the Constitution
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would explicitly prohibit gender discrimination. Despite gaining support in the 1960s and being approved by the US House of Representatives in 1971 and the US Senate in 1972, it has not become part of the Constitution.
The ERA has faced opposition and debate over the years, with questions arising about its ratification status. While 38 states have ratified the ERA, some states have rescinded their ratifications, and the original deadline for ratification set by Congress has passed. The President of the United States has no formal role in the passing of constitutional amendments, as ruled by the US Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v. Virginia (1798).
Despite this, former President Joe Biden issued a statement expressing his belief that the ERA should be considered part of the Constitution. However, this statement holds no legal weight, and the ERA cannot be certified as part of the Constitution due to legal, judicial, and procedural decisions. The process of amending the Constitution is outlined in Article V, which does not assign any role to the President.
While Biden's statement garnered support from advocates and lawmakers, it is important to understand that the President does not have the authority to add the ERA to the Constitution unilaterally. The amendment process, as outlined in Article V of the Constitution, requires a two-thirds majority in the House and the Senate to propose an amendment, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the states. The President is not involved in this process, and any changes to the Constitution must go through the established amendment process.
In conclusion, while the ERA has gained significant support and continues to be a topic of debate, the President does not have the unilateral authority to add it to the Constitution. Any changes to the Constitution must follow the amendment process outlined in Article V, which involves Congress and state legislatures.
The Citizenship Clause: Constitutional Foundation of American Identity
You may want to see also
The ERA would have advanced gender equality and addressed systemic biases
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would have explicitly prohibited sex discrimination. The ERA was first drafted in 1923 by two leaders of the women's suffrage movement, Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman. The ERA's central principle is that sex should not determine the legal rights of men or women.
Alice Paul and her National Woman's Party asserted that women should be on equal terms with men in all regards, even if that means sacrificing benefits given to women through protective legislation, such as shorter work hours, no night work or heavy lifting, and exemption from compulsory military service and combat duty. The ERA would have advanced gender equality by firmly rejecting sharp legislative lines between the sexes as constitutionally tolerable. Instead, it would have advocated for a legal system in which each person is judged on the basis of individual merit, rather than an unalterable trait of birth that bears no necessary relationship to need or ability.
The ERA would have addressed systemic biases by empowering Congress to enforce gender equity through legislation and the creation of a social framework to formally acknowledge and address the biases that often limit women's daily experiences. It would have created consistency in addressing the patchwork ways gender and economic inequity are often addressed in current laws. The ERA would have also given policymakers a two-year buffer period to bring existing laws into compliance, and after that, policies that differentiated by sex would only be permitted if absolutely necessary and with no sex-neutral alternative.
Despite the ERA's potential to advance gender equality and address systemic biases, it faced mounting opposition from conservative religious and political organizations, as well as women who supported traditional gender roles. Opponents argued that the ERA would invalidate protective laws for women and eliminate their privileges, such as alimony and the tendency for mothers to obtain custody of their children in divorce cases. They also believed that the ERA would threaten Social Security benefits for housewives and impact welfare programs aimed at women and children. In addition, opponents argued that men and women were already equal due to existing legislation like the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Foreign Policy: Constitutional Roots Explored
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would explicitly prohibit sex discrimination.
The ERA has been approved by Congress and has been ratified by 38 states. However, it has not been ratified as a constitutional amendment and is not currently part of the Constitution.
There are several reasons why the ERA has not been added to the Constitution. One reason is the opposition to the amendment, particularly from religious conservatives who argue that it would guarantee universal abortion rights and the right for same-sex couples to marry. Additionally, the ERA has faced procedural challenges, such as missed ratification deadlines and disputes over the authority to extend these deadlines.
The lack of the ERA in the Constitution means that women are not guaranteed equal protection under the law. Current sex-discrimination law rests on judicial interpretations of equal protection, which can vary. Without the ERA, women's rights and protections are not explicitly enshrined in the nation's founding document.
There have been ongoing campaigns to ratify the ERA, with supporters introducing various bills in Congress to extend or work around deadlines. Additionally, some states have passed their own versions of the ERA to advance gender equality within their jurisdictions.
