The Constitution: A Living, Breathing Document

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is not a part of the US Constitution, despite meeting the constitutional requirement of 38-state ratification. The ERA was first introduced in Congress in 1923, guaranteeing protection from discrimination based on sex. However, it faced opposition and failed to meet the ratification deadline in 1979, even with an extension to 1982. The ERA's inclusion in the Constitution continues to be debated, with legal challenges and political divisions over its validity. While some argue that time limits on ratification are inherently unconstitutional, others oppose the ERA's inclusion, citing potential complications and progress made without it. The ERA's fate remains uncertain, pending resolution by Congress, the courts, and the American people.

Explore related products

The U.S. Constitution: Explained--Clause by Clause--for Every American Today

$9.97 $12

How to Read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence

$16.07 $16.95

The Federalist Papers (Signet Classics)

$8.12 $8.95

The Law

$0.59 $3.95

Data Independence: Reclaiming Privacy in an Era of Evolving Tech

$2.99 $29.99

Common Sense (Books of American Wisdom)

$10 $12.95

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was first drafted in 1923

The ERA states that:

> "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."

The ERA is necessary because, when the Constitution was originally written, women had far fewer civil and legal rights than privileged categories of men. When the U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1787, the rights it affirmed were guaranteed equally only for certain white males. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which included the Equal Protection Clause, was adopted in 1868, but it did not apply to women. It was not until 1972 that the United States Supreme Court extended equal protection to sex-based discrimination.

Despite the ERA being introduced in Congress in 1923, it did not gain significant support until the rise of the women's movement in the United States during the 1960s. The ERA was reintroduced by Representative Martha Griffiths in 1971 and approved by the U.S. House of Representatives that year and by the U.S. Senate in 1972. Congress set a seven-year deadline for three-quarters of U.S. states (38 states total) to ratify the ERA by 1979. However, the ERA fell short by three states. A simple majority of Congress later extended the deadline to 1982, but the ERA still fell short by three states.

Despite the missed deadlines, there are ongoing efforts to ratify the ERA. In 2020, Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the ERA, but legal battles ensued. The ERA faces legal and political challenges due to the inclusion of an arbitrary seven-year time limit for ratification in the preamble of the version passed by Congress, which was not included in the text of the version ratified by the states. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has the authority to impose a deadline for ratification and that it cannot be retroactively extended once it has expired.

The ERA has also faced opposition from some who argue that it would complicate matters and that progress has been made in many states without it. Nevertheless, proponents of the ERA argue that it is necessary to advance the cause of equality in the twenty-first century and empower Congress to address systemic biases that limit women's daily experiences.

The ERA has not been ratified as a constitutional amendment

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was first drafted in 1923 by two leaders of the women’s suffrage movement, Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman. The ERA was designed to guarantee protection from discrimination on the basis of sex. While Congress approved the ERA in 1972, it has never been ratified as a constitutional amendment.

The ERA has faced numerous challenges and obstacles on its path to ratification. One significant hurdle has been the ratification deadlines imposed by Congress. Despite a simple majority of Congress extending the original 1979 deadline to 1982, the ERA fell short of the necessary 38 states for ratification. Additionally, five states have since rescinded their prior approval. The inclusion of deadlines in the ratification process has been a point of contention, with some scholars and advocates arguing that time limits on ratification are inherently unconstitutional.

Another challenge for the ERA has been opposition from certain states. In 2019, Alabama, Louisiana, and South Dakota sued to prevent further ratification of the ERA, arguing that it had been rejected by the people and that attempting to add it to the Constitution would undermine the constitutional order. The lawsuit resulted in a joint stipulation that incorporated the Department of Justice's opinion that Congress had the authority to impose a deadline and that the ERA was no longer pending before the states.

Despite these challenges, there are ongoing efforts to ratify the ERA. Supporters have introduced various strategies, such as the "three-state strategy" and bills to extend or eliminate the deadline. The ERA caucus in Congress, which is the fifth-largest, has introduced resolutions to establish the ERA as the 28th Amendment and remove the deadline for ratification. Additionally, the ERA has gained increased support from GOP members with each new ratification.

The ERA's non-inclusion in the Constitution has highlighted the lack of guaranteed equal rights for women. While the Fourteenth Amendment extended equal protection to sex-based discrimination in 1972, women have never been entitled to full equal protection due to subsequent rulings. The ERA seeks to address this by empowering Congress to enforce gender equity through legislation and creating a social framework that acknowledges systemic biases impacting women's daily experiences.

The ERA has faced opposition from several US states

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was first introduced to Congress in 1923, three years after women in the United States were granted the right to vote. The ERA was written by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman, two leaders of the women's suffrage movement, and advocated for gender equality. Despite gaining momentum in the 1960s and being reintroduced in 1971, the ERA has faced strong opposition from several US states.

In March 1972, the ERA amendment passed both chambers of Congress with bipartisan support and was then submitted to the state legislatures for ratification with a seven-year deadline, later extended to 1982. Within a year, 30 of the necessary 38 states acted to ratify the ERA. However, the momentum slowed due to opposition from conservative activists and religious organizations. The STOP ERA campaign, led by conservative lawyer and activist Phyllis Schlafly, argued that the ERA would lead to gender-neutral bathrooms, same-sex marriage, and women in military combat. This opposition campaign was remarkably successful in halting the ERA's progress.

Even though Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the ERA in 2020, surpassing the threshold of 38 states required for amendments to the Constitution, there are still hurdles to its adoption. Five states have rescinded their prior approval, and several states have taken legal action to prevent the ERA's ratification. In 2020, Alabama, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Tennessee intervened in a lawsuit filed by Virginia, Illinois, and Nevada, seeking to require the Archivist of the United States to recognize the ERA's adoption. These states argued that the ERA had been rejected by the people and that any attempt to include it in the Constitution would undermine the constitutional order.

The opposition to the ERA has been based on concerns about the loss of privileges and protections for women, such as exemption from military service and economic support from husbands. However, supporters of the ERA argue that it is necessary to address systemic biases and gender inequality. The ERA has faced a challenging path to ratification, and despite gaining the required number of state ratifications, its inclusion in the Constitution remains uncertain.

Explore related products

We the People: The Story of Our Constitution

$9.99 $19.99

Is Administrative Law Unlawful?

$31.61 $35

Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge's View

$15.48 $16.95

[ The Federalist Papers (Rethinking the Western Tradition (Paperback)) ] By Hamilton, Alexander ( Author ) [ 2009 ) [ Paperback ]

$73.9

The United States Bill of Rights

$4.95

Echoes from a Missing Generation: A Split-Time Cold Case Mystery

$2.99 $11.99

The ERA has support from both pro- and anti-coalitions

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has been a long-debated issue in the United States, with both supporters and opponents presenting valid arguments for their respective positions. Initially, the ERA faced opposition from various groups, including labour unions and religious conservatives. For example, in the 1940s, ERA opponents proposed an alternative that emphasised biological differences and social functions, which was rejected by both pro- and anti-ERA coalitions. Over time, however, the ERA gained momentum and increasing support, particularly with the rise of the women's movement in the 1960s.

The ERA has garnered support from diverse coalitions, including the ERA Coalition, which comprises nearly 300 organisations working towards an equal future. The National Organization for Women (NOW) and ERAmerica, a coalition of almost 80 organisations, have also been at the forefront of pro-ERA efforts, advocating for gender equity and addressing systemic biases that impact women's daily experiences. Additionally, key feminists like Gloria Steinem have spoken out in favour of the ERA, challenging gender myths and highlighting unequal treatment between men and women.

On the other hand, the ERA has faced opposition from groups with differing perspectives. For instance, Eleanor Roosevelt and most New Dealers opposed the ERA, arguing that it catered to middle-class women while government protection was needed for working-class women. They also feared that the ERA would undermine male-dominated labour unions. Religious conservatives have expressed concerns that the ERA would lead to universal abortion rights and the legalisation of same-sex marriage. Additionally, special interest groups, such as the insurance industry and conservative organisations, have been blamed for influencing the opposition and subverting the democratic process.

Despite these differing viewpoints, the ERA has continued to gain support from both major political parties, with the exception of the Republican Party's neutrality stance in 1980. The ERA has received overwhelming support in both houses of Congress, reflecting a recognition of the need for equal rights and the advancement of gender equity in the 21st century. As of 2023, the ERA had been ratified by 38 states, surpassing the required threshold for adoption as a constitutional amendment.

In conclusion, the ERA has been a highly contested issue, with both pro- and anti-coalitions presenting their arguments and influencing public opinion. While opposition has been strong, the ERA has also gained significant support, reflecting the evolving nature of societal values and the ongoing pursuit of equality. The ERA's journey towards becoming part of the Constitution remains a dynamic and ongoing process, leaving the outcome yet to be determined.

The ERA would empower Congress to enforce gender equity

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is not currently a part of the US Constitution. The ERA was first drafted in 1923 by two leaders of the women's suffrage movement, Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman. It was 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. After being reintroduced by Representative Martha Griffiths in 1971, it was approved by the US House of Representatives that year and by the US Senate in 1972, thus submitting the ERA to the state legislatures for ratification.

The ERA states: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." The ERA would empower Congress to enforce gender equity through legislation and the creation of a social framework to formally acknowledge systemic biases that often limit women's daily experiences. It would create consistency in addressing gender and economic inequity.

Congress set a deadline of seven years for three-quarters of US states (38 states) to ratify the ERA. This deadline was later extended to 1982. However, the ERA fell short by three states. In 2020, Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the ERA, but this led to legal battles. The National Archives and Records Administration stated that it would not certify Virginia's ratification or add the ERA to the Constitution until a federal court issued an order.

There are ongoing efforts to ratify the ERA, with several bills in Congress aiming to extend or work around the deadline. The ERA caucus in Congress is the fifth-largest, indicating growing support. The ERA has faced opposition and legal challenges, with arguments that it would complicate matters and that progress has been made in states without it. However, proponents argue that the ERA is necessary to guarantee equal rights for women and men, as the Constitution has never been amended to ensure this.

Frequently asked questions