Will the Equal Rights Amendment cross the finish line? Three questions.

Jonathan Drake/Reuters
Activists calling for Virginia's adoption of the Equal Rights Amendment gather outside the Virginia State Capitol building as the General Assembly prepares to convene in Richmond, Virginia, Jan. 8, 2020.

Two ways to read the story

  • Quick Read
  • Deep Read ( 3 Min. )

When Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment in January, many believed that the decadeslong wait for the ERA to join the U.S. Constitution was finally over.

But not everyone agrees on whether the requirements have been met. Lawsuits are pending on disputes over issues such as whether a 1982 ratification deadline set by Congress invalidates the amendment. On Feb. 13, the U.S. House voted to remove that deadline, though the ultimate decision may rest in the Supreme Court. 

Why We Wrote This

Should rights be affected by a person's sex? As of January, the Equal Rights Amendment has finally been ratified by enough states. But it’s not clear if it is part of the Constitution yet. Here’s why.

Since the 1970s, a majority of Americans have supported an amendment for equal rights between men and women. But some Republican members of the House are among those who have raised concerns about how the ERA could prompt courts to overturn abortion limits. 

ERA proponents say that without a constitutional guarantee, women have faced limits as they’ve sought redress for gender-based violence and discrimination. 

“[It] would give Congress more scope of authority to pass legislation to protect women in various ways,” says Jessica Neuwirth, co-founder and co-president of the ERA Coalition. She says there’s value in sending “a clear message to all Americans that at the highest level of the law, women are now equal citizens.” 

When an effort to enshrine a new principle within the U.S. Constitution stretches on for generations, it offers up a past-meets-present twist on democratic deliberation. 

Now the federal government is trying to determine what the next steps are, after the required three-quarters of the states have ratified the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which affirms, “Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” 

Q: Why is the ERA – approved by Congress in 1972 – back in the news now?

Why We Wrote This

Should rights be affected by a person's sex? As of January, the Equal Rights Amendment has finally been ratified by enough states. But it’s not clear if it is part of the Constitution yet. Here’s why.

In January, Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the ERA. But people disagree on whether it has now met the requirements to become the 28th Amendment. By 1977, 35 states had approved the amendment, but then momentum stalled. Not until 2017 did an additional state, Nevada, ratify the ERA; Illinois joined the list the following year. 

ERA supporters declare victory, saying Virginia’s ratification means the ERA has fulfilled the conditions laid out in Article 5 of the Constitution. But the National Archives and Records Administration refuses to certify the ERA, citing an opinion from the U.S. Department of Justice that because the final ratifications happened after a deadline set by Congress, the amendment is invalid. 

Congress extended a 1979 deadline to 1982, but there are lawsuits pending over the legitimacy of those deadlines. Meanwhile, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on Feb. 13 to remove the deadline. ERA supporters are now watching to see if a similar bipartisan resolution in the Senate will be allowed to move forward for a vote.

SOURCE: Equalrightsamendment.org
|
Jacob Turcotte/Staff

If the ERA does become the 28th Amendment, it wouldn’t be the first time the Constitution changed at a snail’s pace. It took nearly 203 years for enough states to ratify the 27th Amendment, proposed in 1789, to restrict when Congress can raise its pay.

Another debate: whether to count five states that voted to rescind or sunset their ratification of the ERA. Other amendments, including the 14th and 15th, have made it into the Constitution with states that were counted despite attempts to backtrack on ratifying, says Vivian Hamilton, a professor at William & Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia.  

These questions are expected to make their way to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Q: Hasn’t legal equality between men and women already been established?

Since the 1970s, many laws that discriminated against women have been struck down through the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. 

Today’s ERA proponents applaud such progress, but say that without a constitutional guarantee, women have bumped up against limits as they’ve sought redress for gender-based violence and discrimination. 

“The ERA in the Constitution would give Congress more scope of authority to pass legislation to protect women in various ways,” says Jessica Neuwirth, author of “Equal Means Equal: Why the Time for an Equal Rights Amendment Is Now” and co-founder and co-president of the ERA Coalition. 

There’s also value in sending “a clear message to all Americans that at the highest level of the law, women are now equal citizens,” Ms. Neuwirth says. 

But some advocates for women’s rights say the ERA could be interpreted by conservative-leaning courts in a way that would strike down important protections for women – and they’d rather start fresh with a new amendment. These scholars argue that it “would be more robust ... if it contained explicit language authorizing policies that would affirmatively promote women’s equality,” Professor Hamilton says, citing examples from such countries as France and Germany.

Q: What opposition does the ERA face? 

Some Republican members of the House are among those who have raised concerns about how the ERA could prompt courts to overturn abortion limits. 

Twenty-four states have their own ERAs or other constitutional guarantees of equality on the basis of sex, and the effect on abortion rules has been mixed. The New Mexico Supreme Court, for example, cited the state’s ERA when it struck down a regulation that restricted public funds for abortions within Medicaid. In Pennsylvania, on the other hand, which also has a state ERA, a variety of restrictions on abortion have been upheld. 

Opponents also say the federal amendment could be used to offer constitutional protection to fluid notions of gender identity, and to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. How the courts would interpret the word “sex” in the ERA is an “unsettled issue,” Professor Hamilton says.

In surveys since the 1970s, a majority of Americans have consistently supported an amendment for equal rights between men and women.

Editor’s Note: This story was updated on Feb. 13 to include the results of the House vote.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.