As we have commemorated the 47th anniversary of Roe
v. Wade this week, and as thousands of pro-life Americans are March(ing) for
Life in our nation’s capital today, one of the most anti-life proposals of a
bygone era is having a second moment in the spotlight. The Equal Right
Amendment (ERA), long thought to be defunct, is re-emerging with the
support of activists who argue that now is the time to amend the U.S.
Constitution to guarantee “equal rights” for women.
While the ERA promises legal equality among the sexes, it
does away with important sex distinctions that have been indispensable in
protecting women. The amendment language is simple: “Equality of rights under
the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on
account of sex.” But Family Policy Alliance and many other pro-life
organizations believe it will enshrine abortion rights in the Constitution and
have other disastrous consequences for women and girls.
Although approved by Congress and sent to the states in 1972,
only 35 of the needed 38 states ratified the amendment before it expired in
1982.
But that isn’t stopping Democrats from trying to resurrect
the ERA. Nevada and Illinois ratified the amendment in recent years, and
Virginia followed suit last week. With these three additions, the number of
states that have ratified the ERA has now increased to the requisite 38,
notwithstanding the 1982 deadline.
What is the future of the ERA? Well, that will be decided by
Congress—and you, the engaged biblical citizens of this nation. Use our Action
Center to tell your U.S. Representatives and Senators to oppose the ERA. It’s
easy and only takes a minute of your time.
We’ve provided some answers to the most frequently asked
questions about the ERA. Read below to learn more, but don’t forget to use our
Action Center to contact your Representative and Senators. You can make
a difference!
Q: Is the ERA necessary to protect women’s rights?
No. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
already prohibits government discrimination against women and guarantees equal
rights for “all persons” regardless of sex. The ERA isn’t needed to protect
women’s rights. In fact, if the amendment were ratified, it would endanger
spaces designed to protect women’s privacy and dignity, such as restrooms,
locker rooms and fitting rooms.
Looking back, the movement to adopt the ERA fell apart in
the 1970s when Phyllis Schlafly, a constitutional lawyer and conservative
activist, persuasively argued that women stood to lose far more than they would
gain.
Think about the implications of prohibiting “discrimination”
on the basis of sex. Sex-segregated restrooms, locker rooms, and women’s
shelters could all be opened to men. After all, wouldn’t it be “discrimination”
to stop a man from using the female bathroom? Women’s and girls’ sports, too,
would be threatened.
Many states have already opened women’s bathrooms and girls’
sports to biological males. The ERA would effectively require these policies
nationwide and with a far greater reach than many would imagine.
Q: How would ratification of the ERA affect the pro-life
victories achieved over the last several decades?
A: The ERA would enshrine government-funded abortion-on-demand
in the Constitution. Restrictions on abortion would likely be overturned under
the guise of protecting women from reproductive “discrimination,” which is
impermissible under the ERA.
Moreover, several state and federal courts have already
interpreted state ERAs as requiring government (meaning your tax dollars!) funding
for abortion. A federal ERA would bring about the same result across the entire
nation. That’s why some policy leaders have taken to calling the ERA the “Everything
Related to Abortion” Amendment.
Q: The deadline for states to ratify ERA expired in 1982.
Is it legally possible for the ERA to be revived?
A: Probably not. But Democrats in the U.S. House of
Representatives are trying to retroactively extend the deadline imposed by
Congress when the amendment was sent to the states for ratification in 1972.
Most legal authorities—including
the U.S. Justice Department and the National Archivist—have concluded that
original cutoff date was final. If that’s not enough, it’s also worth noting
that five of the 35 states that had ratified the amendment in the 1970s have
since rescinded their support.
Because House Democrats are trying to sweep aside the
lapsed deadline and ignore the efforts of five states to withdraw their
ratification votes, it’s important that you contact your congresspeople and
tell them to oppose the ERA. Use our Action Center to send an email to your Representative
and Senators now.
For the family of believers,
Blaine Conzatti
Director of Advocacy, Family Policy Alliance of Idaho
The Family Policy Alliance Team
|