Dear John,
The Government Accountability Office released new data earlier this week showing a persistent and significant gap between women’s and men’s wages, and that women remain underrepresented in management positions. The report came just as we “celebrated” Equal Pay Day on Mar. 14, the day on which women’s wages finally reach what white men made in the previous year. Of course, that's only when you lump all women together—for Black women, Equal Pay Day doesn’t come till Sept. 21; it’s Oct. 8 for Hispanic women and Nov. 30 for Native women.
But the wage gap is just half the story. Feminist advocates and policy makers point out that if we consider earnings—which accounts for other forms of compensation, like life and health insurance, retirement accounts, bonuses and self-employment income—the gap between what men and women make is even wider. If Equal Pay Day were based on this gap, it wouldn’t come till October—with women of color having to wait till the next year entirely!
For women’s rights advocates, the earnings gap is just another reason why women’s constitutional equality cannot wait. “The pay gap, along with the Dobbs decision, are two reminders of why we need to pass the Equal Rights Amendment more than ever,” said former Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney during a press conference commemorating the day.
The ERA could also be a strong defense against the hostile conservative majority on the Supreme Court—which, as various law scholars warn in our new Spring issue, has made it increasingly easy for states and Congress to enact regressive laws, beyond abortion.
In our cover story, contributing editor Carrie Baker writes that the legal reasoning used in Dobbs “…if applied to the 14th Amendment equal protection clause itself, could overturn or erode constitutional sex equality law.” The majority opinion in Dobbs argued that the “14th Amendment protects only rights explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, those intended to be protected by the framers of the 14th Amendment in 1868, or rights ‘deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions’.”
And constitutional law experts agree. “A Court that doesn’t feel like abiding by 50 years of precedent, doesn’t need to respect precedents … against sex-based discrimination,” said Melissa Murray, a New York University law professor. “That is ominous.”
This week we saw yet another egregious attack on abortion rights that further emphasized the need for the ERA, and the abortion protections it could deliver. In Texas, a man whose ex-wife underwent an abortion is suing three women who helped her obtain it. And in hearings in a closely watched lawsuit this past week, Trump-appointed Texas judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk appeared to be sympathetic to the meritless arguments made by anti-abortion organizations which are suing the FDA. The suit aims to take the abortion medication mifepristone off the market, despite the fact that it’s been used safely for more than two decades in the U.S. and even longer around the world.
Women’s equality simply cannot wait any longer. Count on Ms. to bring you all the news and analysis you need to fight back.
Onward,
