I wrote an article last week -- "From Hope to History: It's Time to Pass the Equal Rights Amendment" -- that generated hundreds of comments and thousands of shares. Why? Many readers were dismayed and confused to learn that this simply worded sentence is still not in the U.S. Constitution, even after 88 years:
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Readers who believed the Equal Rights Amendment had already passed through Congress to become the 28th Amendment to the Constitution years ago were shocked. The amendment, first written in 1923 by Alice Paul, was, in fact, approved by Congress and sent to the states in 1972 with a ten-year deadline for ratification, but by 1982, supporters had managed to sign on only 35 of the 38 states needed to add the amendment to the Constitution.
Some who are not in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment claim it is redundant and unnecessary, often citing the 14th Amendment, which they say already protects the rights of women. It does not. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia publicly stated that the 14th Amendment was never intended to protect women. It was only intended to protect race. Federal and state law cannot protect citizens who are not protected under the Constitution. He made this remark in January 2011:
Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't.
Sensing that people are as confused about the issue as I am, but just as eager to turn the promise of the Equal Rights Amendment into a reality, I interviewed key thought leaders who are directly involved in efforts to get the Equal Rights Amendment passed.
Why do we need the Equal Rights Amendment?
Laws can be repealed. Judicial attitudes can shift. We continue to see demonstrable cases of systemic gender discrimination -- even in this day and age when women have come so far. Establishing the clear unambiguous language of the Equal Rights Amendment into the U.S. Constitution would have a real impact on our national consciousness. Our democracy rests on the principle of 'liberty and justice for all.' We need the ERA to ensure that this concept applies equal to women.-- Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), who reintroduced the Equal Rights Amendment on June 22nd, 2011.
Women in the armed services are fighting on the front lines in two wars to protect and defend a constitution that does not protect and defend them. The U.S. strongly urged Iraq and Afghanistan to include women in their new constitutions as they rebuild their societies; yet we have not led by example.-- Carolyn A. Cook, founder and CEO of United 4 Equality, and author of the HJ Res. 47 resolution, which calls for Congress to officially remove the time limit for ratification of the ERA.
First, a movement has to move and the women's movement will only grow and thrive if it keeps on pushing for policies such as the ERA -- which is nothing more than the American value of fairness and equality under the law. Second, because even though it hasn't passed yet, every time we have made it an issue, women have advanced in myriad ways. And third, we must pass it because it is the right thing to do. No cause is lost when it is the right thing to do.
-- Gloria Feldt, activist, and author of No Excuses: 9 Ways Women Can Change How We Think About Power.
What are the options for getting the Equal Rights Amendment passed once and for all?
There are two strategies that are currently being pursued by those who support the Equal Rights Amendment:
Rep. Carolyn Maloney explained it this way:
I have introduced the full 'start-over' ERA in each Congress since I arrived because the rights of women deserve to be constitutional. This Congress, I introduced H.J.RES 69 with over 155 original cosponsors. This would re-set the ratification count at zero and start the ratification process over again. In addition to the 'start-over' strategy, there is the 'three-state' strategy, which would put the ERA in our Constitution when an additional three states ratify, which, when added to the original 35 states, add up to the necessary 38 ratifications. However, some Constitutional scholars believe that this approach would violate the Constitution and would likely be subject to a challenge which would likely win in court and invalidate the entire ratification. Nevertheless, I support both strategies and believe in doing anything that will increase the chances that the ERA will be included in the Constitution.
To address the issues inherent in the "three state strategy," Carolyn A. Cook spearheaded a resolution which she authored (HJ Res. 47) urging Congress to remove the time limit for ratification in the final three states needed. According to Carolyn,
It is a far more efficient, fair and likely-to-succeed approach than hitting the reset button on ERA. I drafted the proposal, recruited some passionate ERA advocates from unratified states to help, and together we introduced this bill on March 8th to mark the 100th anniversary of Women's Equality Day. This day serves as a reminder that the U.S. cannot curb the human rights abuses of women and girls worldwide while denying them constitutional equality at home. 

Mike Hersh, on staff at the Progressive Democrats of America, succinctly summed up why we need to pursue the "three state strategy" instead of starting over:
Starting over requires a 2/3 vote in favor from both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, which we can't expect until 2013 at the earliest. For reference, this has been tried in every Congress for many years, and has never passed, even when Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker and Democrats had huge majorities in both the House and Senate. Once we get the ERA out of Congress again, we'd have to start over from zeo and get 38 states to ratify the amendment. Fewer than half that many are likely to do so in the foreseeable future. So starting over would almost definitely take several decades.
What can we do to ensure that America does not kill the Equal Rights Amendment?
Complacency will kill the Equal Rights Amendment, and we need to change the tone of the discourse. Let's stop thinking about it in terms of us against them, left vs. right, conservative vs. liberal, men vs. women. Reframe the issue of the Equal Rights Amendment and ask yourself this question:
Is it the right thing to do?
Can a country that prides itself as the leader and protector of democracy in the world, and one which implores other countries to include the word "women" in their constitutions (Afghanistan and Iraq), still not protect the rights of women in its own?
If you believe the Equal Rights Amendment should be in our U.S. Constitution, here's what you can do:
If you believe in the Equal Rights Amendment, then get behind it, and get it done.
Personal message to Lady GaGa, if you're reading: My teenaged daughters, who are aghast that we have not yet been able to figure out how to pass the Equal Rights Amendment in this country, are huge fans of yours, and your message about "baby, you were born this way." Think about this, Lady GaGa: your fans were "born this way" without the protection of the Constitution. You can help. Support this. It's the right thing to do.
Follow Barbara Hannah Grufferman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BGrufferman
Ella Gregory: Why Celebrities Won't Ever Make It As Runway Models
Women's Rights Movement in the U.S.: Timeline of Events (1848-1920 ...
Certainly, in determining strategy, leaders of this movement would have been remiss to have not considered other tactics. One such tactic could have been to pursue "Gender Equality" and include valid issues from both genders as part of the platform.
Imagine if those such as Ms. Gufferman had stated "We are for: 1) the passage of the ERA, 2) having women make the same wages as men, 3) having men have equal access to their children through shared parenting, 4) the re-write of archaic paternity laws (why can DNA be used to clear one in criminal court but not in family court), etc."
Imagine how many men such a movement would have gotten on board especially given the very positive public perception of shared parenting. Instead of pursuing "gender equality" the perception is given that its OK for women to be in a position of complete dominance, but not ok for women not to be. Would Ms. Gufferman please explain to me how such is "equal?"
As there are smart people involved here, it would be surprising if this tactic was not considered. More likely, it was, and was also quickly sidelined. Does that make any satement?
If you look at other countries, NONE of their dire predictions have come true. Women have had constitutional and legal equality in Canada since 1982 and the world has not come to an end. The most "shocking" outcome is that if men are allowed to go shirtless by law, women must also be allowed to go topless by law. So, women may choose to go topless where men do, but it is their choice and the law applies equally. I actually know no Canadian men who complain about this outcome.
Should those who have not served honorably be barred from public office?
I don't think so. You don't "earn" constitutional rights or human rights, they are inherant. Governments can only attempt to guarantee or secure those rights, they cannot grant them.
Women have a natural human right to equality in the constitutions and laws of governments. The ERA would recognize this.
Somethings will be different for the foreseeable future even after the ERA passed. For example, only women risk their lives giving birth to perpetuate the species.
That said, they have done the first uterus transplants and I'm looking forward to the day when this tremendous burden will be shared. Of course then abortion will be both government funded and a holy sacrament. And every American will have pre-natal care and deaths in child birth will plummet b/c everyone will get appropriate care during pregnancy.
"The U.S. maternal mortality rate rose to 13 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2004, according to statistics released this week by the National Center for Health Statistics."
With 4 million births a year, that would be 520 total mortalities. This seems confirmed later in the article when it states
"Some health statisticians note the total number of maternal deaths — still fewer than 600 each year — is small."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427256/
As an aside there are 30,200 prostate cancer deaths in the US annually.
http://www.cancure.org/statistics.htm
So, exactly how silly did you want to get with this debate anyway.
http://looneytunes.com
Women's Less Than Full Equality Under The U.S. Constitution
by Patricia Ireland, NOW President
At a time when women are astronauts and truck drivers, it is hard to believe that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee women the same rights as men. For most women, equality is a bread-and-butter issue. Women are still paid less on the job and charged more for everything from dry cleaning to insurance. The value of a woman's unpaid work in the home is often not taken into account in determining divorce settlements and pension benefits. When women turn to the courts to right these wrongs, they are at a distinct disadvantage because of what has and hasn't happened to the Constitution..
Tamara Cross Attorney
"the raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to advance public policy agendas without fully explaining the reasons behind the gap."
and
"this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."
http://www.the-spearhead.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Gender-Wage-Gap-Final-Report.pdf
FACT: The 14th Amendment gives no guarantees of equal rights to women. In fact, though it was passed to insure that former slaves were given equal protection under the law, black women were excluded from these rights, as were all white women. The 14th Amendment was not applied to a case involving sex discrimination until the 1970s when it was used in a case concerning equal pay. So while the 14th Amendment has occasionally been interpreted to benefit women, it offers them no guarantees.
http://www.4era.org/myths.htm
Regarding the ERA, I believe it will have to go through the whole ratification process all over again, from scratch. Hopefully, the new proposal does not have a ratification expiration date. If the original did not have an expiration date, it would have garnered the 3 additional votes by now. And, remember, the newest Constitutional Amendment, passed 1992, had been on the books awaiting ratification as part of the original Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments passed in 1791). This process of ratification will serve to awaken a new generation of women to the inequities in US law regarding women. Although there has been much improvement in law and practice, there is still more to go.
Men would be impressed to see this added to the bill. Add selective service registration to the bill.
Again you prove my point that women want to be treated equally only when it means equal benefits, not equal responsibilities.
http://townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/2011/07/12/violence_against_women_act_must_be_rewritten
FACT: Congress already has the power to draft women into the armed services. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise armies but does not specify gender or age limitations."
http://www.4era.org/myths.htm
"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."
It should read:
"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state FOR ANY REASON."