August 26 is Women's Equality Day. Most Americans don't even know what it is. Aside from commemorations by a few female leaders on Capitol Hill, the day is hardly noticed. But it marks one of the most important accomplishments of the last century for women -- the date the final state ratified the 19th Amendment in 1920 - and women were granted the vote.
That year also marked what suffragists of the time thought would soon be another constitutional milestone, the Equal Rights Amendment. With their newfound franchise, women believed they could convince legislators to put women on equal footing in the constitution with men (white men from the beginning, black men since passage of the 14th amendment in 1868). The ERA was penned by Alice Paul, the suffragist jailed for picketing the White House who nearly starved in Occaquan prison outside Washington.
But it was not to be. Here we are, 91 years later -- a lifetime in anyone's book -- and women still haven't achieved equal constitutional status. First introduced in Congress in 1923, the ERA was not passed and sent to the states for ratification until 1972, with an artificial time limit of only seven years for approval by the states. In that brief time it was ratified by 35 states, but was stopped three states short by millions of corporate dollars backing Phyllis Schlafly's anti-woman storm troopers, who feared unisex toilets more than they valued freedom from discrimination.
Most U.S. citizens don't remember that fight, and many believe the ERA was ratified. The reality is that the legal rights women currently enjoy are not rooted in the constitution, but in a series of statutes like the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Executive Orders like affirmative action, and various rules interpreting laws such as Title IX, guaranteeing equal educational opportunity. Because we don't have an ERA, depending on their origin, all of these can be revoked in the dead of night by any simple majority of Congress, bureaucrats in a hostile administration, or the President himself.
George W. Bush and company knew this very well. With the appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, the assaults on women's employment rights and legal abortions began in earnest. The Court upheld the first federal abortion ban since Roe v. Wade, severely limited redress for illegal pay practices (until Congress passed a new law), and most recently all but outlawed class action suits by ruling in favor of Walmart against women experiencing discrimination at work.
Recently renamed the Women's Equality Amendment by its chief sponsor, Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), the ERA is the essence of brevity: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." That's the whole thing. A simple concept that had the blessing of both political parties until the Republicans struck it from their platform in 1980.
It's high time the ERA was put back in the center of public debate, and the long 2012 election season that's already underway is the perfect opportunity. So far, Republican candidates are following in W's footsteps. They're talking not only about further limiting younger women's reproductive rights, but taking away the supports the majority of women depend on in old age -- Social Security and Medicare. President Obama is not going that far, but he's also far from championing the rights of women outright. He got the majority of our votes last time, but can he take us for granted now, with so many out of work and at the back of the unemployment lines?
Office seekers not remembering the voting rights we're celebrating on the 26th do so at their peril. Women are now the majority of the electorate, and can control any election. Close to 80% of the public, both female and male, favor an Equal Rights Amendment. Candidates of both parties for the Congress and the presidency ought to be listening.
Equality Day? Not yet. Ask your candidate why.
It's been about four decades since the bill was originally introduced. Why has it not been re-introduced over the last forty years? It would seem to have been a natural decision during the Clinton years. That possibility should have been heightened by the fact that feminist women have vastly increased their numbers in both national and state legislative bodies over the years since 1972.
I suspect that many feminists have realized that women already have equal rights, and that the ERA would likely be of greater benefit to males (selective service registration laws, for example). Even many parts of the VAWA would likely be unconstitutional under the 1972 version of the ERA.
Which brings me to my greatest concern: the idea that many would lobby for a "creative" definition and application of the amendment. Perhaps the notion that equal opportunity is not enough...and that the language within the amendment can only be made manifest when women and men have achieved equal results...leading to a system of quotas and preferences designed to engineer that "equality"
Ultimately, I support the amendment, assuming it utilizes the 1972 language and that there are no attempts to convolute the clarity of that language.
I can't ever take women causes seriously anymore because of your hypocrisy and double standards.
Women are people in my eyes, and in the eyes of the law. Women already have an amendment guaranteeing you legal equality, its the same amendment which protects everyone else. If the 14th is good enough for historically discriminated against minorities it should be sufficient for the majority as well.
Question to any supporter of this seemingly unnecessary measure: What legal rights do you currently not have, which men do, which passing the ERA would give you? To my knowledge there are no legal rights which men enjoy which women do not. Can anyone tell me what they might be?
There's certainly very little to demonstrate that to be a fact.
The FACT is that the ERA failed ratification, and in fact several states that HAD ratified it voted to rescind their ratification. By not getting the necessary votes before 1982, the ERA has FAILED ratification, and would have to be voted out of Congress again.
The amendment has been reintroduced in every session of Congress since 1982. Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) championed it in the Senate during the 99th Congress through the 110th Congress. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) introduced the amendment symbolically at the end of the 111th Congress and has supported it in the 112th Congress. In the House of Representatives, Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) has sponsored it since the 105th Congress,[34] most recently in May 2011.
It has never been voted out again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment#Subsequent_congressional_action
Let's be honest, let's be clear. More honest and more clear than Martha Burk.
An ERA would have no impact on this current Supreme Court's decision to uphold any abortion bans or limits, to limit redress for illegal pay practices, or to limit class action suits by women experiencing discrimination at work.
An ERA will do nothing to safeguard Social Security and Medicare.
YES to ERA. NO to false promises about what an ERA will actually deliver.