February 4, 2021
What Goes Around Comes Around
There’s just something about Capitol Hill that makes one think they have deja vu. Every Congress, many of the same bills and policy initiatives are re-introduced. Many have no shot at being passed by both Chambers and then signed into law by the President. Some have a better chance depending on the party makeup of the House and Senate.
One of these bills is the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). You’ll recall that just last year, the House passed H. Res. 79, which attempted to remove the ERA’s ratification deadline. (Thankfully, it was dead on arrival to the Senate). But, to understand why this is an unfair attempt to ram an amendment through to the Constitution, it’s good to have some background.
- The ERA moved through Congress originally in 1971.
- In 1972, amendments were proposed to prevent the ERA from taking away traditional rights and benefits from women. These were defeated and the ERA maintained its original and rigid language.
- Congress sent the ERA to the states on March 22, 1972. A total of 38 states needed to approve the amendment within a 7-year timeframe.
- Only 35 states passed the ERA and 5 states chose to rescind their ratifications (Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky, South Dakota).
- The Supreme Court ruled in 1982 (NOW v. Idaho) that the ERA failed ratification.
- Since then, ERA activists have continued their efforts and claim that Virginia was the last state needed to ratify.
More recently, the Department of Justice released an opinion on January 8, 2020. The DOJ stated:
“Congress may not revive a proposed amendment after a deadline for its ratification has expired. Should Congress wish to propose the amendment anew, it may do so through the same procedures required to propose an amendment in the first instance, consistent with Article V of the Constitution.”
Even feminist icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg believed the process to ratifying the ERA must start from the beginning. Representative Jackie Spier (D-CA) and her allies do well to remember that it is unconstitutional to simply “remove” the ratification deadline.
If the Constitutional mechanisms to pass the ERA weren’t enough of an indicator that the ERA is bad, its impact on our daily lives will surely change your mind. In both New Mexico and Connecticut, state ERAs were used to overturn abortion restrictions and mandate taxpayer funding of abortion (N.M Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, Doe v. Maher). Make no mistake, a federal ERA will give the abortion business what they want: abortion on demand. To add to this, by removing gender distinctions, the ERA will violate women’s privacy and laws intended only for women, like Title IX.
Eagle Forum will be monitoring H.J.Res 17 and keep you posted with any actionable steps to prevent its passage.
