A new movie about the rise of second-wave feminism in the 1970s quotes a feminist leader as saying: “We are against housewives.” The push to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment is a desire to create a gender and sex-neutral society that does not allow for the choices that many women want to make: to be a wife and mother.
In another throwback to the 1970s, the Virginia statehouse ratified the Equal Rights Amendment. Luckily, their passage is not legal. The U.S. Department of Justice issued an opinion in January 2020 advising the U.S. Archivist NOT to certify any late ratification of ERA. “Congress may not revive a proposed amendment after a deadline for its ratification has expired,” said Steven Engel, the assistant attorney general. He noted that ERA is no longer a pending constitutional amendment for the states to consider.
The liberals know that they do not have the votes to ratify ERA today, so they are trying to attach votes today to votes made nearly fifty years ago. The U.S. House is considering passing a bill, sponsored by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA), that would remove the deadline that was intrinsic to ERA when Congress approved in 1972.
In response to Congress, Engel said, “Because Congress and the state legislatures are distinct actors in the constitutional amendment process, the 116th Congress may not revise the terms under which two-thirds of both Houses proposed the ERA Resolution and under which thirty-five state legislatures initially ratified it. Such an action by this Congress would seem tantamount to asking the 116th Congress to override a veto that President Carter had returned during the 92nd Congress, a power this Congress plainly does not have.”
ERA failed ratification in the timeline originally set by Congress. Both Phyllis Schlafly and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed that the only constitutional way for Congress to revive ERA would be for two-thirds of both houses of Congress to propose the amendment anew for consideration by the states.
Even with this legal victory, opponents of ERA should not relax. Many young women joined the new bandwagon of “equal rights” and they are under the false impression that they need ERA. Proponents of ERA are victims of their oppressive ideology. As Phyllis Schlafly said, “We know that we are first-class citizens. We know that we have all constitutional rights. We know that women can do anything we want to do.”
A CBS reporter recently challenged me that since “men” are in the Constitution, shouldn’t “women” be put in the Constitution? The answer is that women are already in the Constitution because the 14th amendment grants all “persons…equal protection of the laws.” But, ERA never mentions women; it would put “sex” into the Constitution without defining what “sex” means.
I urge you to educate the young women you know about the harms of a feminist ideology that seeks to limit their potential.
To read the true story of Phyllis Schlafly, please visit MrsAmerica.org