ERA would not benefit women. Reword it and start fresh.

Regarding the editorial “The ERA, hotly controversial in the 1970s, should be an easy lift today” (Feb. 20): I believe this editorial about the Equal Rights Amendment is excellent in unintentionally pointing out the fatal flaws in this proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This amendment never mentions women, and it would not benefit women.

Fifty years ago, “sex” was understood to mean male and female. Today, “sex” has a multitude of new definitions. The 2020 Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County extended the definition of “sex” to include orientation and identity. No one knows how courts would interpret the vague and undefined language of the ERA.
 
Proponents of the ERA should not use votes taken 50 years to shoehorn the amendment into the Constitution. The advocates should start fresh with a cleanly written and well-defined amendment so that all Americans can easily understand the ramifications of ratification.
 

Anne Schlafly Cori • Alton
Chairman, Eagle Forum

Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Anne Schlafly
Anne Schlafly Cori is the daughter of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016), and Chairman of Eagle Forum.