The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has not been validly before a state legislature since its expiration on March 22, 1979, ten years after it was first introduced. The U. S. Supreme Court has recognized that deadline as binding.
ERA is a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would restrict all laws and practices which make any distinctions “on the basis of sex”. Such an extreme restriction would wipe out beneficial programs for women and prohibit necessary distinctions even when they logically make sense. Women and men are biologically different, and we must retain the ability to provide legally for these differences.
The ERA would also transfer large amounts of legislative power from the states to Congress.
Section 2 of the ERA requires that Congress be given the power to enact the provisions of the ERA. As a result, states would lose their legislative abilities in regards to family law, some criminal laws, public and private schools, prison regulations, insurance rates, etc. Such a transfer would create an imbalance of power between the states and the federal government and place sensitive issues that affect women under the rule of a national government that is far less responsive to individuals than the state legislatures.
The ERA harms women and their families:
Under the extreme restrictions required by the ERA, logical recognition of the needs of women due to their differences would not be allowed. The ERA would eliminate the following:
- Exemption of women from Selective Service registration and possible conscription on the same basis as men. Women enjoy wide-open opportunities in the All-Volunteer Force. As Justice Ginsberg noted, however, ERA would force military officials to treat minimally-qualified women exactly like men, despite unequal physical capabilities and unfair, disproportionate risks of debilitating injury.
- Workplace laws that provide special accommodations for pregnant women.
- Separate correctional facilities for women. Currently, men and women have separate prison facilities for the protection and privacy of female prison inmates. Female facilities also focus on the needs of female inmates by providing programs for domestic violence, sexual assault survivors, and pregnancy, etc. Justice Ginsberg says the ERA would require that prisons be sex integrated. This would be dangerous for women.
- Government programs that support women as mothers such as the Women Infants and Children program (WIC)
- Gender designations for bathrooms, locker rooms, jails, and hospital rooms
- Government programs that support women as mothers such as the Women Infants and Children program (WIC)
- Social Security benefits for stay-at-home mothers based on their spouse’s income.
- All other laws that provide supportive or ‘preferential’ treatment for women
The ERA would mandate taxpayer funding of abortion:
In those states where state ERAs are virtually identical to the 1972 Congressional language, pro-abortion groups have used the state ERA to attack pro-life measures and to advocate state funding of abortion. (e.g.Connecticut, PA, New Mexico)
In the 18 states that passed state Equal Rights Amendments, we have not seen any benefit for women. Instead, court cases prosecuted under the state ERAs have shown that women were harmed:
- In Maryland, the court held that under the state ERA, a husband could no longer be required to support his dependent wife. Coleman v. Maryland, 37 Md. App. 322, 377 A.2d (1977)
- Under Pennsylvania’s state ERA, a father was exempted from providing primary support for his minor children, AND a husband’s legal responsibility for his wife’s hospital and medical bills was nullified. (Conway v. Dana, 456 Pa. 536, 318 A.2d 324 (1974)/ Albert Einstein Medical Center v. Nathans, 5 D&C 3d 619 (1978).
- Also, under Pennsylvania’s ERA, gender-based automobile insurance rates were disapproved by the state insurance commissioner due to a claim of sex discrimination. Now women will have to pay the same rates as men even if they statistically have better driving records (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Insurance Commissioner, 482 A.2d 542 [Pa. 1984] and 543-44).
Numerous laws already provide for the equal protection of women’s rights
The ERA will not give women any more rights than they currently have. Women already have a claim to equal rights through the 14th Amendment (section1) as well as numerous other laws in virtually all areas of American life – employment (including equal pay), education, credit eligibility, housing, public accommodations, etc. In an analysis of the impact of the ERA written in the 1970s, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was unable to find any changes required in employment laws for compliance with an ERA.
The ERA will not erase the purported wage gap between men and women
Women are already guaranteed equal pay through the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The currently quoted wage gap between men and women is a misunderstood statistic in which the average wages of all full-time working men and women are compared in one lump sum of men to women across all occupations and education levels. This doesn’t allow for an equal pay comparison. When we compare the wages of men and women within the same career, in similar positions, at the same age, the wage gap narrows to 98 cents for women compared to a dollar for men. Women are not being paid less for doing the same job. Rather, the average wage gap is occurring for several reasons: (1) Women tend to choose positions and career fields that allow for time-flexibility due to their family needs. These positions pay less than rigid, time-demanding positions; (2) Women tend to take more time away from their careers to raise their children which creates interrupted career paths when they return; and (3) Women still tend to major more in liberal arts and people-oriented careers than in the higher paying math and engineering fields – in spite of programs designed to attract more women to math and engineering. Thus the average wage pay gap is based on the personal choices women make and the circumstances they face. The ERA would not resolve these issues. In fact, it would eliminate the programs designed to support women with their child-rearing and family/career balancing needs.
Loss of social security benefits for stay-at-home wives and mothers
Whether the social security administration calls it a benefit for ‘wives,’ or ‘spouses,’ Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said that it will still be overturned by the ERA because it violates the equality principle by encouraging women to be dependent on their husbands. This is a choice husbands and wives should be able to make within their family without any intrusion by the government or extreme neo feminists with a “Big Sister” mentality.
The history of the ERA shows the extreme nature of its application and harm towards women.
Efforts to soften the extreme nature of the ERA via amendments were rejected by Congress when the ERA was first passed out of Congress. Courts will look to this legislative history for legislative intent as they interpret the ERA. A sample amendment that was rejected will show all that will not be protected under the ERA: “The provisions of this article shall not impair the validity, however, of any laws of the United States or any State which exempt women from compulsory military service, or from service in combat units of the Armed Forces; or extend protections or exemptions to wives, mothers, or widows; or impose upon fathers responsibility for the support of children; or secure privacy to men or women, or boys or girls; or make punishable as crimes rape, seduction, or other sexual offenses” (Cong. Rec., pp. S9538–S9540).
The ERA failed to receive enough states’ ratifications by the 1979 deadline because wise legislators realized that it was unnecessary and would harm women, their children, and families.
Please support the well-being of women and our society by voting AGAINST the ERA.
