Mediaboss Marketing

It seems a classic no-brainer: 24 simple words merely stating men and women should be viewed as equal under the law.

Thats it. No big whoop, right?

But adding the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a fight thats gone on since it was proposed over a century ago and then passed by Congress in 1972. Its a humane idea that has fallen victim to the culture wars, killed, resuscitated, only to be killed again.

Viewers of the recent Hulu drama Mrs. America watched Cate Blanchett steal every scene as the white-gloved and pugnacious Phyllis Schlafly, who mobilized her supporters to harpoon the ERA. They argued it threatened the very nature of relationships between men and women, indeed the very nature of American life.

The ERA does neither of those things. But it does hold broad implications for such necessary battles as the need for equal pay between the sexes. It would further enshrine into law protections against domestic violence and sexual harassment, as well as workplace discrimination, including that based on pregnancy and motherhood.

Why would this scare anyone?

Now that we have a female vice president-elect and a wave of female Republican candidates who have swept into the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C., perhaps its a good time to revisit the ERA in a bipartisan way.

It seems particularly fitting to examine why we need the ERA during this pandemic, a time in which women are being disproportionately impacted by the coronavirus, from job losses to their unequal shouldering in the balancing of work and family life.

Some history for those who think of the ERA as merely a baseball statistic: The ERA is an amendment to the Constitution, and as such requires ratification of three-quarters of the states, or 38 out of 50.

At first, Congress set a deadline of 1979 for ratification, which was later extended to 1982. Thanks to Schlaflys efforts, only 35 states ratified the rule.

But in 2017, a female Democratic state senator in Nevada, riding the growing #MeToo wave, got her state to ratify the ERA, even though the deadline had passed. Illinois did the same in 2018. Virginia followed suit last January and became the 38th state to ratify.

For the record, Texas yes, Texas ratified the ERA in March of 1972.

However, over the years five states Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, South Dakota and Tennessee rescinded their ratifications, which had occurred before 1982. But that sort of takeback ploy has failed in other legal contexts.

A big problem is the deadline. Should it matter? Opponents say yes. Supporters say no. Each side has its own arguments. In February, the U.S. House voted to remove the deadline, with five Republicans supporting the measure and no Democrats opposing it.

But the vote to kill the deadline needed to get through the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has flatly stated hes against the ERA. The Trump administration has labeled the amendment expired.

The fate of the modern-day ERA remains muddled.

What isnt unclear is how the American people view the amendment. A 2016 survey found a whopping 94 percent of respondents approved of adding it to the Constitution. At the same time, 80 percent of Americans thought men and women already enjoy equal protection under the 14th amendment, via the famous cases won by late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the 1970s.

But as wonderful as the 14th amendment may be, it still features gender loopholes one can drive a truck through, gaps in state and federal law that should be closed.

Perhaps the Biden administration will somehow intervene to move the ERA across the finish line. Perhaps the Supreme Court will somehow get involved, as it did last summer, when justices ruled that existing federal law bans job discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status.

What the nation needs to do is get past ridiculous arguments that say equal rights for both genders will somehow lead to the elimination of single-sex public bathrooms and other canards.

And those who portray the ERA as unnecessary should consider this question: Why is there such a fight against it?

Link:
Editorial: Nows time to revisit the Equal Rights Amendment - San Antonio Express-News