A century overdue. Do it Democrats!
6
Great for the Republicans to block the amendment,
on the 100 anniversary of women right to vote.
This will be the best way to galvanize women to come out stronger than ever and vote Democrats in!
Go Republicans, kill it!
9
I guess it is the lawyer in me who asks: what would the practical effect of ratifying the ERA? What undesirable laws are now in place that the ERA would eliminate? Or is this symbollic only? Is the Constitution, a legal document, the right place to put symbols that have no practical value?
4
I'm with HER, watch US vote...!
3
As long as women are also required to register for the draft, I am for it.
2
@Mistral
And own land. Don’t forgot you have to own land to vote.
2
go for it!
there are numerous statutes that adversely affect women that have been upheld where they might be struck down on their face - requiring gender neutral amendment -- or construed to avoid discriminatory effect in their application if ERA becomes the law of the land and the statute faces stricter scrutiny. see, e.g., califano v. boles (on a 5-4 vote).
3
The ERA would end harassment in public places. The catcalls, spitting and other demeaning to women behavior on the streets would end. This is a huge win for women - closing this loophole that degrades everyday life for all women.
2
@lisa Maddox Yes just like Obama's election erased racism from this country, passage of the ERA will eradicate sexism!
It is fascinating that no mention is made of the many states that have voted to remove their approval of the ERA. Democrats feel free to vote for a deadline, then extend it, altering the rules of the game but ignore that there are not currently 38 states that support the amendment.
Times have changed since 1972. What is the effect of the fact that Democrats contend that sex is variable? Are young women under the equal rights amendment required to compete against biological males in sport activities, a question that would never have been raised in 1972? Are transgendered women entitled to the same privileges as biological females?
1
@ebmem How is Equal Rights a "privilege"? That is case in point of why the ERA is still needed.
3
How about we abolish the Electoral College first. Then disband the Senate itself. Only THEN will we make strides toward both democracy and equality.
4
BRAVO! BRAVA!
This should have been codified in our Constitution DECADES ago.
I'm sure that "Women for Trump" will oppose it - after all, they voted for the premier misogynist in America and a blatant sex abuser akin to Epstein.
If women are ever to be accorded the respect and equal opportunities, compensation and rights to which they are entitled, this MUST be law - and it MUST be enforced. Barr will not do this - so get rid of him and his boss. McConnell and his "good ol' boys" won't have it, and certainly Pence is apoplectic.
If the present state of disgrace in D.C. doesn't sicken women, what will?
YOU GO LADIES! Here's hoping you will get what you earned and deserve.
10
Let me guess, pro-Biden or pro-Bloomberg centrists:
"This will get Trump re-elected!"
2
No way this would ever hold up in the courts.
1
If the father of a unborn child doesn't have the right to be told about an abortion and be in a position to save the life of his child he is being treated differently solely because of his sex. Do women really want to get the permission of the fathers of their children an equal say in the life of their children they should support the amendment.
2
@Bored
It’s the woman’s body.
Do women get to decide if men get vasectomies? No.
Each person owns their own body.
Men do not own the woman’s body once they have given away their spermatozoon it’s not theirs anymore.
No take backs.
5
Bringing up the E.R.A. now? Before the 2020 election?
That would be a major E.R.R.O.R.
1
@Jay Orchard It falls totally in line with th democratic parties efforts to lose the election.
Go for it Ladies. What an anomaly, let's fix it
5
Here is the main point. Women were granted the right to vote. Men were never granted the right to vote. Women are now demanding the right to be equal. Men never had to demand the right to be equal. Get the point here. The Constitution is a bastion of male freedom and control and that needs to be corrected. Forget about anything else -- forget about women serving in the military, forget about non-gender specific bathrooms, forget about a lot of stuff that you have been conned into believing by that rich idiot Phyllis
Schlafly. Forget the laws that have been written -- they can always be un-written.
Women have a right to be equal and the Constitution does not guarantee that. It says that all men are created equal. It could just as easily have said that all men AND women are created equal. This is the only point.
12
@Joseph
Your position is that transgendered women give up rights when they identify as female?
Until political correctness took over, a male pronoun was presumed to apply to both genders while a female pronoun applied only to females. All men are created equal applied to all mankind, not exclusively those of the male sex. It was the states, not the federal government, that created laws to protect women and children, which leftist states want to eliminate.
1
I marched in DC with my mom in 1976 for the ERA. Mom died 9 years ago and never got to see this. Pass the damn thing, already!
28
Dear men,
You cannot simultaneously argue that gender discrimination does not exist in the workplace, AND argue that banning discrimination based on gender will end life as we know it.
You get that, right? If there is no gender based discrimination in the work place, then banning it would do nothing. The only way that this amendment would have a substantial effect on American life is if women or trans people were being discriminated against on an institutional level.
9
@Austin Ouellette
The ERA would apply to government workers only. It wouldn't apply to non-government entities.
1
Wow, wouldn't it be good to have the ERA finally pass in 2020? So we only had to wait 100 years after women got the right to vote.
18
Does this slide in front of higher minimum wage, M4A, relief for college loans, promotion of labor union bargaining rights?
From 1945 to 1972 GNP went up 100% and the median wage in lock step with it. Since 1972 GNP has gone up 150% but the median wage has been flat. Since some workers wages have gone up (health/tech) and some have floated (7% in unions) we know the vast majority of American workers have experiened 47+ years of declining expectations. This in turn has spawned an opioid crisis, protofascism and trump. (The era of progress in civil rights was largely from 1950 to 1970 when everyone was enjoying healthy growth in wages due to growing prosperity).
Do we really want to put ERA in front of the issue of economic inequality in America?
If we solve the problem of economic inequality wont that make improving civil rights across the board, including the ERA much more possible?
Just wondering whether this would be putting the cart before the horse.
2
"Does this slide in front of higher minimum wage, M4A, relief for college loans, promotion of labor union bargaining rights?"
"Slide in front"??? This amendment has been on the books for 97 years now. It's MORE than about time.
13
OK so states and the Feds won't be able to pass laws that discriminate (let's be frank here) against women.
Sorry, how does that differ from the current situation? And how does it square with other kinds of discrimination, like discrimination against voting adults under the age of 21? Don't we have an "equal application of the law" principle already written in to the Constitution?
Do people imagine this will bring in a tide of Prohibition-style legislation against all manner of perceived discrimination in private and business life? Because I don't see how there is any basis for that at all.
1
I find it interesting that so many people are still worried that “unintended consequences” will result in the end of life as we know should the ERA pass.
The amendment simply says that sex cannot be used as the basis for disparate treatment. Why should that be more controversial than a prohibition on using race as the basis for disparate treatment?
17
@Cam-WA
Because we do use sex and race.
What happens when a litigious man decides that federal programs to fund woman owned businesses is discriminating based on sex? According to an equal rights amendment, that program in unconstitutional.
There are ALWAYS unintended consequences. Let's flesh out how this would practically be applied, then discuss.
6
@Cam-WA All the awful consequences Phyllis Schlafly warned about came to pass: gay marriage, women serving in the military. Oh the horror. We're doing just fine. Schlafly died in 2016. Let her terrible ideas die with her, and let's pass the ERA.
19
@Cam-WA
"The amendment simply says that sex cannot be used as the basis for disparate treatment."
Disparate treatment by the federal or a state government only. It doesn't apply to anyone else.
It would allow the federal and state governments to use sex as a basis for disparate treatment, but only if they prove a compelling reason for it. The current standard is a bit lower than that, so it would raise it a notch.
1
Be careful what you wish for ladies: child custody, alimony, women's only workplaces and a whole host of other items will be fair game if this passes. We will use it against you just like we are with the Title IX kangaroo court lawsuits.
5
@Fathers Rights
As a family law attorney, I see kind, loving, enlightened men granted equal custody all the time. Alimony is becoming anachronistic for both men and women. However, t he fathers that were uniquely unqualified to care for their children were those who were part of "Father's Rights" group. A more clueless, broken, entitled, abusive controlling, damaged, chip-carrying, bullying, narcissistic group I never did see. The bitter, contemptuous tone of your comment so proves my point. You fool no one. Take stock for your children's sake. Start by being a good man and the court will make sure you are an integral part of your children's lives.
3
@Fathers Rights
What an awful thing to say, and an awful attitude to model for your children, if you have any. I guess it's true, though. You wouldn't exist without us but, instead of enthusiastically supporting equal rights for your wife, daughters and half the population, you want to continue to limit us. Shame on you.
2
@GWoo another 4 years, I think that was a freudian slip, I wish his second term could be cut short to one. And maybe replace him with someone more from the MLK school than that of Susanna Walters/Hillary/Liz.
"Not all change is progress", case in point the present administration. An amendment will keep us from going backward.
5
Pass it in Congress. Moscow Mitch will be sure to sit on it with the rest of the legislation that this Congress has sent to him.
I was not aware that women were still discriminated against because of their sex. I thought the ERA was already in place. As a woman, I have not been denied any rights granted to men. I think we have succeeded in all areas and are doing quite well. We have more women attending college today than men and they have become very successful in business, politics, medicine and law. Women have come a long way and can do almost anything a man can do if they put their minds to it. They just need to want it badly enough.
5
"We have more women attending college today than men"
which only proves that all the years that women were discouraged from pursuing higher education were WRONG. It also proves that women were discriminated against in higher education by men, simply because men didn't want us to be there in equal numbers and performance. "Lord, give me the confidence of a mediocre white man."
6
Exactly what is it about the fourteenth amendment that makes it inapplicable to women, at least those "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction therof?
The same fourteenth amendment provides that "No Statee shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the Unietd States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without duwe process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The operational part of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment states: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."
In the context of the fourteenth amendment, it is most reasonable to consider agitation to pass this pale imitation seems a lot like virtue signalling and campaign promising, and and effort to clutter the Constitution with completely redundant text.
4
@Thomas D. Dial
Passage of the 14th Amendment did NOT result in women getting the vote, did it?. It took passage of the 19th Amendment half a century later for that to finally happen. Nor did it open up professional schools to women, state universities, college sports, the military, traditionally male occupations, etc, etc. Clearly the 14th Amendment has never been given the expansive reading you think it has. That's why we still need the ERA.
9
With the two "on account of sex" cases before the Supreme Court this term, passage of the ERA could well enshrine equality under the law for more than just women. If the Court rules that "on account of sex" subsumes "on account of sexual orientation" and "on account of gender identity," the ERA would likely grant full equality of rights under the law to homosexuals and transgender persons as well.
5
@Jay Emm
What would make you assume that to be the case? "Sex" as a protected class does not include who you want to have sex with or what sex you identify as.
How about if the people who want the ERA to become start over and prepare a new amendment that states "on account of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or anything else related to sex".
Absent that clarification in the amendment, the law will never be settled with respect to gender. Even if the current Scotus were to conclude that sexual orientation and gender identity are covered under existing laws regarding sex, it would not bind future Scotus from stepping back after the trial lawyers introduce confusion.
1
It is ridiculous that codifying equal rights for roughly half the country is even a question, never mind the fact that this Amendment has been in process for, what? Almost 80 years???
Sadly, passing this Amendment will be empty comfort. Until women are considered full persons under the law with full sovereignty over their own bodies, until the work of women is valued and compensated as that of men, until women have equal representation in government and commerce, “equal” rights cannot be equal.
That said, we have to start somewhere. Pass it already.
12
This is all nonsense and a total waste of time.
The ERA was passed by Congress in the 1970s with a 2/3 majority in both houses, as is necessary for a Constitutional amendment, and the original act included the deadline. It is legally dubious to say now that an extension takes less than a 2/3 majority in both houses.
I am pro-ERA, but let's be realistic. This end-around will not pass through the Senate and will be overturned by a conservative Supreme Court.
This issue does NOT motivate conservative / independent women to vote blue. Democrats, PLEASE focus on electing a Dem president in 2020.
3
Pass it. If the Republicans contest this issue on the national stage, hammer them on it. They can try to slow it down but at this point it is inevitable and opposing it will cost them in 2020.
31
I'll be honest so that you can take my comments in the right light. I'm an almost middle-aged white guy working a demanding upper middle class job in the arts and my politics are left-center. I work hard for what I have.
What does it mean to have an Equal Rights Amendment? What are the practical effects?
For example, when some hollywood actresses said they're underpaid compared to male co-stars, it seemed that some of those protesting had less box office draw than the male co-stars. Draw is related to value in pay, so this could be justifiably unequal.
Same in music. The bottom line is how many tickets can an artist sell & what's the price threshold for patrons? If, hypothetically, Melissa Etheridge feels she should be paid $75k per performance, but her box office results don't justify this level of fee, should she be paid this amount when, hypothetically (but it's not far off), Billy Idol asks for $75k/ show but sells far more tickets and does larger overall grosses?
Now compare either to Madonna, and they are small. She makes more because she sells more tickets at a higher price. And then Paul McCartney trounces her, and so on.
If men and women do the exact same job at a company but the woman is demonstrably more valuable she should be paid more. If the man is more valuable he should be paid more. Does passage of an ERA guarantee that both of these people will be evaluated properly, or does it tip the scales artificially in favor of the women? I am honestly wondering.
3
@Rob
Your worries are overblown. The ERA advances the radical notion that women are people entitled to the same rights as men. Nothing more, nothing less.
18
@Rob The language of the amendment is simple: discrimination cannot be justified on the SOLE basis of sex. Meaning that every reason you've listed would not be targeted (sure, we'll see some lawsuits) by this new amendment, because the income was determined solely by merit of performance AFTERWARDS, and NOT beforehand due to sex when originally hired. Too many workplaces devalue women simply for being women, such as getting pregnant or being a mother, than for low performance.
11
@Rob
Your scope is far too narrow. Read the article, especially the parts about public vs private education and employers with less than 15 employees. From beginning to end, a female can find obstacles placed in her way just because she’s female. An example: my high school had one teacher qualified to teach chemistry. He didn’t want girls in his classes, so he selected a couple who he permitted to finish the chemistry sequence and bargained the other girls out by giving them a choice: stay and get a lower grade which will affect your GPA, or leave and I’ll give you the grade you’ve actually earned.
7
This is the legislative battle Dems need front and center now? So many other threats to women's health and safety will not be helped by this amendment. In a perfect world, this would be a great thing to complete, but given other assaults on our freedoms, not now. Fight other fights, first and foremost-- voting Trump out of office and eliminating Trumps and McConnell's grip on the Supreme Court and other federal judgeships. ACA hangs in the balance, gun control, etc.
Much been accomplished under the 14th Amendment (thanks to RGB) to enshrine equality for women. As a woman, I am willing to wait on this for the greater good. ERA will, rightly, encourage others similarly aggrieved to want an amendment too. Reparations will need to be addressed. I'm not saying all of this is not important, but democracy hangs by a thread-- Prioritize. ERA will further balkanize the Democratic party, not needed when Dems need to fight against a corrupt petty dictator. I'll take impeachment over ERA fight.
VA state house can spend political capital on like gun control, minimum wage and most important REDISTRICTING. Don't we all know by now that Dems prevailing comes back to the redistricting. Rethink this Dems.
1
@Rob I've been waiting for this since the 70s. Thanks for the pat on the head, I'm waiting for you to tell us to put our needs aside for JUST A LITTLE BIT LONGER. If almost a hundred years is not enough time, tell us -- what's the number we should wait for equal protection under the law? One year? Five? Another hundred? There's always something. It's time for you guys to put yourselves in our shoes.
16
@Liz
I stated above I am female.I am in your shoes. Waiting since the 70's too.Sorry you are stuck there.Seeing ratification's glacial pace smart women did an end run to obtain equality. While waiting for the ERA to be passed, you forgot the ground breaking legal victories RBG scored utilizing the Equal Protection Clause. Because of RBG,not ERA,you are equal under the law. While you were waiting for the ERA to be passed, equal pay is assured because of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. While you were waiting for the ERA, the Violence Against Women Act was passed. While you were waiting for the Equal Rights Amendment to be passed #MeToo became a powerful force to stop sexual abuse because brave victims coming forward.The ERA would not have helped these women. While you were waiting for the ERA to be passed, woman's reproductive rights have been chipped away. There is no equality without reproductive freedom, but the ERA will not secure this. Despite the significant legal victories woman have attained, the right has hardened its war on women but the ERA will not fix that. Elections will. A fight for the extension in the Senate now will waste energy. Let's get the Senate back, get our judiciary back, secure Roe, then address unfinished business of the ERA.
How is this even a question? Equality now. We shouldn’t have to beg to be treated equally.
30
The so called Equal Rights Amendment should be treated as dead! If the groups that support the idea should be made to start over again, i.e. approve a new amendment and start the state approval system from the start again. It won't pass if that happens because several states have already reversed their approval of the original amendment. The original amendment's deadline is long past, which also makes the original amendment dead. The lack of respect for the law and voting by the proponents of this effort to enact an ill advised amendment is unfortunately not new. What will happen when a new amendment to the Constitution is proposed? No one be able to rely on what it says. Why not change the other terms of an amendment. If the expiration date can be changed why can't other provisions be "clarified" with a vote in Congress after it is adopted?
4
@Bored
The answer to your question is right under your nose: because an "expiration date" is in no way germane to the wording or the effect of said amendment.
5
@Bored The constitution does not provide limits on the time it takes to ratify. The limit itself is likely unconstitutional.
9
@Bored
What happened to you that you are threatened by women being treated equally under the law? I am sorry for whatever trauma you suffered but 50% of the populations should not be punished for it.
10
I am concerned about the Pandora’s Box of litigation the amendment could create. Plainly, when the proposed amendment was passed in the 1970s it was based on equality of men and women. Now, it is easy to envision countless lawsuits over whether the ERA covers same sex discrimination and discrimination against transgendered individuals. How would the ERA impact restrictions on abortions/and federal funding? There is a great chance that the laws of unintended consequences could come into play here.
2
So you do see that the choice to have an abortion is about a woman's right over her own body and you are afraid that the ERA will give her that constitutional right. Interesting. It's all the more reason to pass it.
14
@Greg Don't worry,you will never be forced to have an abortion.
9
There are a number of issues for which there is no clear answer and which might have a significant impact on both the potential of Virginia to ratify the proposed amendment and for it to become effective.
Legally it would appear that there is no longer a proposed amendment to ratify. The original, proposed amendment had set a deadline for ratification of 1979. In 1978 this was amended to extend the deadline to 1982. In 1981 a Federal court ruled that Congress had no ability to extend the original deadline. In 1982 the Supreme Court ruled the issue moot because the extended deadline had passed without ratification. It would seem that the proposed amendment died and the amendment process would have to be started all over.
Additionally, as others have mentioned, the simple language of the original proposed amendment could now be viewed as problematic. What does "sex" mean? In 1972 the meaning was almost certainly limited to mean biological sex. If a new proposed amendment was passed would "sex" mean, in addition to biological sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or something more? Would it eliminate affirmative action, preferential awarding of contracts, quota in employment, representation on boards, etc.? Or might it be used to require strict quotas that every entity, public and private, would have to meet? The current state of the judiciary as well as Congress means the path of implementation for an amendment with very simple language is uncertain.
4
I’m so excited for the passage of this amendment. There is zero downside and a tremendous upside- I think that it might even be possible to get some of the more sane and bipartisan Republicans on the right side of history.
32
Looking forward to the passage of a law that should have been on the books decades ago.
58
In 1978, the ERA was only a handful of state legislators away from ratification. In Georgia, two pro-ERA Democratic legislators left to run for Congress, which tipped the balance enough to defeat the ERA next time around in the Georgia Senate. They both lost the Congressional race to a Republican named Newt Gingrich.
15
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees equal protection of the laws, so I'm not exactly sure what this would change.
Also, the existing text passed by Congress and ratified by the 37 states so far specifies "on account of sex". I'd like to see candidates and politicians advocating passage now specify if this means sex as I understand it and as it was described when it was written and initially passed (male or female), or if it means gender, sexual preference, sexual identification, or other / broader interpretation now. If it means a wider view I would think that should be made clear in the text and re-voted. We have a lot of people insisting that certain other amendments are poorly worded, don't mean what they say, have evolved, or that rights not in the text at all exist; we have an opportunity to prevent that in this proposed amendment now.
10
@Chris The 14th only applies if a woman is actually "person." Originalists could easily point out that this was not the case before women were granted the right to vote. Unfortunately, any equal rights amendment would likely get caught up in the abortion and gay rights debate.
5
@Chris, the late Antonin Scalia was quite clear that women are not protected by the Constitution:
"Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't."
12
@Chris
Here's what it would change. First of all, it would only apply to the federal government and the state governments. Non-governments would not be affected.
Today, if the federal government or a state government treats women as a class differently from men as a class (for example, giving preference to females as a class for child custody in divorce cases, if that happens anywhere) the government would have to prove it is justified and it would get intermediate scrutiny. In other words, the government would have to come up with a very good reason to be able to do this.
After the ERA, the level of scrutiny would rise to strict scrutiny. The government would have to come up with a great reason; a very good one would no longer be enough to justify governments treating males as a class differently from females as a class.
Another example might be if the federal government made it harder for females as a class to become Navy SEALs than it does for males as a class (not sure if that happens, just a hypothetical). Today, the government would need a very good reason to do so. After the ERA, it would need an even better reason, a great reason, or it wouldn't be able to.
That would be the legal difference.
1
Can I write a thank-you note to the voters of Virginia?
I’m smiling today. I would love to see the ERA passed for my granddaughters.
41
What is the compelling argument for NOT supporting the ERA? Let's hear it conservatives...
49
@Jmf .
R's simply don't want women to have equal rights. That's enough of a compelling reason for them. Another "compelling reason": the Bible implies that women are second class citizens, if not chattel.
5
@Jmf
I venture to guess the talking points would spin into hurting woman.
If the constitution will now state that:
“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”
Then you can no longer give EITHER sex preferential treatment. That means in Kamala harrass cannot make a law requiring X% of woman on companies boards. Entrance exams for public service (think fire/police). College admissions, initiatives such as "woman in STEM", can you have all female organizations? What about homeless shelters for battered women? Federal grant programs for female owned businesses?
Then there's the Trans angle here. The amendment specifically references SEX not GENDER. Are there consequences to that?
I really don't know, and before the woke police attack, this isn't my stance. I'm legitimately trying to flesh out what the arguments against it could be and more importantly, what are some of the unintended consequences.
Once we know, we can have a (hopefully, but probably not) constructive conversation about trade-offs.
But something that at first glance seems so plainly obvious, usually isn't.
3
Ironically (or not), the same arguments that were used against the suffragist movement since the mid-1850s to 1920 are being used against the women’s rights movement today.
Women have had the vote now for nearly 100 years. How well has that worked out?
It’s time. Remove the deadline. Ratify this amendment.
36
I was one of the hundreds of thousands of people (mostly women) who marched on Washington in July of 1978 in support of the ERA. The thrill of all of us suffragists in white striding down the streets is with me still. After Illinois nailed the final nail in the ERA coffin several years later my like-minded friends I refused to spend any money in that state for years. It is ridiculously overdue to write women into the Constitution. Let’s get it done this time!!
35
@maggiebellasmom
I was there with my mom! I wore white too. It’s about time this has come up again.
5
It would be great if the ERA became law due to its passage in Virginia after the sustained efforts to organize voters across in that state for many years across many issues and identities. Virginia should be a model for organizing voters for other battleground states. We can all thrive together if we join forces across issues and identities. Progressives and moderates need to find common ground going into the 2020 election. There is much to gain by doing so, and much to lose if common ground is not found soon.
21
The Dems should absolutely remove the deadline. Equal rights for women is long overdue. It would have become law except for the efforts of Phyllis Stewart Schlafly, a conservative. This may be very helpful in motivating women to vote in 2020 for Democrats. I have had enough of Republicans using cultural, wedge issues to win election.
65