ERA Moving Forward
The Washington Post reports that “federal and state lawmakers have launched a new drive to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, reviving a feminist goal that faltered a quarter-century ago when the measure did not gain the approval of three-quarters of the state legislatures.”
The amendment, which came three states short of enactment in 1982, has been introduced in five state legislatures since January. Yesterday, House and Senate Democrats reintroduced the measure under a new name — the Women’s Equality Amendment — and vowed to bring it to a vote in both chambers by the end of the session.
Progressive women are celebrating:
“Elections have consequences, and isn’t it true those consequences are good right now?” Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) asked a mostly female crowd yesterday at a news conference, as the audience cheered. “We are turning this country around, bit by bit, to put it in a more progressive direction.”
As the WaPo’s Juliet Eilperin points out, “consists of 52 words and has one key line: ‘Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.’ That sentence would subject legal claims of gender discrimination to the same strict scrutiny given by courts to allegations of racial discrimination.”
There is currently a debate going on between legal scholars about whether or not the “35 state votes to ratify the amendment are still valid.”
Even backers of the amendment such as Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) expect a legal battle on that question. They are reintroducing the amendment in Congress and hope to start the ratification process again from scratch.
Opponents fear that the amendment is too broadly worded and fear that states will rule that “equal-rights amendments in state constitutions justify state funding for abortion” as has happened in two states already.
A historic moment for the feminist movement in the making? It just might.
It is forbidden in the Netherlands to discriminate against someone based on race, gender, religion, etc.
It is here as well. If any company were to discriminate based on race or age or gender, etc. They’d find themselves on the wrong side of a lawsuit.
It’s already law, what I do not know is if it’s State Based law or Federal. I suspect a combination of the two. To that degree it seems mute and I wonder what celebration there is to be had. However I do applaud the attempt to make it an Amendment to the Constitution rather than just bypassing the Constitution via a series of changeable laws.
I wonder–things have changed considerably since 1982 and I wonder if the ERA is really all that relevant anymore.
I’m as liberal as they come on social issues, but I can’t say I welcome an open-ended, broadly written constitutional amendment. As much as it pains me to say it, Krazy Kristian Konservative Phyllie Schlafly is correct: the effects of the ERA could easily overspill its purported intent.
It’s either got to be tightened up or rejected.
jpe: okay, what would you suggest? I don’t mean to say that you should come up with a better proposal, but in general: how would you like it to be “tightened up”?
Alan: good question, I share that to a degree…
but, as I understand it, this is what I heard in class recently, women still earn approximately 33% less than men do for doing the exact same work / job.
I will have to find out more about that, but if I remember correctly it was, indeed, 33%.
I think the correct figure is 29% less, but that’s close enough.
Alan: you say that the difference is only 4%?
Again, we dealt with this in American Society course, I will look it up and post something on it in the coming days.