Remember the good. It's always there.
Alice Paul introduced the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) at the 75th Seneca Fall Convention in 1923. It became known as the âLucretia Mott Amendment.â In 1943, Paul changed the wording âto better reflect the language in both the 15th and the 19th Amendments.â From then on, it has been known as the âAlice Paul Amendment,â and has been reintroduced to Congress every year since. It was big in the 70s, then quieted down, but has not gone away.
97 years later, the amendment has finally been ratified by 38 states. Itâs true. This month, with Virginiaâs (late, but appreciated help), the ¾âs majority needed to add an amendment to the Constitution has been met. For more check out: âWith Virginia Ratification, where does the Equal Rights Amendment go from here?â This doesnât mean the fight is over. Itâs still going through Congress and will probably face many legal battles in the future (MoreL "Virginia ratifies ERA setting up likely legal battle"). The Alice Paul Institute has a magnificent website all about the ERA. If you want to know more about the history of the ERA or the legal process of any amendment, it is the perfect resource. It answered all of my questions and calmed all of my doubts. Unless otherwise stated, all of the information in this post comes from them. * equalrightsamendment.org * For instance, I learned that the ERA would not automatically change laws concerning the reproductive rights of women. That will still mostly be up to the states. However, it may affect future decisions, especially ones made by the Supreme Court (to expand reproductive rights, in theory). To anyone who is anti-choice/pro-birth, donât worry, it will not ârequire government to allow âabortion on demandââ (ERA.org). Yes, apparently, that is a thought some people have. Iâll just say it: this would not mean women will be added to the draft. First of all, the draft will likely never come into effect again. Secondly, the government has already considered drafting women in past wars, therefore, it is already possible, yet has not being done. A few of the FAQs help answer this question, a legitimate worry, âwould the ERA adversely affect existing benefits and protections that women now receive (e.g., alimony, child custody, Social Security payments, etc.)?â In an opinion piece from The Hill, âEqual Rights Amendment will replace equality with samenessâ Inez Stepman claims that the ERA will hurt women. She writes that the amendment will âadd nothing to the equality under the law women already enjoy in Americaâ (para. 5), stating that men and women have equal rights on state and federal levels. I think there is evidence that that is not the case, but thatâs for another blog post. More interestingly, she shares her belief that the ERA will make men âinterchangeableâ with women and that âsamenessâ will ultimately hurt women. â Instead, the ERA will replace this equality under the law with the enforced interchangeability between men and women. While men and women are indeed equal, both common sense and science tell us they are not precisely the same. There are still some situations in which treating men and women precisely alike could harm women or even put them in danger.
I agree that it is important to recognize the necessary differences in support men and women should recieve. Unfortunately, women still need protection in this world that men do not (often protections from men). Her example of women-only prisons is a good one; however, some of her possibilities are way off base, things that would simply not be effected solely by this amendment. I believe it is fear-mongering. I mean, âdaughters could be forced into a combat draft alongside sons,â really? It leads me to question her objective in the piece.
Family law occurs on the state level, for the most part, and are becoming more gender-neutral and beginning to stop making judgments based on stereotypes of men and women already. The ERA will likely not stop this progress. (And that isnât a bad thing). ERA.org and many supporters of the amendment, claim that it will not hurt women this way, at all. Whatever state and even federal protections exist for women, are vulnerable to being destroyed if not protected by the Constitution. The ERA is necessary to guarantee all women in America equal rights to men. Ready to hear the big scary amendment? âEquality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.â
Sounds good to me.
1 Comment
Suzy
3/13/2020 08:09:41 am
There's a house in New Jersey where Alice Paul either lived or worked from. I have a friend who knows about it, and will try to get that info to you. I still have an ERA YES button that I wore more than 40 years ago - how sad that this is taking so damned long!
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Who Am I?Hi there! I'm Whit, my pronouns are they/them, and I write a lot.
Learn more about me here :) Click the button to read my poetry. Categories
All
All posts since April 2018 tagged at least once.
Archives
April 2021
Header
Painting by Whit Acrylics on masonite April 20th, 2019 Words are a Quaker saying. George Fox? |