Alice Paul introduced the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) at the 75th Seneca Fall Convention in 1923. It became known as the “Lucretia Mott Amendment.” In 1943, Paul changed the wording “to better reflect the language in both the 15th and the 19th Amendments.” From then on, it has been known as the “Alice Paul Amendment,” 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. It’s true! This month, with Virginia’s (late, but appreciated help), the ¾’s majority needed to add an amendment to the Constitution has been met. This doesn’t mean the fight is over. Congress and will probably face many legal battles in the future (Virginia ratifies ERA setting up likely legal battle). It's not over, but we are so close. For more try: “With Virginia Ratification, where does the Equal Rights Amendment go from here?” 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. 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). I’ll 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 not being done. I think the most important FAQ is: “Would the ERA adversely affect existing benefits and protections that women now receive (e.g., alimony, child custody, Social Security payments, etc.)?” In an opinion piece from The Hill, “Equal Rights Amendment will replace equality with sameness” Inez Stepman claims that the ERA will hurt women. She writes that the amendment will “add nothing to the equality under the law women already enjoy in America” (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 that’s for another post. More interestingly, she shares her belief that the ERA will make men “interchangeable” with women and that “sameness” will ultimately hurt women. 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, “daughters could be forced into a combat draft alongside sons,” 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 isn’t 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. Now, ready to hear the big, scary amendment? “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” Sounds good to me.
2 Comments
Suzy
1/29/2020 12:32:26 pm
In the 1970s, I did quite a bit of volunteering to persuade NC to pass the ERA. It didn't happen, and I was really frustrated. I truly hadn't thought about it a lot in the next few decades, but am glad things are moving again. It's just a good thing.
Reply
Whit
1/30/2020 07:40:23 am
It is a good thing. I never knew you helped with this movement :) How does it feel to know you're watching history being made?
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? |