Iowa: All men and women are free and equal by nature and have certain inalienable rights, including those to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to acquire, own, and protect property, and to attain security and happiness. Iowa Constitution, Article I, §1 (1998) On August 10, 1970, Michigan Democrat Martha Griffiths successfully introduced the Equal Rights Amendment in the House of Representatives after the joint resolution dragged on in the House Judiciary Committee for 15 years. The joint resolution passed the House of Representatives and went to the Senate, which voted in favor of the ERA, with an additional clause exempting women from the military. However, the 91st Congress ended before the joint resolution could move forward. [48] Many ERA supporters blamed interest groups, particularly the insurance industry and conservative organizations, for their defeat, suggesting that they had funded an opposition that undermined the democratic process and the will of the pro-ERA majority. [131] These supporters argued that while the public face of the anti-ERA movement was Phyllis Schlafly and her organization STOP-ERA, there were also other important groups in opposition, such as the powerful National Council of Catholic Women, working class feminists, and (until 1973) the AFL-CIO. Opposition to the amendment was particularly strong among religious conservatives, who argued that the amendment would guarantee the universal right to abortion and the right of same-sex couples to marry. [132] [133] Critchlow and Stachecki say the anti-ERA movement was based on strong support among Southern whites, evangelical Christians, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Orthodox Jews, and Catholics, including men and women. [134] When the ERA was enacted in 1972, the legislation provided for a period of seven years. After reaching the original deadline, without reaching the required number of ratifications by the states, ERA advocates persuaded Congress to extend the deadline to 1982. However, anti-ERA groups and activists strengthened their opposition during this period, successfully mobilizing factions against the ERA and blocking the momentum the movement had enjoyed across the country.
The 1982 deadline has passed, with the ERA three countries below the 38 countries required for ratification. “The United States is an exception in a lack of constitutional protection against sex discrimination,” Speier said. “There are 193 countries at the UN and 165 of them have the equivalent of the ERA in their constitutions. I believe we now have the only written constitution that does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. On January 30, 2019, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) introduced a bill (H.J.Res. 38) to again attempt to remove the deadline for ratification of the amendment. As of April 30, 2019, the resolution had 188 co-sponsors, including Republicans Tom Reed of New York and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania. The ERA is the only proposed constitutional amendment approved by the required number of states after a ratification period set and extended by Congress. [See question 5.] Five of the countries that ratified the ERA also subsequently voted to withdraw their ratification. [See question 6.] As a result, several challenges to the validity of the ISA ratification process have yet to be resolved.
Now that all 38 states have ratified, Congress must cancel the original deadline. A joint resolution is currently being submitted to Congress to this end. On January 21, 2021, U.S. Senators Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), along with Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) and Congressman Tom Reed (R-N.Y.), announced bipartisan legislation, which simply reads: Equality means elevating the oppressed to enjoy the same rights and protections as the most privileged. This includes the freedom to make decisions about one`s own body. Fundamental decisions to protect reproductive autonomy – including in cases such as Roe v. Wade, who affirmed the constitutional right to access abortion treatment, and Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas and Planned Parenthood v. Casey made clear that reproductive autonomy is essential to people`s ability to participate in society on an equal footing.19 The ERA could further strengthen this existing constitutional protection and help protect against the growing onslaught of attempts to restrict access to reproductive health care, including abortion and contraception. For example, state courts in Connecticut and New Mexico have concluded that laws banning Medicaid coverage for medically necessary abortions violate ERA-style language in their state constitutions.20 According to research by Jules B.
Gerard, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, of the 35 lawmakers who have passed ratification decisions, 24 made explicit reference to the original deadline of 1979. [85] Efforts to amend state constitutions to include equality changes continue, with Nevada and Minnesota working toward this goal through a public referendum on legislation to amend their state constitutions. State constitutions in half of the 50 states include a gender-based equality guarantee and provide ample evidence of the likely impact of a federal ERA based on decades of state-level equality jurisprudence. Courts have been moving toward gender-neutral standards in family court decisions for many years, and legislators are drafting laws with increased attention to gender-neutral language and intent. Lawmakers will have two years after ratification of the ERA to revise gender classifications in laws that could be challenged as unconstitutional after that date. Neither “women” nor “sex” are words that appear in the constitution and show the limits of the narrow understanding of the founding fathers of women as equal citizens. The Constitution was drafted by and for white men by means that reserved their principle of equality of justice before the law for the sole benefit of the authors and their privileged colleagues.
This meant that women and people of color, among other things, were openly considered full citizens and therefore excluded from many legal protections because of their gender, race, and/or ethnicity. Ratification resolutions were also rejected in Arizona, Arkansas,[75] and Mississippi. [76] [77] [78] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (SPL) was passed more than 40 years ago and, while it allowed more people to work longer during pregnancy, it did not completely end discrimination based on pregnancy.17 This is partly because the courts interpret the protections of the Pregnancy Act. too narrowly and often ignore the discriminatory effects of employer practices – such as: Restrictions on the availability of light work opportunities – that leave many pregnant women behind. without access to necessary accommodation.18 The ERA could provide additional constitutional justifications to challenge measures that effectively exclude persons seeking maternity housing from the protection of the law, as well as to ensure fair treatment and better conditions for pregnant workers.
