The unneeded Equal Rights Amendment
St. George Mayor Jon Pike was asked in a recent video interview if he supported the Equal Rights Amendment. Pike responded, “Why not?” He added that he hadn’t fully researched the subject but “on the surface, he would support it.”
Mayor Pike, here’s “why not” and a primer to kickstart your research.
In 1972, Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment, sending it to the states for ratification. Almost 50 years later, it’s still three states short of becoming part of our Constitution.
The ERA states 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.”
Like the mayor, most of us at first blush would ask who possibly could oppose equal rights. But in this case, the proposed amendment has long since passed its “sell by” date.
To illustrate, start with this question: Can you name a single federal or state law or regulation that discriminates against women?
I strongly support equal rights for men and women. I fully realize that some women are harassed and abused. Others are on the receiving end of overt discrimination. Such actions clearly are illegal under current law, even if they go unreported or unprosecuted.
In more subtle ways, many women feel they are talked down to or not respected by some of the men they interact with at work, in stores, or when seeking help with service or repairs. My wife asks me to call or visit vendors or service providers when she feels that she won’t get a problem resolved if a woman asks.
Sadly, these milder forms of discrimination aren’t illegal, and unfortunately, no law or regulation could be crafted to remedy them.
Despite the absence of the ERA, Congress has passed a wide variety of laws codifying equal rights for women. The Constitution’s 14th Amendment equal protection clause, already in place, gave Congress all the authority needed. It provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The list of federal laws specifically prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex is extensive: Equal Pay Act, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Fair Housing Act, Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Title IX of the Education Equality Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Health Manpower Training Act, Housing and Community Development Act and various Civil Service law provisions.
So I ask again, can you describe any new law or regulation that would lessen discrimination against women?
If you believe Congress has missed any opportunity to enact equal rights for women, feel free to contact your Congressional representatives; they’d more than welcome a chance to be seen as champions of women’s rights.
Closer to home, Utah is one of the states that chose not to ratify the ERA. Yet Utah has had equal rights, including the right to vote, embedded in its constitution since 1896, the year it was admitted to the union: “Both male and female citizens of this State shall enjoy all civil, political and religious rights and privileges.”
Only Wyoming had adopted equal rights provisions based on sex in its state constitution prior to Utah. All other states have been late to the party, many adopting provisions only since the ERA passed Congress while others have yet to do so.
Adopting the ERA today would be primarily symbolic: Times have passed it by. For example, opposition to the amendment in the 1970s was particularly high among religious conservatives who argued that the amendment would guarantee universal abortion rights and the right for homosexual couples to marry. They’ve both happened without the ERA.
Opponents fretted that women would be drafted into the armed forces. Today, we have female Army Rangers and a female Air Commando general officer. Arizona Sen. Martha McSally flew Air Force combat missions in Iraq.
In 1973, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then a law professor at Columbia University, wrote that she “looks toward a legal system in which each person will be judged on the basis of individual merit and not on the basis of an unalterable trait of birth that bears no necessary relationship to need or ability.”
Now a Supreme Court Justice, Ginsburg oversees a legal system devoid of the impediments women faced 46 years ago, the ERA’s rationale.
Mayor Pike, I hope this column will give you a start as you look “below the surface” of the ERA.
The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.
How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent
Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:
—Submissions should be between 300 and 1,500 words.
—Submissions must be sent to editor@infowest.com as a .doc, .docx, .txt, or .rtf file.
—The subject line of the email containing your submission should read “Letter to the editor.”
—Attach your name to both the email and the document file (we don’t run anonymous letters).
—If you have a photo or image you’d like us to use and it’s in .jpg format, at least 1200 X 754 pixels large, and your intellectual property (you own the copyright), feel free to attach it as well, though we reserve the right to choose a different image.
—If you are on Twitter and would like a shout-out when your piece or letter is published, include that in your correspondence and we’ll give you a mention at the time of publication.
Articles related to “The unneeded Equal Rights Amendment”
Equality Act could criminalize Christianity, Judaism, and Islam
Mr Sierer: Why is most birth control policy directed at women and not their male counterparts?
Why are birth control methods and chemistry directed at women while the condom and vasectomy require no chemical intrusion to the body of males.?
Why is there no pill to kill sperm?
Why are condoms not easily available to those in most need of overactive hormone activity?
Why are resultant pregnancy and support issues primarily the responsibility of women?
Why is it women are the main focus in resultant child bearing responsibilities?
Why is it we don’t see legislation of women’s issues developed by women?
Why are women held accountable in abortion issues more than males who impregnated them?
Why will boys be boys but girls are held to a different social standard?
Mr Sierer how did living on two sides of the country and being involved in electronics somehow transition those attributes to an equal opportunity issue?
Mr. Dewitz: Thanks for your thorough discussion of contraception, child bearing and the subsequent responsibilities usually imposed on women. I agree with most of what you say, but you fail to suggest any legislation that would resolve the issues that you raise.
As my column made clear, the ERA was proposed as a basis for eliminating legal and regulatory discrimination against women. Female legislators have been at the forefront in proposing and passing much of existing legislation addressing discrimination. Both female and male legislators would leap to implement any practical legislative remedies you propose for the issues you raise.
As for my “attributes,” casting ad hominem aspersions my way doesn’t advance your argument.