The House Democrats’ aggressive legislative and political agenda is rearing its ugly head again. Last year the House passed a resolution removing the seven-year ratification deadline from the Equal Rights Amendment, instead of the proper process of ratification from the beginning. With their new majorities in the House and Senate, they are doubling down on their efforts to “ratify” the ERA by jamming the resolution through the Lower Chamber yet again.
Remember the ancient history: in 1971, Congress introduced the ERA. In 1972 it was sent to the states for ratification. A total of 38 states needed to approve the amendment within a seven-year timeframe. As lawmakers and the American people became more educated on the issue, the progress of the ERA began to slow. Only 35 states passed the amendment, and 5 states withdrew their ratifications during the seven years allotted.
The resolution the House plans to vote on is H.J. Res. 17, which removes the ERA’s seven-year ratification deadline. If the American people really desire the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, Congress must begin the process anew. The people of 2021 should be represented, not the people of 1972. Even feminist icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg indicated that for the ERA to be ratified, the process must start from the beginning.
In December 2019, the states of Alabama, Louisiana, and South Dakota sued the National Archivist to prohibit him from counting states actions after the seven years. The lawsuit also argued that instead of promoting equality it would have many negative effects. It stated: “Litigants would urge courts to use the ERA to invalidate policies that reflect a biological definition of 'sex’.” While that definition was the predominant one when the ERA was proposed in the 1970s, several courts have recently defined 'sex' more broadly to include sexual orientation and gender identity.”
The Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County in 2020 changed the legal definition of sex in Title VII to no longer refer to biological sex. Rather, it refers to a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI). Eagle Forum is concerned this decision will help redefine the Equal Rights Amendment to expand “on the basis of sex” to gender-nonconforming and transgender women and girls, and nonbinary people. The ERA Coalition already indicated their support of this inclusion stating:
“While the effort to amend the constitution to include sex equality began nearly a century ago, our renewed efforts are centered on Black, Indigenous and Women of Color, gender-nonconforming and transgender women and girls, and nonbinary people – those who are most impacted by systemic inequities.”
It’s clear the ERA is also bad for women. Through this amendment, men identifying as women will be legally allowed to usurp women’s rights. Their access to women’s sports teams, women’s nursing rooms, and women’s domestic violence shelters (just to name a few) puts women’s privacy and safety in jeopardy.
Unfortunately, the ERA’s negative impact on women does not stop there. The ERA will expand and mandate abortion access through tax-payer funding. This has already been done in Connecticut and New Mexico (N.M Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, Doe v. Maher). The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) even encouraged litigators to use the ERA to strike down restrictions on abortion such as parental consent laws. They also filed briefs in abortion cases in Hawaii, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut arguing that since an abortion procedure is only performed on women, that a state’s denial of taxpayer-funded abortion should be considered “sex discrimination” under their state ERA. Because a Constitutional Amendment has more authority than state laws, it will overturn every state-level pro-life protection.
More recently, Obama-appointed D.C. federal District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras held that Congress acted within its power when it imposed a seven-year ratification deadline on the ERA in 1972. In so ruling, Contreras undermined House Democrats’ efforts to ratify the ERA through the passage of H.J. Res. 17. “The Court will not pull the rug out from under Congress’s long-accepted practice of declaring ratification conditions in a proposing resolution’s preamble based on a technicality,” wrote Contreras.
Simply put, the ERA cannot be ratified either through removing the ratification deadline or starting over. It ERAses women at the expense of creating “equality.” All citizens of the United States receive equal protection under the law through the 14th Amendment. On top of this, American women have received many legal protections in the past century including Title IX, the Equal Opportunity Act of 1963, the Equal Employment Opportunity Discrimination Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the Equal Pay Act.
For these reasons, Eagle Forum asks for your help in contacting your Representative and ask them to vote NO on H.J. Res. 17.
Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121