ERA: New name, new century, new chance?

Some federal and state lawmakers are working to pass the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which would amend the US Constitution, adding that: "Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex." This sentence would guarantee equal rights to women and subject legal claims of gender discrimination to the same strict constitutional scrutiny by courts as allegations of racial discrimination. The ERA was first unveiled in Seneca Falls, NY, in 1923, at the 75th anniversary of the 1848 Women's Rights Convention, but it took until 1972 for both chambers of Congress to approve it by the required two-thirds vote. The next year, 30 state legislatures ratified it. Congress extended its seven-year deadline for ratification until 1982, but only 35 of the necessary 38 states approved it in time. ERA backers have introduced it in every Congress since. This year, it has been introduced in five state legislatures since January, and it has been reintroduced in the House and Senate, with the same wording, but a new name–the Women's Equality Amendment. On Mar. 27, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) announced her intention to reintroduce and fight for the bill, during a gathering of senators, representatives, feminist leaders and supporters. "Equality is not a slogan, or a fad. It is a fundamental right," she said. She pointed out that seven out of 10 US citizens think that the US already has a constitutional guarantee of gender equality, and nine out of 10 think such a guarantee should exist. The Women's Equality Amendment currently has 194 House cosponsors and 10 Senate cosponsors and no longer includes a deadline for ratification. Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, both pledged to hold hearings on it this year, which would be the first since the 1980s. They have not yet set a date, but Nadler says it "is going to be one of the items at the top of the agenda." Supporters say the ERA is needed, among other reasons, to defend existing gains, such as Title IX, the 1972 law mandating gender equality in institutions that accept federal funds, which has been challenged by the Bush administration. "As it stands now, what judges and lawmakers giveth, they can taketh away," Maloney said. Although more states are considering ratifying the ERA now than at any other time in the past 25 years, activists still face opposition. Some critics oppose it because they claim it could be used to legalize same-sex marriage, fund abortion or mandate "unisex" bathrooms in public places. Idella Moore, executive officer of Atlanta-based 4ERA, said she and other supporters are trying to convince US citizens that it makes sense to adopt the amendment. "We're trying to reposition it back in the mainstream," she said. Maloney's announcement followed a conference sponsored by the National Council for Women's Organizations that drew hundreds of advocates from across the country to lobby Congress on issues ranging from women's health and workplace rights to violence against women. Participants laid out a national agenda including bills that would reduce unintended pregnancy, grant workers paid sick leave and fully fund federal programs that combat violence against women. Participants also called on the US to sign the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The US is the only developed country in the world that has not ratified the international treaty.