Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. If this definition is correct, then one should certainly begin to question the reasoning powers of Sens. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif, and Reps. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y. and Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., who recently announced their plans to introduce the Women’s Equality Amendment, which is merely a new name for the failed Equal Rights Amendment, in the United States Congress.
The ERA was initially introduced to Congress in 1923, three years after the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which extended the right to vote to women. With the aim of eliminating all remaining gender-related forms of discrimination, its primary clause stated 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.” However, this amendment did not gain broad support until the 1960s and did not pass both houses of Congress until March 22, 1972. At this time, Congress sent it to the states for ratification by March 22, 1979, in accordance with the constitutionally-prescribed deadline of seven years from the date of passage in Congress. Even after this deadline for ratification by the states was extended by three years, the ERA was not ratified by the required 38 states for enactment into law. It was only able to muster support from 35 states in the Union, five of which ultimately rescinded their approval.
Thus, the attempt by the Democrats currently in power in Congress to revive this failed amendment under a new name, the Women’s Equality Amendment, is undoubtedly illogical. The ERA long ago received its fair hearing, or some would argue more than a fair hearing, as it was allotted three additional years to obtain endorsement from 38 states to become law. As Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly, who has been a vocal opponent of the ERA since the 1970s, stated in March, “It’s very retro. It had 10 years of debate, very passionate debate for 10 years, and it was defeated. Anytime you get a fair forum where both sides are heard, we win.”
The irrationality of the Democrats’ effort to gain passage of the Women’s Equality Amendment is also apparent in the fact that it would be a constitutional redundancy. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, long before the ERA was even first proposed, already guarantees women, by virtue of their being “persons,” the rights that they are hoping to secure through this new amendment, namely all of the “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” such as “life, liberty, or property,” and “the equal protection of the laws.” In fact, as columnist George Will points out, this is the view maintained by the U.S. Supreme Court, as shown by its citation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment in its decision in 1971 to nullify a law that involved gender-based discrimination.
In addition, by virtue of the fact that the language of the Women’s Equality Amendment is vague and nonspecific, it could clearly have ramifications for women that would actually be detrimental. As Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in Sex Bias in the U.S. Code: A Report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the ERA could be easily interpreted in such a way that would lead to the annulment of state laws requiring a man to support his wife and children, the inclusion of women in a military draft, the requirement of women to participate in combat duty if drafted, the discontinuation of the right of a woman to receive her husband’s social security benefits, and the cessation of privacy between men and women in public accommodations, hospitals, and schools.
During a time when the United States fighting a war in Iraq, millions of Americans are unable to afford healthcare, and the our educational system is verging on a crisis, it seems that Congress would be able to find a better way to spend its time than seeking passage of an amendment that has already failed in the past and could have harmful effects for women in the future.
Comments