After all the epic upheaval in the 1970s over the Equal Rights Amendment, some are arguing that the constitutional amendment declaring, simply, that women must be afforded the same rights as men officially became law last month — two years after Virginia ratified it and put it over the 38-state threshold for addition to the Constitution.
Or not.
As galling as it might sound that even in 2022, a handful of Republican senators have moved to make sure the ERA isn’t stamped into law, there are in fact some remaining issues that need to be resolved.
There are questions about whether Congress can retroactively waive a decades-old deadline that was missed, and whether some states that have rescinded their ratification had the power to do that. Those issues can and should be addressed — and then this long-overdue amendment should, finally, be enshrined in the Constitution.
The burning debate from the 1960s and 1970s of whether women should have the same rights as men is hardly debatable today. Consider the single sentence behind all these decades worth of controversy: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” How could any modern American, regardless of gender or party, seriously oppose that sentiment?
The main reason, opponents say today, is that they believe that language will strengthen the standing of abortion rights advocates in court. That’s a virtual admission that even conservatives understand that restriction of abortion rights is inherently the restriction of women’s rights.
But issues of gender equality go far beyond abortion. Most notably, women on average still make less money for the same work as men do, and are still largely locked out of the prime leadership positions in corporate America. The glass ceiling certainly has been cracked in recent years, but no one could rationally claim it’s been shattered.
Opponents also make some of the usual histrionic arguments that earlier generations made against the amendment: That it would tear down gender barriers, outlawing separate bathrooms and other public accommodations, a silly scare tactic. Or they assert it would potentially subject women to the military draft — a more reasonable prediction, but one that should be addressed within the wider debate of whether a military draft (of either gender) is just or workable in modern times.
All of this said, proponents who are pushing to formally certify the amendment despite technical questions about its passage potentially hurt their own just cause. If and when this amendment becomes part of the Constitution, it must be without the kind of asterisk that would result from cutting corners. That would also set a dangerous precedent for others who would change the Constitution in less-positive ways.
This one is too important not to do it right. But it should get done.
———
