New Life for the E.R.A.?

In the 1970s and early ’80s, women’s rights activists tried to win support for an Equal Rights Amendment (E.R.A.) that would constitutionally guarantee that men and women are treated equally under the law.

The push began in an era when discrimination against women was widespread. American women were routinely paid less than men for the same job and were largely kept out of prestigious professions such as law and medicine. They were frequently denied bank loans to buy a house or even a car.

In response, Congress approved the E.R.A. in 1972. But constitutional amendments require ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. The E.R.A. was ratified by only 35 of the necessary 38 states by the 10-year deadline lawmakers had imposed. So the amendment died in 1982.

Or so we thought.

In May—46 years after Congress approved the E.R.A.—Illinois became the 37th state to ratify it. That means only one more state needs to approve the amendment to hit the constitutionally required threshold—and set up an expected legal battle over whether the amendment can be resurrected.

“It really does look within reach,” says Toni Van Pelt, president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), one of the groups that originally pushed for the E.R.A. and is helping revive it.

In the 1970s and early ’80s, women’s rights activists tried to win support for an Equal Rights Amendment (E.R.A.). The amendment would constitutionally guarantee that men and women are treated equally under the law.

The push began in an era when discrimination against women was widespread. American women were routinely paid less than men for the same job. They were largely kept out of prestigious professions such as law and medicine. And they were frequently denied bank loans to buy a house or even a car.

In response, Congress approved the E.R.A. in 1972. But constitutional amendments require ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. The E.R.A. was ratified by only 35 of the necessary 38 states by the 10-year deadline lawmakers had imposed. So the amendment died in 1982.

Or so we thought.

In May—46 years after Congress approved the E.R.A.—Illinois became the 37th state to ratify it. That means only one more state needs to approve the amendment to hit the constitutionally required threshold. This will set up an expected legal battle over whether the amendment can be resurrected.

“It really does look within reach,” says Toni Van Pelt, president of the National Organization for Women (NOW). NOW, one of the groups that originally pushed for the E.R.A., is helping revive it.

Why did the E.R.A. fail to begin with? In 1972, quick ratification seemed likely: In the first year, 22 of the necessary 38 states approved it. But then the pace slowed as the opposition became more organized.

By the late 1970s, a new social conservatism was emerging in the U.S. One of the most vocal opponents was a conservative activist named Phyllis Schlafly, who warned that the E.R.A. would backfire on women. Opponents said it would mean the end of women’s restrooms, the forced merging of the Girl Scouts with the Boy Scouts, and women being drafted into the military alongside men.

These kinds of arguments were persuasive enough to prevent the amendment’s ratification in several states by the 1982 deadline.

The movement to revive the E.R.A. didn’t really pick up steam until after the election of President Donald Trump. Hundreds of thousands of people participated in women’s marches around the U.S. the day after Trump’s inauguration in 2017. Then came the revelations of sexual misconduct by powerful men, which led to the rise of the #MeToo movement.  

All this breathed new life into the push for the E.R.A. In 2017, Nevada became the 36th state to ratify it. Then Illinois followed in May.

Despite the new enthusiasm, the amendment’s outcome is uncertain. Many conservative organizations oppose the E.R.A. now, as they did in the 1970s. They say it would be the end of sex-segregated prisons and women’s shelters, and that it would require women to be drafted and serve in combat in equal numbers to men.   

“E.R.A. would harm women, not help women,” says Anne Schlafly Cori, chairman of Eagle Forum, the conservative group founded by her mother, Phyllis Schlafly. “The 14th Amendment already grants equal rights to all persons.”

Why did the E.R.A. fail to begin with? In 1972, quick ratification seemed likely: In the first year, 22 of the necessary 38 states approved it. But then the pace slowed as the opposition became more organized.

By the late 1970s, a new social conservatism was emerging in the United States. One of the most vocal opponents was a conservative activist named Phyllis Schlafly. She warned that the E.R.A. would backfire on women. Opponents said it would mean the end of women’s restrooms, the forced merging of the Girl Scouts with the Boy Scouts, and women being drafted into the military alongside men.

These kinds of arguments were persuasive enough to prevent the amendment’s ratification in several states by the 1982 deadline.

The movement to revive the E.R.A. didn’t really pick up steam until after the election of President Donald Trump. Hundreds of thousands of people participated in women’s marches around the U.S. the day after Trump’s inauguration in 2017. Then came the revelations of sexual misconduct by powerful men, which led to the rise of the #MeToo movement.

All this breathed new life into the push for the E.R.A. In 2017, Nevada became the 36th state to ratify it. Then Illinois followed in May.

Despite the new enthusiasm, the amendment’s outcome is uncertain. Many conservative organizations oppose the E.R.A. now, as they did in the 1970s. They say it would be the end of sex-segregated prisons and women’s shelters. They claim that it would require women to be drafted and serve in combat in equal numbers to men.

“E.R.A. would harm women, not help women,” says Anne Schlafly Cori, chairman of Eagle Forum, the conservative group founded by her mother, Phyllis Schlafly. “The 14th Amendment already grants equal rights to all persons.”

Despite these concerns, there seems to be broad support for the idea. According to a 2016 poll, 94 percent of Americans support an amendment that specifically guarantees equal rights to men and women. In fact, 80 percent of Americans mistakenly believe the Constitution already does so.

American society has changed greatly since 1972. Today, more than half of college students in the U.S. are women. Almost half of medical school graduates are women. An estimated 11.6 million businesses in the U.S. are owned by women. All this has prompted some to ask whether the E.R.A. is still needed. 

“We live in a different world in a number of ways,” says NOW’s Van Pelt. “But we certainly live in the same world when it comes to disrespect and harassment of women and girls.”

While the wage gap between men and women has narrowed, it still exists: In 1970, women earned about 60 cents for every dollar a man made; now they earn about 80 cents.

E.R.A. supporters say the amendment would provide much stronger and more permanent protections for women’s rights than laws or court rulings.

Despite these concerns, there seems to be broad support for the idea. According to a 2016 poll, 94 percent of Americans support an amendment that specifically guarantees equal rights to men and women. In fact, 80 percent of Americans mistakenly believe the Constitution already does so.

American society has changed greatly since 1972. Today, more than half of college students in the U.S. are women. Almost half of medical school graduates are women. An estimated 11.6 million businesses in the U.S. are owned by women. All this has prompted some to ask whether the E.R.A. is still needed.

“We live in a different world in a number of ways,” says NOW’s Van Pelt. “But we certainly live in the same world when it comes to disrespect and harassment of women and girls.”

While the wage gap between men and women has narrowed, it still exists: In 1970, women earned about 60 cents for every dollar a man made; now they earn about 80 cents. 

E.R.A. supporters say the amendment would provide much stronger and more permanent protections for women’s rights than laws or court rulings.

“Women were never put into the Constitution, and we’re looking to fix that,” says Carol Robles-Román, president of the ERA Coalition, a group pushing for the amendment’s ratification. The 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote in 1920, is the only place women are referred to in the Constitution, she notes.

There are 13 states that could still ratify (see map). If one does, organizers would lobby Congress to recognize the 38 total ratifications. Supporters point to the 1992 ratification of the 27th Amendment (dealing with pay raises for members of Congress) more than 200 years after Congress approved it in 1789—although in that case there was no time limit attached to it.

Enactment of the E.R.A. would likely involve “an unprecedented legal fight,” says Emily Martin of the National Women’s Law Center. And organizers know that winning that fight won’t be easy.

“There will definitely be pushback,” says Van Pelt. “But whatever they come up with, we’ll find a solution. We’re going to get women written into the Constitution in our lifetime.”

“Women were never put into the Constitution, and we’re looking to fix that,” says Carol Robles-Román, president of the ERA Coalition, a group pushing for the amendment’s ratification. The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote in 1920. It’s the only place women are referred to in the Constitution, she notes.

There are 13 states that could still ratify (see map). If one does, organizers would lobby Congress to recognize the 38 total ratifications. Supporters point to the 1992 ratification of the 27th Amendment (dealing with pay raises for members of Congress) more than 200 years after Congress approved it in 1789. But in that case there was no time limit attached to it.

Enactment of the E.R.A. would likely involve “an unprecedented legal fight,” says Emily Martin of the National Women’s Law Center. And organizers know that winning that fight won’t be easy.

“There will definitely be pushback,” says Van Pelt. “But whatever they come up with, we’ll find a solution. We’re going to get women written into the Constitution in our lifetime.”