An amendment combining the two - guaranteeing women equal rights with no caveats - is considered necessary by proponents of this perspective. The 19th Amendment explicitly gives women equal voting rights relative to men but does not broaden its scope beyond that issue.

Currently, the 14th Amendment gives equal rights to all citizens but does not explicitly mention women. Instead, it looks toward a legal system in which each person will be judged based on individual merit and not on the basis of an unalterable trait of birth that bears no necessary relationship to need or ability.Ī major argument in favor of the ERA is that it would guarantee that all citizens, regardless of sex, are treated equally under the law.

It firmly rejects sharp legislative lines between the sexes as constitutionally tolerable. The equal rights amendment, in sum, would dedicate the nation to a new view of the rights and responsibilities of men and women. In 1973, future Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a summary of the arguments in favor of the ERA: It will likely be left to the Supreme Court to decide if these additional ratifications are legitimate. The newly-elected Virginia legislature has promised to introduce this legislation in the upcoming session, potentially making Virginia the critical 38th state in the ratification effort. Nevada passed the ERA in 2017, and Illinois did the same in 2018. The deadline to receive 38 ratifications was June 30, 1982, but a legal fight has been developing to determine if the original 35 ratifications would stand if three more states ratified the amendment in the coming years. To date, 35 of the necessary 38 states have ratified the ERA. On March 22, 1972, the ERA passed the Senate and the House of Representatives by the required two-thirds majority and headed to the states for ratification. The legislation was then introduced for debate in every session of Congress for 50 years. The ERA was first introduced in 1923 by Alice Paul, a socialist, suffragist, feminist, and women’s rights activist who led the movement to ratify the 19th Amendment. However, there has been hardly any formal discussion on this topic from a legislative perspective. It is important to note that the ERA does not explicitly mention men or women, so this could be interpreted as including people who are gender nonconforming. The ERA seeks to end legal distinctions between men and women and treat all citizens the same, regardless of gender. Constitution designed to guarantee equal legal rights for all citizens, regardless of sex. The Alice Paul Institute describes the ERA as a proposed amendment to the U.S. Section 3: This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification. Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Section 1: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. The ERA is a proposed Constitutional amendment.

This article discusses the most commonly used arguments surrounding the ERA. Feminists argue both for and against the ERA. A feminist, as used in this article, is someone who supports women’s rights regardless of a specific ideology. While it may seem like the ERA would be universally supported and desired by all feminists, this is not the case. When discussions surrounding feminism occur, the conversation often turns to the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Sydney Hamilton, MPA Staff Writer, Brief Policy Perspectives

Equal rights amendment