Equal Rights Amendment?

Back in the 1970s in America there was a big push to add an equal rights amendment to the constitution. It got close, but ultimately failed to make it across the finish line at the time. The opposition was led anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly who argued that it would lead to outcomes that were actually harmful to women, such as women becoming subject to military conscription and many other things. Now there seems to be some talk about trying again. Is it really needed though? Would it actually change anything?

Quote:

The amendment gained momentum in the 1960s and ’70s, culminating with passage in the US Senate and the House of Representatives in 1972, which put it on track to become what would have been the 27th Amendment of the Constitution. It was sent to the states for ratification and put on a seven-year deadline. Support was, initially, bipartisan and broad. In the first year after the amendment was passed, 22 states ratified it. But opposition began to organize, led by anti-feminist conservative leader Phyllis Schlafly, who argued the ERA would erase legal differences between men and women and would lead to an America where men wouldn’t be required to support their wives, anyone could walk into any bathroom, women could be drafted, and same-sex marriage would be legalized. Schlafly died in 2016 at the age of 92. “Since the women are the ones who bear the babies, and there’s nothing we can do about that, our laws and customs then make it the financial obligation of the husband to provide the support,” Schlafly said in 1973. “It is his obligation and his sole obligation. And this is exactly and precisely what we will lose if the Equal Rights Amendment is passed.” Schlafly’s line of attack caught on, as did others — that the ERA’s passage would expand abortion rights, that it would infringe on states’ rights, that it would be costly to businesses. Indiana became the 35th state to ratify the ERA in 1977. Then its momentum stalled.

I'm kind of skeptical of this idea that since 35 states ratified it back in the 1970s, that if only 3 more states ratify it in the 2010s that it would become effective. The "seven-year deadline" has passed, and some of the states that originally ratified it have since "unratified" it. So it seems that it would require starting the process over from scratch. But it's conceivable that could happen. It almost happened the first time.

A lot has changed for women and men since the 1970s.

• The draft isn't really a thing anymore, so I doubt that argument would be very compelling.
• Schlafly argued that husbands have some kind of financial obligation to support their wives (something not reciprocal according to her original argument: the husband was obliged to support his wife, never the other way around, according to Schlafly). If that was ever true, it certainly isn't true any more. So that reason no longer seems to be relevant.
• Same-sex marriage happened anyway, which now enjoys strong majority support, upwards of 60%. No longer a relevant argument.
• Transgender issues are still possibly relevant. If they start an ERA over from scratch, perhaps it would be helpful to clarify what exactly it means when it comes to transgender people.

The original text states:

Quote:

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. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Would that mean by the plain letter of the amendment that you can no longer have separate public restrooms segregated by sex?

Is it necessary or desirable to amend the constitution this way?
Would it be necessary to clarify anything or to change the original wording or add anything more to it?

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2WOUZ0p