Yes, it’s true that many legal pundits think that the ERA isn’t necessary, that other Amendments cover that it will do, namely "*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."
*
So, altho I was in favor of it, I was thinking it was by no means critical. But now I disagree. What with the dirty tricks trump, McConnell and the GOP have pulled, and the various states with their ridiculous restrictions on abortions, I think that the ERA is needed now, more than ever.
Arizona hasnt ratified it yet, so that shouldnt be hard.
Here’s a map, so you can see if your state has ratified it- basically Az, Utah, and the deep South have not. Which tells you a lot about the Deep South.
Now, yes, the date has passed, but that may or may not be a problem.
While I completely agree that ratification of ERA is well overdue, I submit that it doesn’t tell us anything about the south that we didn’t already know.
So, we have to pass it because of some issue that it’ll do nothing about?
Personally, I’m opposed to it. For the vast majority of issues, equality of the sexes is good, just, and appropriate. But there are a few real, inherent differences between the sexes that would lead to absurd results.
What specific effects would the ERA bring about?
Possible ones that come to mind are challenges to laws that specifically mention women, such as the Violence Against Women Act, Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, etc. (ERA benefit not obvious here.)
“The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
Why is this needed? In its absence, what would prevent Congress from enforcing ERA provisions with legislation?
If you believe the MRA’s out there, the family courts are all set up in favor of women, and get a great deal of pleasure out of screwing over the men that get into their clutches. An ERA would strip family courts of their ability to discriminate against men in terms of child support and custody.
Personally, I don’t see much validity to the MRA’s argument, but a follower of them may make the argument that an ERA would hurt women in these occasional scenarios in order to divert the conversation from all the ways that not having an ERA already hurts women.
What do ERA proponents hope to gain by its passage that has not already been achieved by the Supreme Court’s intermediate scrutiny jurisprudence towards gender since the 1970s?