https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/23/us-might-ratify-era-what-would-change/
Earlier this month, Virginia became the latest state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. Being the 38th state to ratify the ERA and completing the three-fourths requirement necessary to ratify the amendment, many are calling for the ERA to finally be ratified, but there are various complications regarding the initial ratification deadline. However, the more relevant angle in this analysis is what ratifying the ERA would really do. In many Supreme Court cases and such, it seems that the ratification of the ERA would not have made a significant historical difference in these decisions. In our current civil rights unit, the ratification of the ERA is very significant, but how significant is it in practice?
Do you think the ERA would have had a significant impact in prior cases has it been ratified in 1982 or before?
Do you think the ERA will have a large impact if it is ratified now? If so, what do you think this impact would be?
I think that ratifying the ERA nowadays would serve more of a symbolic act than an actual call for change. Despite this however, it does not lessen the need for such an amendment as it can set the standard for equal treatment regardless of a person's gender. There are many groups that would benefit from the passing of the ERA but in my opinion, it will by no means be the solution to all the gender-inequality problems that plague the US today.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Charlotte that it will set a precedent of gender equality. Ratifying the ERA would be a massive victory in the feminist movement as it is long overdue and I think that it will pave the way for future sub-fights in the Supreme Court and Congressional legislation like reproductive rights, closing the gender-pay gap, and discrimination by employers against mothers or pregnant women.
ReplyDeleteHad the ERA been ratified in 1982 as the culmination to a long decade of fighting for women's rights, I think it could very well have been used to advance the fight for abortion, equal pay, and the like, which have gotten somewhat stuck over the last few decades. Nowadays, I feel like the amendment would instead be applied to question things like the male-only draft or to strike down intermediate scrutiny programs that protect women. I agree with Amanda that the passage of the ERA is long overdue, but I fear that the currently conservative President and Supreme Court majority would exploit technicalities created by the ERA to impede women's rights instead of advancing the fight as intended.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kevin that the ERA would help advance the fight for equality. With the ERA, Discrimination can be used as a basis for many supreme court cases and issues. For example, the Civil Rights Act was written based on the interstate commerce clause of the constitution. If the ERA was approved in the past, it could have pressed an even stronger and clear constitutional reason to fight for equal rights. Given the growth of xenophobia in time now, It is extremely important to pass the ERA and promote equal treatment.
ReplyDeleteEven in this day and age, I think the effects of the ERA would still be significant, as it's a very clear statement about discrimination. The article's point about the changed strict scrutiny standard that would be applied is likely the largest impact the ERA will have, as judges will be applying the new standard to cases that may violate fundamental rights. Something to consider, though, is how the passing of the ERA might affect feminists; as we've read in our textbook, victories such as winning the right to vote seemed to actually take momentum out of the movement, and losses energized it. Perhaps the passing of the ERA will harm the feminist movement, as people become complacent or can't agree on new goals.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of my peers that the ERA could lessen gender inequalities such as the wage gap. If the ERA was ratified in 1982 or earlier, it could have served as a symbolic statute used to facilitate legislation in women's rights. There would have been an increased likelihood that gender inequality is under strict scrutiny instead of intermediate scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. This I believe is the greatest benefit of the ERA's ratification. That said, I do think the ERA could also pose negative implications if the term "equality" is misinterpreted or exploited. While the ERA's ratification would be pivotal to women's rights, shall government members oppose the measure, they will find ways to avert it, just as we see with countless 14th Amendment Supreme Court cases.
ReplyDeleteIf the ERA was ratified in 1982 or before, I believe that it would have not made as significant impact as we may think. For example, when the 15 amendment ensured the right that all men can vote, no matter race or color. Even though this amendment was passed, people still practiced voter discrimination by creating poll taxes and literacy tests. African Americans were legally allowed to participate in voting, but people found other avenues to bar them from doing so. I believe the women would have suffered the same fate under the ERA, and the only solution is to let time heal the civil and social wrong-doings of the past. If the ERA were to be ratified now, I think it would help fight some of the inequalities women face today. Unlike other opinion, I do not believe this passage in the amendment would solve all issues of sexism and gender based discrimination.
ReplyDeleteThere is the obvious answer that The Equal Rights Amendment would lessen gender inequalities and set the tone for equal rights regardless of sex as the norm in the workplace and cement it in society. However, other possible effects of the ERA include benefits for companies too. With less gender discrimination lawsuits on them, the cost of legal fees goes down while fostering a positive environment for all. Furthermore, as an economic powerhouse/world leader, the U.S. can set a good example and rub shoulders with like-minded proponents of equality. Also, more women entering the workforce boosts productivity and output for sales/services, improving the U.S. economy. Despite positive gains, one must also consider concessions with these formalized rights: would the ERA create a gender-blind constitution and is that entirely beneficial? Some argue that women with the ERA would henceforth be eligible for conscription, an exemption some have appreciated. When forming views on the ERA, one should prioritize values, and I believe this is a small possible give among others in exchange for a big step in ratifying it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the previous statements regarding the fact that implementing and ratifying the ERA today would help push forward the equal rights movement as it could be used in courts to uphold people's rights to be treated equally. It would make all genders equal under the law which would also benefit the LGBTQ community. Not only will it help improve the actions of the country, it would also improve the mentality. People could become more motivated to fight for their rights if this long sought-after amendment was finally ratified and put into effect. Regarding the possible negative outcomes of the ERA, I think the positives outweigh the negatives.
ReplyDeleteAs those above have said, the ERA wouldn’t have much direct impact on people now, or in 1982 because there aren’t many legal cases where womens’ rights specifically need to be protected. It is mostly a culture kind of thing that needs to change, but if an amendment will create that change, then maybe it is necessary. It seems like we shouldn’t need a law at this point to know that everyone, male or female, should be treated equally but when this law attempted to become official, it couldn’t get passed. On the one hand, I think women’s rights do need to be specifically called out and protected, but at the same time I feel like that creates even more of a divide- the separate laws establishing that women and men are not equal, and they only became so after an equal rights amendment is passed.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think the ERA would have a big impact in prior cases if it were ratified because, like Abby said, there haven’t been many big cases that could have involved this law. In addition to that, passing an amendment and actually practicing that legislation are two different things. If it were actually ratified now, I think it would be a big deal in the women’s rights movement symbolically, and it might affect a few practices, but I don’t think it will completely live up to everyone’s expectations just because actually enforcing it could be pretty difficult.
ReplyDeleteRatifying the ERA would definitely be more of a symbolic act than something that would call for change. I believe that if the ERA had been ratified in 1982, it could’ve helped support for the right for abortion laws, equal pay in the workforce, and many other things which have kind of stayed stagnent over the last decades. Although the ERA would serve more as a symbolic act, it doesn’t lessen the amendment’s value in any, and many groups would actually benefit from its ratification as well. The passage of the ERA is long overdue, and maybe with potential ratification, the ERA can be used as a basis for many supreme court cases and issues.
ReplyDelete