The Founding\nFathers left women out of the United States Constitution. #TimesUp; a fix for\nthis is long past due. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
When the United\nStates Constitution was written, women were treated according to English common\nlaw and social tradition; women were denied most legal rights. Updates to include women in our Constitution\nnever happened…except for the right to vote. This is the only right where it\nis prohibited to discriminate based on one\u2019s sex. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Equal\nRights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the United States\nconstitution prohibiting sex discrimination in our country. It consists of three sections. The essence of\nthe amendment in the first section: \u201cEquality\nof rights of the law shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or by\nany state on account of sex.\u201d<\/em> The following two sections state that\nCongress can enforce the amendment, and the amendment will take effect two\nyears after ratification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the concept\nof the ERA came long before 1923, 1923 was the first year it was introduced to\nthe United States Congress. The ERA did\nnot gain much traction at that time, but it was introduced to every session of\nthe US Congress until 1972. In 1972, US Congress\npassed the ERA by two-thirds vote. As a\nreminder, proposed amendments become part of the US Constitution by two-thirds\nvote by US Congress, followed by\nthree-fourths of the states ratifying the amendment. In the case of the ERA,\nCongress sent the proposed amendment to the states with an arbitrary seven-year\ndeadline written in the preamble of the bill. \nIn 1972, states immediately began ratifying the ERA. However, at the\nsame time, an anti-equality force developed from a skillfully organized, well-funded\ncampaign with the message that the ERA would destroy families and morality. Progress halted. Only 35 states ratified the ERA by 1977. In 1979, US Congress extended the arbitrary\ndeadline by 3 more years. Still, no more\nstates ratified, and many thought that the ERA was dead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 1992, the Madison Amendment became the 27th<\/sup> amendment to\nour Constitution. Although this amendment does not pertain to equality (it concerns\ncongressional pay), it is noteworthy because three-fourths of the states ratified\nit over 202 years after the US Congress passed it. Knowing this, the ERA time\nframe seems short to allow for ratification. <\/p>\n\n\n\n And, the need\nfor the ERA is still relevant. We need it to protect the progress made for\nequality and secure the ability to advance further. Although there has been progress with laws like\nthe Equal Pay Act, Title IX of the Education Amendment, Pregnancy\nDiscrimination Act, and Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, they address\nspecific problems instead of tackling the issue at its core, which the ERA\nwould do. Moreover, elected officials can easily modify or eliminate these laws\nmuch easier than an amendment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We also need\nthe ERA because of the way in which courts view discrimination cases. Courts\nuse the concept of judicial scrutiny for when there is an allegation of a\nviolation of one\u2019s constitutional right. It is used to determine which has more\nweight: a citizen\u2019s constitutional right or a government law or regulation that\nmight discriminate between groups of people. The higher the level of scrutiny,\nthe more favorable weight is placed on the citizen\u2019s right. With discrimination cases that involve\nnational origin, ethnicity, religion, or alienation, strict judicial scrutiny is used. With this, the\ngovernment law or regulation must be: <\/p>\n\n\n\n 1. justified by\na compelling<\/em> governmental interest, <\/p>\n\n\n\n 2. narrowly\ntailored <\/em>to achieve that interest, and <\/p>\n\n\n\n 3. the least\nrestrictive mean<\/em>s for achieve that interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n With cases\ninvolving sex discrimination, intermediate judicial scrutiny, a lower level of\nscrutiny, is used. With intermediate\njudicial scrutiny, the government law or regulation must: <\/p>\n\n\n\n 1. serve an important<\/em>\ngovernmental interest and <\/p>\n\n\n\n 2. be substantially\nrelated <\/em>to serving that interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Intermediate\nscrutiny has led courts to rule with varied and often unpredictable outcomes.\nIn addition, the outcomes are less favorable for (mostly) women than if strict\nscrutiny were applied. The ERA would raise the level of scrutiny and invalidate\nmore discriminatory legislation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2017, Nevada became the 36th<\/sup> state to ratify the ERA, and\nin May 2018 Illinois became the 37th<\/sup> state to ratify the ERA. One\nmore state is needed to ratify the ERA. \nThe 13 states that have not yet ratified the ERA are: <\/p>\n\n\n\n Alabama,\nArizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North\nCarolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This year, most of the13 unratified states introduced resolutions to\ntheir state legislatures for ratification. <\/p>\n\n\n\n After almost 100 years of this amendment lingering in our legislative\nsystem, I\u2019m still optimistic. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Stay tuned!<\/p>\n\n\n\n Watch Dr. Kent’s FIX18 talk below!<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n