Should the Senate extend the deadline to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment?

Awaiting Vote
Bill Summary

This joint resolution eliminates the ratification deadline of the Equal Rights Amendment, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. The amendment was proposed to the states in House Joint Resolution 208 of the 92nd Congress, as agreed to in the Senate on March 22, 1972. The amendment shall be part of the Constitution whenever ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. Sponsor: Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (Democrat, Maryland)
View full bill text ➔

How do you feel?

One click sends your opinion

Opponents say

• "The seven-year deadline Congress put into the ERA in 1972 was a key part of the bargain between Congress and the States. That deal cannot be rewritten nearly 50 years later. As the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in September 2019, those who want to add the ERA to the Constitution must comply with the Constitution by putting a new ERA ‘back in the political hopper’ and starting ‘over again collecting the necessary states to ratify it." Source: Attorney General Steve Marshall (Alabama)

• "Men and women in the United States are already equal under the law. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution require as much, guaranteeing equal protection for all under the laws of this country. To me, the ERA is unnecessary, redundant, and divisive. The only thing it will do is empower far-left special interest groups and lead to activist litigation." Source: Representative Michelle Fischbach (Republican, Minnesota, District 7)

Proponents say

• "There should be no time limit on equality. Even as we celebrate America’s first female Vice President, our nation is held back as the only modern constitution that fails to enshrine full equality for both men and women. This is unacceptable... The states have done their job to make this happen. Now Congress must finally do its job and remove any legal obstacles to certifying the ERA." Source: Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (Democrat, Maryland)

• "Beyond the symbolic significance of enshrining gender equality in the Constitution, there are lingering legal and policy inequities the ERA would help rectify—among these, workplace discrimination, including on account of pregnancy; paid family leave; and increased protection from violence and harassment. Other benefits include the ability of Congress to enforce gender equality through legislation and, more generally, creation of a social framework to formally acknowledge systemic biases." Source: Jennifer Weiss-Wolf (Brennan Center for Justice)