USA TODAY International Edition
House breathes life into Equal Rights Amendment
WASHINGTON – The House of Representatives voted Thursday to remove the 1982 deadline for ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment for women, a move that is mostly symbolic as the Senate is not likely to follow suit and the ability of Congress to change the deadline has not been tested in the courts.
The House resolution was supported by five Republicans: John Curtis of Utah, Rodney Davis of Illinois, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Tom Reed of New York and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey. No Democrat voted against the measure.
The 232- 183 vote came weeks after Virginia became the 38th – and a potentially pivotal – state to ratify the amendment.
But that came decades after the ratification deadline set by Congress when the amendment was coming close to passage in the 1970s.
“There can be no expiration date on equality,” Rep. Jackie Speier, D- Calif., the lead sponsor of the resolution, argued on the House floor.
In addition to the legal uncertainty, the amendment faces opposition from anti- abortion groups who say it would lead to the removal of restrictions on abortion.
“If we want to discuss protecting rights for all Americans, it needs to pertain to everyone, including and especially newborns,” Rep. Carol Miller said. The West Virginia Republican said the ERA would force governmentfunded health care providers to conduct abortions.
In the GOP- controlled Senate, Republicans Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska back a similar equal rights effort.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R- Ky., was dismissive of the resolution when asked last week if he would allow it to come to the floor.
“I haven’t thought about that,” he said. “I am personally not a supporter, but I haven’t thought about it.”
If codified into the Constitution, the change would explicitly declare that women have equal rights under the law. Supporters say it’s a long- needed protection for women who face discrimination in the workplace and struggle against domestic violence and sexual harassment.
Though many federal, state and local laws prohibit discrimination, those can be changed much more easily than a constitutional amendment. Courts treat sex discrimination cases inconsistently, advocates say.
“For too long, women have relied on the patchwork quilt of laws and precedents,” Speier said. “We have been forced to take our cases all the way to the Supreme Court – and often there we lose.”
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R- Wis., countered that the amendment would bring many consequences harmful to women. Girls would no longer pay less for car insurance for having fewer accidents than boys, he said. Women, who live longer than men, would have to pay higher life insurance rates.
“Look past what looks nice on a bumper sticker,” he said.
Congress approved the ERA in 1972, including in it what the Congressional Research Service calls a “customary, but not constitutionally mandatory,” sevenyear deadline for ratification by threefourths of the states. When the number of states fell three short of the required 38 by 1977, Congress extended the deadline to 1982. No additional states acted by the new deadline.
Speier said it’s no coincidence that the ratification efforts began anew in 2017 when women took to the streets in protests, then marched to the polls in subsequent elections, including last year’s in Virginia that gave Democrats the votes to approve the ERA in the state Legislature in January. In 2017, Nevada became the 36th state to ratify the amendment. Illinois followed in 2018.