If The ERA Is So Great For Women, Why Would It Hurt Moms The Most?

The ERA is back. It’s this time in the form a joint House and Senate resolution To end the expiration date. The Senate Judiciary Committee hosted Tuesday’s hearing on the Equal Rights Amendment. Supporters of the ERA claim it is necessary to ensure equal rights for all women. But this ignores that strong legislative action has made many of the original aims achieved by the ERA since 1970. 

All legal distinctions between men and women are considered discriminatory by the ERA. This is a bad policy. The law should recognize the legitimate differences between men and women in order to protect and support women. An Equal Rights Amendment to The Constitution would Specific protections can be removed For mothers in the title of “sameness” Between men and women. 

So why is a constitutional amendment necessary today? Instead of providing necessary legal protections to women, the ERA would strip women of essential protections and privileges — especially laws that relate to pregnancy and motherhood. 

Consider, for instance, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, paid maternity leave, or the Women, Infants, and Children program (WIC). Take into account health insurance coverage, specifically for pregnant women, through Medicaid or Children’s Health Insurance Programs (CHIP). 

Pregnancy Discrimination Act protects pregnant women from discrimination based on employment. Employers can’t withhold or limit work opportunities or reduce benefits due to pregnancy. It doesn’t stop there. The program also offers additional benefits for mothers like access to breastfeeding rooms. 

Employers would have to either make these benefits available to men and women in order for the ERA to work or they could be removed. This first approach raises privacy and security concerns, as both mothers and fathers have equal access to the lactation rooms. This second option is harmful to mothers because it makes it more difficult for them to care for their children and work. 

Or, you can take paid maternity leaves benefits. The United States does have a federally funded paid leave plan. However, there are some states that do and many private entities that do. Employers can offer competitive maternity leave policies because of this. These policies give women job security, time to bond with their child and partial or full pay for a longer period. 

Employers offer leave time for new fathers, but it is often not as long as the mothers get. Why? Employers and the law recognize that mothers have a unique burden to bear when it comes to childbearing. This includes everything from breastfeeding to recovering from childbirth and adapting to a demanding schedule.

If the ERA passes, employers in state or mixed-sector (those that receive federal funding or contracts) that offer more generous maternity benefits to women than to men will likely be held responsible for discrimination based upon sex. Employers like these would have to provide equal time for fathers and mothers. Mixed-sector employment expands into many areas, from education to transportation and health care. Many private-sector employers may feel pressure to comply with mandated maternity leave policies in states that have high chances of passing them.