Passing The Equal Rights Amendment Would Hurt Low-Income Women The Most

The Senate will hold a hearing Tuesday to consider a resolution for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). This old feminist favorite — a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that purports to guarantee equal legal treatment for both sexes — was originally passed by Congress in the 1970s but never received the requisite approval by the states.

Now, the ERA has returned, much to common-sense women’s dismay. Democrats are hoping to enshrine it In our Constitution, we have removed the deadline for ratification so that states can vote in support of it. Original ERA had a 7-year ratification deadline, which expired in 1982.

The original architects of the ERA in the 1970s may have considered it an attempt to attain equality between the sexes. However, there are many laws that specifically protect women, such as the Equal Pay Act and Family and Medical Leave Act. Despite the ERA’s failure, it is clear that the feminist political project was a success. Now, women account for a majority of the workforce. The majority of America’s college-educated workers are graduates These are the things you should know. outpacing men in home ownership. (Despite this, there is a lot to support the feminist assumption that female happiness would be achieved by escaping from economic and family life. Is wrong.)

The true reason why there is renewed interest in ERA in light of the ongoing success of women is because ERA advocates today see it as a way to embed gender ideology into all aspects of American life, and eliminate any distinctions between the sexes. This 2020 report by the Center for American Progress (liberal think tank) To urge passage of the ERA, you must first have an “author’s note”:

The term was used by the author “sex discrimination” The ERA’s text is used throughout this issue. This term can be used interchangeably with other terms such as “sex-based discrimination,” “gender discrimination,” Oder “gender-based discrimination,” These are all intended to be inclusive, beyond discrimination based only on sex at birth, to include discrimination that is based on gender identity and/or expression.

This reasoning shows that the arguments against the ERA seem quite simple. The ERA, if ratified would eliminate all legal distinctions between women and men in public life. Women would be treated the same way as men when they were drafted. Public spaces would not be restricted to women, which would invariably impact private spaces (see Civil Rights Act-level). encroachment). That means that in today’s era, a man doesn’t need to use the pretext “even” anymore. “identifying” As a woman, you can gain access to women’s locker rooms and spas. It would be a violation of civil rights to deny him access based on his sex.

The ERA wouldn’t do much for women, and a lot for men.