Monday, September 28, 2009

Let's talk Equal Rights Amendment

Just got done reading this article on Huffington Post by Kamala Lopez, "Could Micheal Moore know why women are unhappy?" The author brings up the fact that the Equal Rights Amendment -- first introduced in 1923 -- still hasn't been passed, and why it should be.

The amendment simply says:

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

That's it. It has been the same since 1923, and has been introduced to Congress every single year since. (Rep. Carolyn Maloney introduced it this year.) It passed Congress in 1972, but it had to be ratified by 38 states by 1982; only 35 states did so. These states have not ratified it:











North Carolina


South Carolina


One question: Why not?

As Lopez says:
Simply put -- are women, should women be equal or not? Not implicitly equal. Not equal in New York state but not so much in Georgia. Not equal in every area as compared to men. Just equal, plain and simple? If the answer is simply yes, then why oh why is passing this amendment such a big deal? If the answer is no, women are somehow less equal than every other group protected by the US Constitution - let's just get that out there on the table. I would very much like to see which of our Senators and members of Congress are willing to stand up and make that statement to the one hundred and fifty two million of us of the "gentler" sex.
I'm with her on that.


Anonymous said...

Then join up and help us!

Zoe Nicholson said...

Thanks for this fine blog. Kamala sure got it right and so do you.
Zoe Nicholson

Anonymous said...

Thirty-five state have ratified the Equal Rights Amendment. We should not have to start-over. Instead we should get behind the three-state strategy that would recognize the ratification of three more states. For more information go to

Anonymous said...

I think Kansas should be on your list.

Teaching History said...

I think many would (and do) say the three state stratagy is unconstitutional. I know it is very controversial to say the least (except by those who support it).


Blog Widget by LinkWithin