Federal Appeals Court Rules Against “Equal Rights Amendment”

Phyllis Schafly, founder of Eagle Forum, was a longtime opponent of the federal Equal Rights Amendment.

On Wednesday a three-judge panel for the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously dismissed a lawsuit attempting to enact the federal Equal Rights Amendment.

The federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) would amend the U.S. Constitution. The amendment reads, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

Congress referred the amendment to the state legislatures for ratification in 1972, agreeing to add the amendment to the constitution if 38 states ratified it by 1979. However, only 35 state legislatures ratified the Equal Rights Amendment by the deadline, and five states that ratified the amendment later revoked their ratifications.

The Equal Rights Amendment is intended to prevent discrimination on the basis of sex, but the way it is worded could cause it to have a number of unintended consequences.

The ERA arguably would erase all distinctions between men and women in federal law.

That could affect everything from college fraternities and sororities at public universities to how men and women are housed in federal prisons to labor laws that protect women in the workplace to girls’ and boys’ athletics at public schools.

States that have enacted measures similar to the ERA have even been forced to pay for abortions with taxpayer funds. In a 2019 letter, the ACLU told Congress that “the Equal Rights Amendment could provide an additional layer of protection against restrictions on abortion.”

It’s important for men and women to have equal rights under the law, but the ERA simply carries too many unintended consequences.

That’s why major groups like National Right to Life, Concerned Women for America, and Eagle Forum oppose the federal Equal Rights Amendment.

That’s why Family Council has opposed efforts to ratify the ERA in Arkansas as well.

And that’s why it’s good to see federal courts dismissing efforts to implement the federal Equal Rights Amendment.

Attorneys Continue to Spar Over Arkansas Law Prohibiting Abortion

On Monday Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge’s office filed a brief in federal court arguing that U.S. District judge Kristine Baker should not block a new state law prohibiting abortion.

Act 309 of 2021 generally prohibits abortion in Arkansas except in cases when the mother’s life is in jeopardy. The law passed with overwhelming support from the state legislature earlier this year, and it is slated to take effect July 28.

Last month the ACLU and abortionists filed a lawsuit against the state over Act 309.

On June 14 the ACLU asked U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that would block the state from enforcing Act 309.

On Monday the Arkansas Attorney General’s office responded to the ACLU’s request.

The A.G.’s team argues that pro-abortion rulings like Planned Parenthood v. Casey need to be reevaluated and overturned — and that the U.S. Supreme Court is liable to do that in its upcoming Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case out of Mississippi.

The A.G.’s brief also argues that past court decisions like Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey “were wrongly decided” and that “there is no doubt that the fetus is a human life — not mere tissue, not ‘potential life,’ and not ‘the product of conception.'”

As we have written before, U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker has consistently ruled in favor of the ACLU and Planned Parenthood. In light of that fact, many expect Attorney General Rutledge’s arguments to fall on deaf ears in Judge Baker’s court.

However, the judges above her at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals have overturned some of her bad rulings in the past.

While it seems likely that Judge Baker will block Arkansas’ pro-life law in the short run, the Eighth Circuit may not agree with her decision on appeal.

In the long run, this lawsuit will give federal courts an opportunity to reverse decades of bad case law on abortion.

That means there is potential for significant, pro-life victories down the road.