A federal court recently dismissed a lawsuit attempting to enact the Equal Rights Amendment — a proposed constitutional amendment that arguably would erase all distinctions between men and women under federal law and could be used to overturn pro-life legislation nationwide.
Watch this video to learn more.
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.
The Following Is From Our Friends at Family Policy Alliance.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has a simple answer for the dozens of new state pro-life laws that have been passed this year: the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).
To that end, today the Equal Rights Amendment is getting its first congressional hearing in 36 years. That means that your member of Congress could be voting on it soon.
But this blast from the past remains the same blunt object attacking life and family values that it was back in the 70s and early 80s. In fact, given where our courts have gone in interpreting “equality” laws, it is even more dangerous now.
The Equal Rights Amendment would shatter pro-life laws
First, it would enshrine government-funded abortion on demand in the Constitution.
Many of the effects of the ERA are somewhat uncertain. However, its effect on abortion law is clear in a multitude of cases stemming from states that have ERAs. Under these state versions of the ERA, courts are finding no difference between abortions and medically necessary procedures sought by men, so states have been forced to pay for abortions under Medicaid.
Legal experts expect these state ERAs to also serve as a legal weapon to take down a host of other pro-life laws – from parental consent and notification laws to dismemberment bans to the pain-capable 20-week bans, and more.
It’s why some policy leaders have taken to calling the ERA the Everything Related to Abortion Act.
The Equal Rights Amendment would invade women’s privacy
But while the ERA would be a coup for Planned Parenthood, that’s not all it’s about.
In 1983 – the last time the ERA had a congressional hearing – the acronym LGBT didn’t even exist. While there was a small-but-growing push for homosexual rights, the T (for transgender rights) didn’t join the acronym until the 1990s.
In 2019, the transgender movement is all the rage in many cultural and legal circles. That makes today’s ERA even more dangerous than it was decades ago. Simply put, the ERA would place in the highest law of the land a limitless ban on sex discrimination – at a time when sex is increasingly being interpreted to mean “gender identity.”
The practical impact of this is that the ERA is likely to bring the transgender revolution to every corner of the country. In the name of protecting women, the ERA would likely open up women’s bathrooms, locker rooms and showers to anyone claiming to be a woman. However, it should be noted that the U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear a case (R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. EEOC) that could have a major impact in this area.
The Equal Rights Amendment threatens women’s insurance rates and sports participation
The ERA is a blunt object that will create other chaos as well, whether intended or unintended. For example, it could go so far as to end sex-segregated sports because they are technically “discriminating” on the basis of sex. At the least, it would likely further the growing problem of giving places on women’s teams to men who claim to be women.
It would also end the justified preferential rates that women receive from insurance companies.
And it would sweep away traditional differences of treatment “on account of sex” in such areas as marriage, divorce and alimony, child custody, adoptions, property laws and prison regulations. These are all areas in which states have historically made distinctions between men and women in order to better protect women and children.
The full impact of the ERA is unknown, calling to mind another famous Pelosi-ism: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
The ERA is on the move: What you can do
Today’s hearing on the ERA shows the determination of Speaker Pelosi to push it through, and it is likely that your member of Congress will have to make a decision on it soon.
The key to stopping its progress is information and action.
