I am so proud to have voted to pass the Equal Rights Amendment in the House today. And embarrassed that it took us almost 50 years to do so. And bothered by the fact that it was partisan. So let's have a brief thread:
1/ First, let's review what the Equal Rights Amendment says. Fortunately, you can fit it in a tweet!
2/ "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex...
3/ "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article...
4/ ...This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification." That's it!
5/ Now, as a minor procedural matter, the initial amendment which passed the House and Senate in 1972 had language in the preamble that some have taken to imply it would sunset. What we voted on today was to remove any ambiguity and confirm that it can now be ratified.
6/ I say "can now be ratified" because it took us 49 years (!) to get 38 states to finally agree to this measure, which was longer than originally contemplated.
7/ But with Virginia finally putting us over 38 and with our vote today and *cough* McConnells immediate action to take up in the Senate *cough* we now have all we need to amend the Constitution.
8/ So why do we need to do this? Don't we already have equal protection under the law?
9/ And we do have equal protection under the law. But we also have so-called "originalist" judges who have argued that unless a right is specifically enumerated in the Constitution, those laws may be challenged/overturned in court.
10/ Most famously, Justice Scalia said "Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't." cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/…
11/ I (and many) would disagree with this interpretation, but it does make it clear how brittle our rights can be. Finally providing the Constitutional protection makes them robust.
12/ So what's the possible reason to object? Who doesn't want women to have equivalent rights? Who wants them to only have equal rights so long as a 5-4 majority of Supreme Court justices don't subscribe to originalist jiggery-pokery?
13/ The answer is a rabbit hole in feminist history, but Google Phyllis Schlafly and the STOP ERA movement if you want to get lost. They wanted to protect the "dignity" of homemakers and worried that if women had full equal rights, they might demand control over their bodies too.
14/ It's a dark, return-to-the-middle-ages-or-at-least-the-1950s world view. And thankfully we have moved on. But their residual infection remains, as evidenced by my 183 colleagues today who voted against.
15/ So where are we now? The amendment passed the House and Senate in 1972, and was sent to the states. With Illinois and Virginia finally signing on last year, we are now at the requisite 38 states required to amend the Constitution.
16/ Some have interpreted the original 1972 text however to suggest that if we didn't get to 38 states within 7 years the amendment would expire. (Note: this has never applied to any other Constitutional amendment, and others have argued this 7 year note was not binding)
17/ In any event, today's vote in the House removed any ambiguity about Congressional intent. We now look forward to the Senate joining us in the 21st century. Come on in, the water's fine! /fin
Postscript: For those saying "No, it's all about abortion!", please go back and read the text of the amendment. It's about treating everyone equally under the law regardless of sex. If that interferes with your desire to have unequal control over women's bodies, that's on you.
