See the inspiring stories Come meet us Time to legalize weed?
Women's Rights

It's too late to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, and it would be harmful to women

We don't need the controversial and legally suspect ERA. The Constitution's 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection, and we've made incredible strides.

Mercedes Schlapp and Mary Vought
Opinion contributors

As two women who have spent our careers in and around politics, we commemorate the role that women from Abigail Adams to Susan B. Anthony have played throughout our nation's political history, and celebrate the increasing number of conservative women elected to office. But when it comes to a resolution the House will soon consider regarding the Equal Rights Amendment, we object to both its unconstitutional process and its harmful, anti-women policies.

How could a resolution involving a constitutional amendment violate the Constitution itself? The resolution that Congress used to adopt the Equal Rights Amendment — with the required two-thirds majorities — in 1972 set a seven-year timeline for ratification. Now, nearly half a century later, Democrats in Congress would by a simple majority abolish the time limit that an earlier Congress passed with a supermajority. That, plus the fact that a handful of states have rescinded their ratification of the ERA, makes the entire process constitutionally suspect. Even ERA supporters like Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledged that last year.

ERA would erode women's rights

This scheme is nothing new for the left. The American Conservative Union Foundation's State Ratings have opposed efforts in legislatures (including Illinois, Louisiana and Nevada) to ratify the ERA five decades after the deadline. More conservative state legislators should follow North Dakota's lead in urging rejection of this drive for retroactive ratification.

Phyllis Schlafly spearheads a nationwide campaign to stop the Equal Rights Amendment in January 1977.

More substantively, the ERA would actually erode the rights of women recognized in state and federal law. By stating that "equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged … on account of sex," the amendment would supersede, and effectively eliminate, statutes designed to protect women.

Think of the many legal frameworks in place that recognize the unique roles of men and women, from Title IX — which has extended opportunities in sports to millions of women — to state child support and alimony laws. The ERA could place all of them at risk. The amendment could alsojeopardize the Social Security benefits received by surviving dependent spouses, most of them women. 

More abortions with an ERA

But even as it potentially nullifies other laws protecting women, the Equal Rights Amendment would lead to a major expansion of taxpayer-funded abortion. While they try to dance around the issue in their public comments, liberal groups recognize the impact the ERA would have on their pro-abortion crusade."With its ratification," NARAL Pro-Choice America wrote in since-deleted section of its website, "the ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion by clarifying that the sexes have equal rights, which would require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws."

Statistics don't tell all:Your baby's prenatal diagnosis is not a death sentence. Just ask my giggling goddaughter.

The ERA's impact would go well beyond striking down laws protecting innocent unborn life to entrenching taxpayer-funded abortion on demand. In 1998, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the state's Equal Rights Amendment required its Medicaid program to cover abortions. This is a road map for abortion advocates to demand that federal taxpayer dollars fund a procedure many Americans find morally offensive. 

As we celebrate Women’s History Month, we also celebrate the guarantee of equal protection under the law, enshrined in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. That framework, and other laws built upon it, has allowed women to make incredible strides in integrating the workforce and American society in the century since women won the right to vote. We don't need a controversial and legally suspect amendment holding us back.

Mercedes Schlapp (@mercedesschlapp) is a senior fellow at the American Conservative Union Foundation and former White House senior adviser for strategic communications. Mary Vought (@MaryVought) is the executive director of the Senate Conservatives Fund and a Trump presidential appointee. 

Featured Weekly Ad