Talk:Equal Rights Amendment/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Sex" vs. "gender"

Anyone else wonder about the issues that might theoretically arise based on the usage of the word "sex" instead of "gender"? Dante Alighieri 11:35 Dec 2, 2002 (UTC)

Yes. In English, sex refers to men and women. Gender refers to an aspect of grammar that does not even exist in English. The use of "gender" to mean "sex" is inaccurate. It has been theorized such inaccurate use of the word "gender" increased in the past forty years because some people were squeamish with the word "sex." However, the new usage of gender has become popular enough that some consider the usage standard. I am opposed to such inaccurate usage. I am changing the word "gender" in the first sentence of the article NOT because I am opposed to such usage, but simply because the ERA uses the word "sex." If one can not say what one means, one can not mean what one says.

In English, sex is physical. Gender is a cultural construct and a state of mind. Mwillia9 18:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This was an issue that was raised by opponents of the ERA in the 70s and 80s. The wording was seen as potentially being interpreted to apply to gay marriage or other issues not related to the equality of women.--Tedd (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

both viewpoints

We have a nice part here about the views of those who opposed the amendment, but very little reasoning behind those who supported it. Coolgamer 22:42, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I don't remember typing this. I must have been off my meds. Excuse the interruption. Coolgamer 20:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This article seems quite well reasoned. Why is anyone complaining? — 70.105.78.205 28 Jun 2005

I would certainly like to see more on this. I don't understand why people opposed this and I just tried Googling it and all I got was feminist websites and stuff like that. As stated above, the article provides virtually no reasoning for opposition. Someone please include it. Cookiecaper 01:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh I see that section now. This is weird, I should have seen it before. Oh well, carry on. :) Cookiecaper 01:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"Some states, such as Connecticut and New Mexico, have even ordered the use of tax monies in the case of "medically necessary" abortions, based upon state ERAs, under the theory that women must have health care every bit as comprehensive as that accorded to men."

This is supposed to be an argument against it, but I see nothing wrong with Medicaid covering an abortion to protect a woman's life/health. I think this sentence is POV and should be removed. Mwillia9 18:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you see "nothing wrong with Medicare covering an abortion." The sentence is not POV. Either Connecticut and New Mexico have even ordered the use of tax monies in the case of "medically necessary" abortions or they have not. — Linnwood (☎) 07:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I maintain that the word 'even' and the use of quotes around 'medically necessary' (which does not appear to be a citation) does indicate bias on the part of the author, who evidently questions the very idea of a life-or-health-threatening pregnancy and in any case does not believe women in such situations should be entitled to basic healthcare.Mwillia9 05:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I will grant you that the use of the word "even" could be POV and have removed it. While not a citation, "medically necessary" is a term of art. They are not so-called "scare quotes" — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I can live with that. :) However, when I first added the Gender Studies category, I discovered that the actual name right now is Gender studies (no capital s), so the link will not work if we put the article in Gender Studies. I think the category name should be changed and will get to work on that, but for now I think it's better to leave Gender studies so there's a valid link. Mwillia9 20:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, it appears that the way it is now is the standard form for category names. Witness the categories "Cultural studies" and "Ethnic studies". (Can't figure out how to link to categories from here, hence my multiple edits...arghh!) Mwillia9 20:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, that was a typo on my part! Thank you for correcting it. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I quote from the relevant ruling by the Supreme Court of New Mexico on November 25, 1998, opinion by Justice Pamela B. Minzner:

“ Under the court's order, an abortion is "medically necessary" when a pregnancy aggravates a pre-existing condition, makes treatment of a condition impossible, interferes with or hampers a diagnosis, or has a profound negative impact upon the physical or mental health of an individual. ”

— Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation added — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Additional from "pro-choice" sources to demonstrate that, in the context of Medicaid abortions, at least, the term "medically necessary" is a term of art that merely means that the woman is pregnant, desires an abortion, and is Medicaid-eligible: (1) In 1993, William Hamilton, vice president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told Knight-Ridder Newspapers that "medically necessary" abortions include "anything a doctor and a woman construe to be in her best interest, whether prenatal care or abortion" (Philadelphia Inquirer, Sept. 8, 1993). The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) defined "medically necessary" as "a term which generally includes the broadest range of situations for which a state will fund abortion" (Who Decides? A Reproductive Rights Issues Manual, 1990). A senior Clinton Administration health official told Congress, "When we're talking about medically necessary or appropriate [abortion] services we are also talking about all legal services" (Judith Feder, principal deputy assistant secretary for planning and evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services, Jan. 26, 1994). FedDoc 19:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Revert

Reverted from ==Opponents of ERA== and placed here pending citation of one or more member who "stood against civil rights".

"some who stood against civil rights, and some who stood for civil rights. "

Nobs01 20:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Alternative paths to equality

There are no alternative paths to legal equality except a constitutional amendment. The only right women have within the constitution is the right to vote. All their other "rights" and "privileges" are based on interpretations of other amendments. Interpretations are subject to change meaning that women's "rights" are vulnerable. Laws are not protecting women from sex discrimination, as evidenced by the currently pending case in which the largest class action law suit in the history of this country involves 1.6 million women suing Wal-Mart for sex discrimination. Now that it has come out that Judge Roberts, nominee to the Supreme Court, opposed the ERA, this page is likely to be used frequently. It's important to keep is current.

Twice now the attempt to paint opponents of ERA as opponents of equality has been made. This is clearly POV. nobs 01:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Calm down. If you're referring the "POV subhead" "Other paths to equality", I was simply trying to shorten the heading. It previously read "Alternative efforts to achieve equality", which is the same meaning in more words (and so just as arguably POV). — Mateo SA | talk 03:04, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Not to reopen a thirty year old debate, but the reference obviously publishes the POV that without ERA, women do not have equality. It also publishes that POV that opponents of ERA, then and now, are bigots who oppose equality. This issue was debated at all levels of society, from the United States Congress, to State Legislatures, the Supreme Court, several election cycle were held in the interim, the general public had numerous inputs in countless forums over many years as to whether women suffered from gender discrimination without passage of ERA. The conclusion is final and historic. The American people through Constitutional processes decided ERA was not necessary, because under the Constitution of the United States, women have equality. Only a fractional minority, in their POV, believe the rest of America are bigots for opposing "equality". This clearly is a minority POV. nobs 15:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Your notions of who is the minority and the American people speaking is a little bit off-base. The anti-ERA people were and are the minority, but the process for constitutional amendments is such where a minority can block an amendment. For example, if all 13 of the old Confederate states wanted to block a constitutional amendment against all the other states, they would be capable of doing so. This is certainly not what the "American people" decided. The idea that the "American people" were anti-ERA and a "minority" was for it is ludicrous, polls show the majority of Americans were and are pro-ERA, the ERA passed the House of Representatives with 354 yeas to 24 nays, and the majority of states ratified the ERA. Ruy Lopez 19:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

While in favour of the ERA, I recognize that to be fair we must admit there are other "paths" to equality. If every state guaranteed equality in their state constitutions, for instance. Or if our signing on to UN rules were interpreted as a legally binding treaty. By the way, we should list which states do that but I can't find a source for which do. Korky Day (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sex Bias in the US Code

This section seemed ridiculously long given its relevance to the article (very little). It looks like it was placed there just as a way of discrediting ERA supporters by listing the sillier viewpoints of one of its sillier advocates. I was initially going to delete the whole section, but given that, for all I know, this might be an extremely significant book (though the section does not attempt to explain its significance), I simply cut the list of claims down to a single paragraph. If I'm wrong and this book is somehow relevant, please accept my apologies and revert my edit, but preferably explain why a biased review of this book is relevant to the ERA. 194.216.55.225 11:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)--

What is the general consensus here? Do most people think the ERA needs to be ratified, or is that simply a step backward for the women's movement. It seems that the real reason it got squashed was be cause Republicans didn't want bigger government, a phrase they use whenever something doesn't seem to suit their fancy.Mary Hope

Biased? I took those quotes right out of the book (some my call it a "report" like the 9/11 commission's report, but it is in fact a book. The purpose of the report was to show why the ERA was needed. Publius 07:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

See comments from Talk:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg Geoff.green 00:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

ERA and the draft

"For instance, ERA advocates point out that the notion that the ERA would require women to register for the draft ignores the fact under Article I of the Constitution, Congress has always had the power to draft women."

Has any advocate actually made a statement which amounts to "the ERA would not require it, because it is already permitted"? Somehow I doubt it. And if they have, it seems like an obvious enough fallacy (confusing 'require' and 'permit') that a better example should be used instead. Ken Arromdee 21:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleting this *again* after it was restored by an anonymous user. Please justify the statement or don't put it in. The fact that Congress *could* draft both sexes equally is not the same thing as a requirement that we *must* draft both sexes equally. It's like arguing that a Constitutional amendment that taxed everyone at 100% would do nothing because the government could impose a 100% tax even without the amendment. Ken Arromdee 23:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

LDS vs. ERA

I wonder if any attempt has been made to include the role of the LDS church in defeating the ERA? One reference is this article. Anyone want to take a stab at this? Alienus 01:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

4 more states! If the LDS Church had supported the ERA, it might well have passed in UT, AZ, ID, and NV, states with high proportions of LDS.

Support

Where is the support section? Is it just "anti-opposition"? I've cut the following:

Supporters of the ERA characterize these implications as "scare tactics" designed to obscure the real advantages of a constitutional guarantee of equal rights for men and women. Supporters assert that the myths which opponents perpetuate about the ERA are either without merit or concern separate issues which the ERA would not affect. For instance, ERA advocates point out that the assertion that the ERA would require women to register for the draft ignores the fact that, under Article I of the Constitution, Congress has always had the power to draft women. Opponents respond that the status quo, in which Congress may draft women—but has chosen not to—is different from a requirement upon Congress to do so. [1].

This passage refers to "real advantages of a constitutional guarantee of equal rights for men and women" without saying what they are. It looks like an argument based on, "There's nothing wrong with it, so let's do it." Surely there's more to it than that.

Did I read the article too hastily, though? My impression is that the article is 90% about the progress of the campaign to get ERA approved. But what are the reasons for it? (Too obvious to mention?)

Please repair this passage and put it back. Preferably, with a huge list of reasons favoring ERA! --Uncle Ed 18:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Current Status of the ERA

I removed the following line: "Polls show that a majority of Americans continue to support the ERA, and efforts to introduce ERA ratification resolutions—in the legislatures of those fifteen states which never ratified the measure—have increased in recent years."

I have a hard time believing that this question (Do you support the ERA?) is even polled any more. The deadline for ratification passed more than a quarter of a century ago. More so, until a cite can be given to show that efforts to introduce ERA ratification resolutions exists, let alone are increasing, I do not think this belongs in the article. — Linnwood 06:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Current Status

I think the Current Status section needs to be changed because there is no consensus on whether the ERA is technically dead or not. The Washington Post from March 28, 2007 pointed out that:

"In 1997, three professors argued in the William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law that the ERA remained viable because in 1992 the Madison Amendment -- which affects congressional pay raises -- became the 27th constitutional amendment 203 years after it first won congressional approval. Under that precedent, advocates say, the ERA should become part of the Constitution once three-quarters of the states ratify it, no matter how long that takes." New Drive Afoot to Pass Equal Rights Amendment, By Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, March 28, 2007; Page A01 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.228.144.101 (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

This is addressed in the 'Three States Strategy' section. 66.92.53.49 16:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Note the following info relating to deadline for ratification:

Found at: http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/97-922.pdf

CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web 97-922 GOV September 30, 1997 Ratification of Amendments to the U.S. Constitution David C. Huckabee Specialist in American National Government Government Division

… snip snip

“The practice of limiting the time available to the states to ratify proposed amendments began in 1917 with the 18th Amendment (Prohibition). All amendments proposed since then, with the exception of the 19th (Women's Suffrage) and the proposed child labor amendment, have included a deadline either in the body of the amendment proposed to the states, or in the joint resolution transmitting the amendment to the states to be ratified.”

… snip snip

“The unprecedented time period of the 27th Amendment's successful ratification, and the decision by the 95th Congress to extend the seven-year deadline for the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) for an additional two years, 10 months, and 16 days, has prompted speculation that Congress might have the power to revive other amendments proposed without ratification deadlines (in the body of the amendment) by enacting new ratification deadlines. At this writing, this matter is unresolved, but constitutional scholars distinguish the Equal Rights Amendment extension from efforts to revive amendments whose deadlines have expired because the ERA deadline was extended before the original deadline had expired.”

… rest of document

Here's some more info:

Found at: http://www.thomas.gov/ (Do a search on “Equal Rights Amendment”. There is no fixed URL)

HRES 757 IH 110th CONGRESS 1st Session H. RES. 757 Requiring the House of Representatives to take any legislative action necessary to verify the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment as part of the Constitution when the legislatures of an additional three States ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES October 18, 2007 PLEASE NOTE: The above copied text is part of two U.S. government documents that are not legally eligible for copyright. 71.96.169.164 (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Authors of William & Mary article on ERA legal status

User 68.51.12.243 changed the article to say it was written by students, not professors. A little googling backs up that claim (though it would be helpful if the person who made the change would post the support for their claim):

http://salmonriver.com/issues/era-viable.html says

The legal rationale for this position was developed in a 1995 paper by Allison Held, Sheryl Herndon, and Danielle Stager, then third-year law students at the T.C. Williams School of Law in Richmond, Virginia.

The resume of one author shows her currently in private practice, and a law school graduation date of 1996. It's unlikely that she was a professor in 1997; it seems much more likely it was written during law school and published after graduation. 66.92.53.49 15:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Now irrelevant due to subsequent edits 66.92.53.49 16:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Votes Against section should just be votes

It looks a little like name-and-shame political advocacy now, even though it's framed as an examination of their diverse backgrounds. We should list all votes or none. 66.92.53.49 16:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It really is of little value, and probably tendentious, to list only the members of Congress who voted against the ERA in the early 1970s. Consider that after the expiration of the ratification deadline for the 1972 ERA, the congressional Democratic leadership tried to start over in 1983. By then, of course, there had been a lot more debate in the country about the possible legal effects of the amendment -- and this time, 147 House members voted against it, which was more than one-third of the body, so it died. That was the last time that either house of Congress voted on an ERA. Why not list all 147? Or better yet, why not ditch this section entirely?FedDoc 19:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

With no dissenting votes, I'm removing it. If someone wants to flesh it out into something more complete, simply retrieve it from here Guanxi 22:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

CRS study

In the 22:46, 31 March 2007 revision, user 71.178.131.34 removed all mention of a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report and its citation, stating, removed link to polemical "summary" of CRS study on the Three State Strategy, which was not part of actual CRS memo, which took no position)

I reinstated it for the following reasons:

• The CRS study is important, relevant information regarding the Three State Strategy.
• The citation is the only one we currently have. I'd prefer the actual report, but CRS reports are not public, unless released by an authorized CRS customer. If someone can find it, it would make a better cite than the summary.
• I do not believe the summary is "polemic"; the website where its hosted is certainly pro-ERA, but the summary itself is mostly NPOV. I encourage anyone addressing this issue to read the summary; it's not long. The summary's analysis does not favor the prospects of the Three State Strategy:
  • The [CRS] report, while taking no position, discusses three possible alternatives for a three-state strategy.
  • The proposition that one Congress cannot bind a future Congress by means of a rule or law offers both possibilities and difficulties for the three-state strategy.
  • The U.S. Archivist ... would probably not certify the amendment ... as long as existing instructions from Congress indicate that the ratification deadline has expired.

User 71.178.131.34 says, the summary was not part of actual CRS memo. If that user has access to the CRS report, please replace the link to the summary with a link to the actual report.

User 71.178.131.34 says the CRS report took no position. The summary agrees: The [CRS] report, while taking no position ....

Guanxi 20:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

While CRS directly releases its reports only to members of Congress who request them, the members of Congress are free to release them, and so. Some members of Congress have posted many such reports on their websites. CRS is a government agency, and its reports are in the public domain. I do have a PDF of the 1996 report that is cited. It is very superficial, but citing the study is certainly superior to citing a gloss on it. I would be happy to submit the PDF if somebody will instruct me on the procedure -- I am new at this.

FedDoc 08:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be great. If it's already on the Internet, just post a link to it and someone can turn it into a citation (or, look at the page source for other < ref> tags to use as a model, and create your own citation). If it's not on the Internet, is there someplace you can upload it? If not (or even if so), perhaps one of the public CRS report repositories would like a copy (see the bottom of the CRS article). And finally, there may be a way to upload it directly to Wikipedia, but that's beyond my knowledge -- maybe it's the same process by which images or other content are uploaded. Guanxi 13:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

All right. I looked into this further. It turns out that there were TWO different CRS memos, both issued in 1996, both written by Huckabee, with somewhat overlapping content. I thought the "summary" originally cited was to one version, but I see now that the "summary" was actually based on the most extensive memo, which is not yet on the Internet, but I have now obtained the document in PDF. It is much preferable to quote the memo itself, which is far more even-handed than the "summary." Therefore, I have edited the page to remove reference to the "summary" and to quote directly from the proper CRS memo. I also used the Wiki upload page to upload the PDF file (it is a government publication, public domain), but I do not yet know how to link to it from the page, so I have merely cited it. The name of the file I uploaded to Wiki is ERAratificationissuesCRS1996.pdf FedDoc 19:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Very nicely done. In the footnote, I managed to add a link to the document, but I'm not sure how to label it (normal link syntax doesn't work). Someone who knows more than I do can make it prettier, but the substance is there. If you could mention the existence of the second memo and add its bibliographical details, it would be helpful -- someone might be motivated to acquire it (e.g., ask their congressperson), and it would assist anyone researching the issue. Guanxi 16:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I now have both memos. The initial confusion was mine -- the memo I had initially only touched superficially on the three-state strategy. It would be of little interest to anyone researching the strategy. But the second memo, now referenced and linked on the Wikipedia page, deals with the strategy in a somewhat more substantive way. This is the memo that actually is cited by pro-ERA groups, although sometimes they are selective in their quotes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FedDoc (talk • contribs) 23:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Origins of "Three State Strategy"

Right now, our history says the pay raise amendment was approved in 1992, Virginia tried the 3SS in 1994, and then the 3SS theoretical bases were published in 1996 and 1997. Did Virginia have a basis for what they were trying, or did their legislature hatch the idea? Guanxi 16:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The 3SS preceded the William & Mary article. I will look more into what the Virginia legislators were presented with in 1994. FedDoc 23:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for the excellent work with the CRS memos. Wikipedia needs more like you. Guanxi 01:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As promised, I have dug more into the question of the initial stages of the three-state strategy. I uncovered a December 1993 Associated Press report regarding a press conference by a coalition of "women's groups" in Washington, at which they announced the "three-state" strategy. Early the following year, a resolution was introduced in the U.S. House that, if adopted, would have purportedly "required" Congress to accept the ERA as validly ratified if three more states adopted ratifications (no action was taken on this resolution). I have added to the ERA article a new paragraph that references and links those two documents. By the way, the AP article quoted one of the pro-ERA strategists as saying that they would take their next shot in Virginia, which is exactly what subsequently occurred. FedDoc 19:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic. Thanks. Guanxi 13:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

1982 docs

I removed the following from the External Links section:

• Read 1982 documents showing the U.S. Supreme Court declared the 1972 E.RA legally dead

It has the following problems:

• Documents are incomplete
• Without context, it's hard to understand their importance, if any.
• non-NPOV label (easily fixed if someone finds a use for the link).

An actual 1982 court ruling of importance would be interesting, especially as a citation in the main body of the article.

You were absolutely right. After seeing your comment, I looked more closely at that PDF file, and found it was garbled and contained an incomplete document. I went back to the source and have replaced the previous link with a reference-link to an undamaged file that contains the entire memorandum by the Acting Solicitor General (three pages) and the entire subsequent order by the U.S. Supreme Court (one page). Also, as you suggested, I have added a reference link to the actual opinion of the U.S. District Court in Idaho v. Freeman. I have also slightly edited the narrative in a way that I think explains more clearly what occurred, and makes the pertinence of the documents more obvious.04:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks great. One point, though: It says,

The Office of the Solicitor General of the United States advised the Supreme Court ... that "the Amendment has failed of adoption no matter what the resolution of the legal issues presented here. [Empahsis added by me]

A couple points:

• Wouldn't it be more correct that the SG argued? I think the SG is not a neutral adviser to the court, but an advocate before the court representing his/her client, the President, as other attorneys represent their clients (though obviously the SG and the client may be more influential).
• If the above is correct about the SG's role, then the SG's argument is one side of the issue. We should probably add the other side for balance. I can try to do it myself, but I'm not familiar with the arguments.

I don't meant to denigrate the work, though, which I think is very well done. Guanxi 19:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with changing it to "argued" if you like that better. However, while I don't have the resources to do definitive research on this point, it does not appear that there was much of an argument in 1982, which is why the Supreme Court's order was so brief. All sides agreed that the 1972 ERA was dead, which mooted the case. One side felt it had died at the time of the original deadline in 1979 (which was the position of the District Court), and the other thought it had died after the deadline extension was reached in 1982. One side felt it had been ratified by 30 states (allowing for the five rescissions, which the District Court said were valid), and the other side believed it had reached 35. But all sides agreed it was dead, because it needed 38. As further evidence of the consensus at that time, ERA backers tried to start over in Congress in 1983, only to see the ERA voted down on the floor of the House of Representatives. FedDoc 22:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining it. In principle, we shouldn't post one side of a case (it's not NPOV); but in this instance it sounds like, practically, it's probably not worth a lot of effort so I'm going to leave it as is. I'll rephrase it to say 'argued'. Guanxi 14:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Restructure

I restructured the sections in order to address the wikify tag. I wonder why the link structure is problematic--it's not on the talk page. If no one objects, I'll remove the wikify tag in 24 hours. Kanmalachoa 20:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Map

Is there a key available for the map shown in the article concerning the ratification of the amendment? 47of74 16:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The green and orange on the map are almost indistinguishable to a color blind viewer. Can the colors be adjusted? 23 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.176.53 (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This map is wrong. Vermont did not ratify the ERA. In fact it was defeated in 1986 by 6,100 votes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vthistory (talk • contribs) 21:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Vermont ratified the ERA in 1973. The voters rejected adding the ERA to its State Constitution in 1986. Source SMP0328. (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible useful resource

Definitely POV and thus can't be used as a cite, but NPOV cites could be found elsewhere:

http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1986/sept86/psrsep86.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guanxi (talk • contribs) 01:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

History section statement

Ending discriminatory laws, and ending the need to laboriously address them one at a time, was the clear intent of the ERA, and the phrasing of the opening line seems disputative of that intent (but perhaps only mildly so).

The opening line of the introductory paragraph says "... the 1920 ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment had guaranteed American women's right to vote ...". That might be changed to something like "... the 1920 ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment had guaranteed that sex could not be the sole reason for denying an American women's right to vote ...".

It's not a question of semantics. There remained other reasons why women (and only women) were denied the right to vote. For example, after ratification newspapers published warnings that women who had married non-citizens were not eligible to vote (because by marrying non-citizens, they had lost the US citizenship that was their birthright). The loss of citizenship was one of the issues that had to be addressed on a piecemeal basis. Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth. 24.178.228.14 (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the article to clarify that the Nineteenth Amendment only guaranteed that the "right to vote" can't be denied because of someone's sex. SMP0328. (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

NOW

Unless and until NOW persuades a senator or congressperson to sponsor their amendment, it's not notable. Personally, given the misandry inherent in Section 1, I don't think that is likely to happen. JCDenton2052 (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Section removed

I have entirely removed the Alternatives to the ERA section (which included the NOW subsection). That section was not relevant to the ERA and lacked sufficient sourcing. SMP0328. (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of "proposed" and the use of was/is

The word "proposed" when used in the context of the US constitutional amending process, has a very specific meaning. Whereas in normal conversation, something can be proposed just by someone saying it sounds like a good idea, an amendment is called "proposed" after it has been approved by 2/3 of each house of Congress (forgetting the never-used national convention option) and is awaiting "ratification" by the states. By this definition, then, the ERA is not currently a proposed amendment. It certainly was a proposed amendment between 1972 and 1979, and perhaps until 1982. But it is now dead as a doornail, and thus must be referred to in the past. Just my 2¢. Unschool (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Necessity

What does the ERA add that isn't already covered by the Equal Protection clause of Amendment XIV? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, the Equal Protection Clause allows legal distinctions based on sex if they pass intermediate scrutiny. Proponents of the ERA believe it would not allow such distinctions. SMP0328. (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Introductory Links

I think the links in the introduction should actually lead to the right places. For example, "amendment" currently leads to "Article 5 of the United States Constitution." This seems entirely counter-intuitive and down right misleading. I propose that the words "amendment" and "equal rights" lead to "constitutional amendment" or "amendments to the United States constitution", and "social equality". Furthermore, "sex" currently leads to biological sex, and not gender. Ejnogarb (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The Article V link is there because the ERA was proposed via the process laid out in Article V. The Women's equality link is there because that's what the ERA is/was about and is more specific than Social equality. Sex is used instead of gender because the ERA says "sex." Saying in the article that the ERA was about "gender" would be original research. SMP0328. (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I can understand the first two points, though they still seem misleading to me. But to refuse to change "sex" to "gender" because it would be original research smacks of stupidity. The current reading implies: "...intended to guarantee equal rights under the law for Americans regardless of sexuality (or sexual reproduction)." The word in the article doesn't have to be changed, because "sex" means both sexual reproduction and gender, but since the Wikipedia article doesn't make such a distinction it should be linked to gender. Stop splitting hairs. Ejnogarb (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The ERA says "sex" and nobody knows how the Supreme Court would have interpreted that word. Maybe it would have ruled "sex", at least in the case of the ERA, was synonymous with "gender". We can't know, because the ERA did not become a part of the Constitution. You believe "sex" includes "gender" regarding the ERA, but that's not relevant; nor is it relevant whether it is my opinion that "sex" includes "gender" in this situation. The text of the ERA says "sex" and so that's to what the article should say the ERA was granting equality. SMP0328. (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If we're not allowed to interpret the intended meaning, then I insist the link be changed to "sex (disambiguation)", because you cannot imply that the intended meaning was sexual reproduction. Ejnogarb (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Sex" refers to the biological differences between a man and a woman. "Gender" comes from the belief that whether a person thinks as a man or as a woman is strictly psychological. Neither term is ambiguous, but they are also not synonymous. Because the ERA uses the term "sex" that is the term the article should use. SMP0328. (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, "sex" refers to "a process of combining and mixing genetic traits," and whether or not you believe it refers to the biological difference between a man and a woman is irrelevant. Likewise, according to its article, "gender" encompasses the biological, even though you purport that it is strictly psychological. According to these respective Wikipedia articles, you are wrong. Stop reverting this edit. Ejnogarb (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You're half right. I still believe wikilinking "sex" to gender is original research, but I can also see how wikilinking it to sex can also be seen as original research. So I have dewikified the word "sex". Let each reader decide what "sex" means regarding the ERA. SMP0328. (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the bureaucratic answer to solving "original" research. Ejnogarb (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Eleanor Roosevelt opposes ERA Amendment sentence makes no sense

It says it was opposed by unions and then adds "as well as by Eleanor Roosevelt and most New Dealers, who contended that women needed government protection that men did not." If they believed that women needed protection that men did not then why did they oppose an amendment that would protect them by the Constitution. Is this saying that this would make women equal to men and limit their rights when women needed more protections than men? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.7.243 (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Back then there were laws which provided women special protections, because it was believed women would not join the workforce without those protections. Some feminists agreed with such laws and so opposed the ERA, because it was believed the ERA would have prohibited such laws. SMP0328. (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

South Dakota

Should they be listed in the section of states that rescinded their approval? They didn't really do it. They basically said they would withdraw support for it on March 22, which was the deadline for the amendment to be approved. That meant the amendment was dead on March 23 anyways. So the amendment was dead whether South Dakota withdrew their support or not. TJ Spyke 18:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

When the ERA died has never been officially resolved. The Supreme Court heard a case dealing with that issue (NOW v. Idaho), but dismissed it as moot after the passing of June 30, 1982 (the post-extension deadline). South Dakota was simply making it clear that its ratification ceased to be in effect on March 22, 1979 (the original deadline). Whether a State can do that (rescind its ratification when less than three-fourths have ratified) has also never been officially resolved. SMP0328. (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, the text says SD rescinded its ratification before the deadline. Obviously, it passed the rescission before March 22, but its effect was only to underscore the deadline. In other words, it took effect March 23. Nebraska is a bit problematic, as well. On a related note, are there any people in Lincoln who can find the Nebraska resolutions so we can try to resolve that state's rescission issue? -Rrius (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Abortion-related criticism

I think it worth mentioning that Alice Paul, the original author, opposed abortion, opposed linking the ERA and abortion, and said "Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.". I just can't seem to find a way to add this and keep the flow. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that would belong in the Alice Paul article rather than this one. SMP0328. (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed "Other Criticisms"

I have removed the Other Criticisms subsection of the Criticism of the ERA section, which said:

Other critics have argued that the courts could rule that the ERA would mandate the recognition of same-sex marriage. They point to various court decisions, including a Hawaii State Supreme Court decision in 1993, a Baltimore, Maryland circuit court decision in January 2006, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling for same-sex marriage in 2003, and to a decision by the Supreme Court of California in May 2008, all of which used state bans on sex discrimination as partial justification for the rulings.

Critics also maintain that the ERA would prohibit single-sex schools, sports teams or even restrooms— they point to a decision by a court in the State of Washington which ordered a fraternal civic organization to admit women, based upon the ERA within its state constitution. Finally, some opponents of the ERA contend that the amendment simply is not necessary, that other provisions of the Constitution— as interpreted by various rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts— provide sufficient support for equal rights for both genders and that the amendment would imply that women had never been equal under the law before the amendment's passage.

Supporters also point out that the likely legal interpretation of the ERA would be to review government, but not private, sponsored sex distinctions under strict scrutiny (the level of legal scrutiny currently afforded to racial discrimination). While strict scrutiny is a very high level of legal scrutiny, it does not preclude all governmental acts regarding a suspect class.

This material was unsourced (the footnote links to other Wikipedia articles) and was weaselly worded (e.g., "Other critics" and "Supporters"). If reliable sourcing is provided and the wording is fixed, then it can be restored to the article. Until then, it stays here. SMP0328. (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Other countries

I propose a section (or a link via "see also" to a future wikipedia entry on the matter) to summarize what other countries have done via either a.Amendments, in their b.constitutions or c. declarations of independence, etc. For example, Israel's Declaration of Independence stated "The State of Israel will maintain complete social and political equality for all its citizens, without distinction on the grounds of religion, race or sex" How typical or atypical is the US among industrialized nations for not having equality encoded at such high legal levels? The comparative information of such a section would be helpful.--Harel (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Constitution of Sweden in § 2 of Regeringsformen states that the government shall counteract discrimination based on sex (among other things) and in § 16 that a law or regulation shall not lead to a disadvantage for any citizen based on his or her sex (with exceptions for e.g. military service).Sjö (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

While it's interesting to know what other countries (such as Israel and Sweden) do regarding sex discrimination, this article is about a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution and so such material is irrelevant to this article. SMP0328. (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with SMP0328. A list like that might be a notable subject for a separate article, though.Sjö (talk) 07:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The position/activity of National Right to Life

On July 6, 2009, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) announced her intention to re-introduce the traditional ERA language. The announcement came in the form of a letter from Maloney to other members of the U.S. House of Representatives, soliciting their co-sponsorship of the forthcoming resolution. On July 7, 2009, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) sent its own letter to members of the House, in which the organization referred to Maloney's letter, and urged lawmakers not to support the Maloney proposal (i.e., not to support the traditional ERA language) unless and until an "abortion neutral" amendment is added. SMP0328 quotes the NRLC letter as opposing specifically H.J.Res. 61, but actually the NRLC letter makes no reference to H.J. Res. 61, because a resolution does not receive a number until it is formally introduced, and Maloney did not introduce the resolution until July 21, 2009. The content of H.J. Res. 61 is exactly what the July 6 Maloney letter and the July 7 NRLC letter anticipated -- H.J. Res. 61 contains the traditional ERA language -- and therefore everything in the NRLC letter does clearly apply to H.J. Res. 61, and will also apply to the identical language if it is introduced in the Senate, even though a different resolution number would be assigned in the Senate. But my original description of what the NRLC letter says is literally accurate, while SMP0328's revision was not, since the NRLC letter was sent before H.J. Res. 61 came into existence, so I have reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FedDoc (talk • contribs) 11:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The NRLC was clearly referring to Maloney's proposal, which became H.J.Res. 61. It's simply clearer to say "H.J.Res. 61", because that's the official name of Maloney's proposal and doing so distinguishes it from the ERA which was submitted to the States in 1972. SMP0328. (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Present tense

Hello, SMP0328. Why do you keep reverting the lead to the past tense and removing the clause to say that this was reintroduced? I am sorry but this article needs an update. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The ERA has been considered dead as of March 30, 1982 (see the SCOTUS decision in NOW v. Idaho). A Constitutional amendment ceases to be proposed once it is passed by a two-thirds vote in each House of the Congress, has not been ratified by three-fourths (38) of the States and the time limit on its ratification has expired. This means the ERA is not currently a "proposed" amendment. It would be again if it received the requisite Congressional passage. So the Introduction should be in the past tense. SMP0328. (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

As I imagine you know, Representative Maloney reintroduced it therefore it should be present tense. I am trying to understand your edits. I do understand that there are Constitutional requirements that might cause you to revert present tense however that doesn't reflect the status of the proposal now. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have returned the Introduction to past tense, but have added a fuller description of the Maloney reintroduction. That should make it clear that while the 1972 ERA is dead, there is an effort to have the Congress proposed a new ERA (with the same or different text). SMP0328. (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks reasonable. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad we worked this out. SMP0328. (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Chronology

Pardon me, SMP0328. Nobody owns this article. I expect that you will interrupt my editing. I also expect your respect for other people's feelings about the logical structure of the article if it is ever going to grow into a B class article. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't interpret my actions as hostile. I'm trying to help. The History section is about the past. Your new subsection is about the present, so I moved it what I felt was a more appropriate place in the article.

There are references, at various points in the article, to Maloney's introduction. Should all such references be consolidated into a new section? SMP0328. (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I moved it down a notch and am happy that 2007 flows into 2009. What references are you talking about? I don't see any other mentions of it. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Dubious claim/source

I have marked

The ERA was strongly opposed by the American Federation of Labor and other labor unions, who did not want to compete with women,[3]

as dubious. This is a very unexpected claim, which would need considerably better support than a book that (judging by the author's WP entry) is written by a journalist without scientific qualifications of note, and who may be politically POV-ed.

I note that this book is referenced on a number of occasions, and would generally recommend more scientifically valuable references for these other claims. 88.77.185.140 (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Needs updating

Nothing is mentioned about the 2009 reintroduction except that it has happened. JB50000 (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Betty Ford image

Betty Ford was one of the ERA's most energetic supporters, leading a White House lobby for its passage as First Lady and campaigning for state ratifications and deadline extension after her term.

I have removed this image from the Extension of ratification deadline subsection of the History section, because it is not formatted correctly (the image isn't visible) and I don't know how to fix it. If fix, it can be restored to that part, or another part, of the article. SMP0328. (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ratification deadline extension arguments

I have removed the recently added material giving arguments as to why the extension of the ratification period for the ERA. As well meaning as that addition surely was, that material was unsourced and was one-sided. If such material is to be in the article, it must be reliably sourced and neutrally worded. SMP0328. (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Opinions and facts

I painstakingly worked to offset the anti-ERA bias in this article (specifically by changing the tense to reflect the ongoing nature of this issue, by adding supporting arguments to counter arguments against, and by adding a list of organizations supporting the ERA) but all of those materials were apparently removed. If these materials are not allowed, why is advocacy by Orrin Hatch and Phyllis Schlafly against the ERA allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.44.156 (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your edits and additions to Equal Rights Amendment. They were from the Alice Paul Institute, which is an organization formed by a "DC-based nonpartisan network of more than 200 women's organizations" (quoting from its website). In short, such organizations usually are not reliable sources for facts. Opinions should not be put in an article as if they are facts. As for the Hatch and Schlafly material, they are clearly indicated as being opinions. With that said, thank you for wanting to contribute to Wikipedia and I hope you continue to do so. SMP0328. (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This article presented criticisms of the ERA, but no arguments in support. I changed that, you changed it back to its biased, unbalanced state. Hatch's and Schlafly's views were presented as facts inter alia, as well as in the form of advocacy in the "criticisms" section. This reflects a lack of objectivity and balance in the article. By contrast, I presented the materials from the Alice Paul Institute were identified as opinions when they were opinions, and presented as facts (e.g. the list of pro-ERA organizations) when they were facts. You deleted facts and opinions, in an apparently biased way, without due consideration of the accuracy of the facts or the informative nature of the views, again suggesting bias. As a compromise, I have removed all the advocacy from the article. Please do not restore the bias and one-sided editorializing and advocacy in this article. 96.231.44.156 (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to your recent removals. Now the article simply expresses facts, as it should. I have reverted the rewording you made to the Introduction. The ERA is no longer before the States, that's the case of NOW v. Idaho was dismissed as moot by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1982. SMP0328. (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Opinion remains

The rewording of the amendment text reflects opinions. In most cases, direct quotations from a primary source is preferable to restatements, especially regarding documents drafted with carefully crafted language--such as proposed Constitutional Amendments. Also, references to intent inferred ("...which was intended to...") should not be presented as facts--especially without direct supporting quotes from any individuals involved or historical experts, etc. Rather than present inaccurate and opinion-based rewording as fact, I deleted the restatement and referred to the full text. 96.231.44.156 (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree again. However, it's unnecessary to say "full text below" (anyone looking at the Introduction will also see the text), so I removed those words. SMP0328. (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Virginia Senate approval

The map needs to be updated, because the Virginia Senate just approved the ERA. -LtNOWIS (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Virginia has not ratified the ERA, unless its House of Delegates also votes to ratify. Then there's the issue of whether Three State Strategy is a correct reading of the law. SMP0328. (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Right, but the map also includes states where one out of two houses of the legislature has ratified it. -LtNOWIS (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Gender reference

In my opinion, 'sex' in this article should be changed to 'gender'. An exception to this would be in the amendment itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattamsn (talk • contribs) 15:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sex is not necessarily the same as gender, so let's stick with what the ERA said. SMP0328. (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Political rights

I'm a bit confused after reading the article what political rights exactly for women were being advocated for? The only thing I can see here in the article connected to this at all is the ban on sex discrimination in the civil service, but that doesn't necessarily have to do with political rights per se. A specific mention of at least one of these would surely improve the clarity of the issues discussed within the article. For example, the right to vote would be a specific mention of a political right. This article lacks such precision. Alialiac (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The ERA did not specify a specific right (it refers to "rights" generally), so I'm not sure how referring to a specific right is necessary. Also, which rights are "political" as opposed to Constitutional, statutory, regulatory, etc.? SMP0328. (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Geraldine Ferraro and continued state-discrimination

The following below was removed. It is not trivial, rather historical. The ERA would allow the Dutch woman in Manhattan to wear a skirt without fear of being harassed by the police. A quick search of the Human Rights Campaign website, which boasts the support of Bill Bratton, finds no advocation of the ERA, but according to the proposed language of the amendment and Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, their issues would be solved overnight if women were actually in their interests. Secondly, how can the ERA article not mention Geraldine Ferraro?

New York Congresswoman and former U.S. Vice Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro helped spearhead efforts for the amendment during this period, in which women were still experiencing state-discrimination into the 21st century after a Dutch biker was stopped by police for wearing a skirt in June 2011 in Manhattan.(see: "Saudi Arabia on the Hudson: NYPD Officer Stopped Cyclist For Wearing Skirt")

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Petey Parrot) (talk • contribs)

Nobody can know how any court would rule regarding the ERA if it had been adopted. Any such claim in the article would be OR. As for Ferraro, many people spearheaded effort for and against the ERA. Why does she deserve special mention? SMP0328. (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Reasons for and against the amendment are not clear

This article does a good job of summing up the procedural history of the ERA, but the article is still really not clear on exactly WHY certain states have been in favour or against it. I think a separate section dealing with arguments in favour and against would give the reader a better understanding of the overall politics around the topic... in particular, why the ERA failed to succeed despite getting so close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.41.165 (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I was about to suggest the same thing. Why did anyone vote against it? What were the arguments advanced by both sides? Modest Genius ^talk 22:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a Criticism section that was removed on November 15. That removal was part of a series of similar removals by an anon. That anon initially added material favoring the ERA, but I reverted him for lacking reliable sourcing. The anon responded by removing references to those critical of the ERA. I felt the anon had a point in removing that material, so I didn't revert those edits. The article is now objective without any advocacy regarding whether the ERA would be a positive or negative addition to the Constitution. If such references were returned to the article there is a danger that editors would constantly want to add another opinion regarding the ERA. It would be difficult to allow some such opinions, while rejecting others. SMP0328. (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

But at the moment the article is incomplete. There's no need for a list of arguments for and against, which you rightly observe could degenerate into edit warring over what was included. Instead I suggest adding some citations to the debates that were held. e.g. 'the state of XXX rejected ratification, with members of its Senate saying "some reason why they didn't support it"<reference>' and "after ratifying the amendment, Representative Joe Bloggs of state YYY said "I really like this amendment because..."<reference>'. Modest Genius ^talk 01:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, as long as such references are clearly only of State legislators and are added here. SMP0328. (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Time limit

Why did this amendment have a time limit for ratification? The Constitution has no such limit and no other amendment had a time limit that I know of. For instance the Titles of Nobility Amendment (commonly referred to as the "lost 13th amendment" by conspiracy theorists) could be ratified today with no revotes required after over 200 years. What was so magical about this one? Rifter0x0000 (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It started with the Eighteenth Amendment. In order to get enough votes in the Congress, Section 3 (containing a seven year time limit on ratification) was added to that amendment. The Supreme Court upheld the time limit in Dillon v. Gloss (1921) on the basis that Congressional passage and ratification by the States of a Constitutional amendment should be "contemporaneous" with each other. The Nineteenth Amendment did not have a time limit, but the Twentieth Amendment did (see Section 6) and so has every proposed amendment since then. Since the Twenty-third Amendment, the time limit has no longer been inserted into the amendment's text; although the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment did have it inserted therein in order to prevent a time limit extension like that for the ERA. SMP0328. (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Arkansas

One section of this article says Arkansas never ratified the ERA. Another section list Arkansas among one of 16 states with an ERA in their State constitutions which also ratified the federal ERA. Arkansas actually considered a vote in 2007 on the ratification of the ERA based on the theory that even though the amendment has a time limit for ratification, the time limit is unconstitutional. ERA failed to come to the house floor after 20 of the co-sponsors dropped their support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.95.55 (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. The correct State is Alaska. Apparently, an editor thought "AK" (see footnote 25) meant Arkansas; "AR" represents Arkansas, "AK" means Alaska. Once again, good catch. SMP0328. (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

File:STOP ERA.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:STOP ERA.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:STOP ERA.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Arguments

The article really should expand on why there was opposition and support for this. --flying idiot 17:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The section "Shift in political attitudes" hints at actors and motives (from a particular POV) but, overall, the article fails to capture the rich debate on the issue during the 70s.--Tedd (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Poor writing-Description of why Eleanor Roosevelt and the New Dealers opposed ERA

I amended the paragraph on the opposition of ERA by E.R. and the New Dealers. Not because of factual inaccuracy but because it was poorly expressed. It did not make sense. At this time had labor laws been extended to women?ElizabethFry42 (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I rephrased it in terms of class -- middle class /Republican and working class/Dems/unions Rjensen (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Curious about a detail

I'm just curious, and the article doesn't tell: in the case of military conscription, would the amendment mean that men wouldn't be conscripted or that women would be subject to conscription just the same way as men? — 92.100.177.150 (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

We obviously can't know for sure, because the amendment was not adopted. In Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981), the sex-based distinction in the draft was upheld against a challenge based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

  The Fourteenth Amendment, in my view, still leaves some room to recognize that men and women are different, have different needs, and must sometimes be given different protections under the law.  There are some instances of legal “discrimination on the basis of sex” that I think nearly everyone agrees are proper and necessary, and few who think that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits those.  I suppose it could be up for debate whether being subject to the draft would be such an instance; but a more obvious instance would be the establishment of separate-sex restrooms, dressing rooms, locker rooms, and such, with laws and policies that restrict access to these facilities to those of the sex for which they are designated.  The ERA would have flatly prohibited all such discrimination, even in such instances as these.  As a man, under the ERA, I would have every right to walk into a women's locker room, and it would be illegal and unconstitutional to “discriminate” against me by prohibiting me from doing so because I am a man, while allowing women access to that locker room.  Of course, it would also clearly have made it illegal to “discriminate” in holding men subject to the draft without holding women equally subject to the draft. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

That was a major reason for the opposition.(something that should be in the article) Although not guaranteed to happen, anyone could see how it could have made it happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMBTC (talk • contribs) 02:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

RE:My recent edit

As User:SMP0328. correctly noted, my 12/20/2013 contribution to this article was substantial and should have been noted on this talk page for that reason. I felt that a chronological list of what state ratified the ERA and when was needed, and, after searching for such a list, found it and included it in the article. I also felt that the article would be enhanced if its organizational structure were more in-line with other constitutional amendment articles. That is why I changed the subsections of the very long History section into into separate sections. If I've excluded anything important (as I initially did) please (unless it's the unappealing ERA rally picture) restore it. Drdpw (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Good changes. I did downgrade the In the courts section down to a subsection within the Actions of the state legislatures. The court decisions referenced are regarding what happened regarding the ERA when it was before the States. Let me know what you think. SMP0328. (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Separating State Equal Rights Amendments to its Own Article

I'd just like the feedback of those already editing this page on creating a general article for state ERAs. There is a wide breadth of scholarly publications on their general functions/purposes, legislative intent, court interpretation and states' application of legal standards separate of the Federal Constitution cases.

Although some states enacted the ERAs to their state constitutions for added protection, not all of them did so to make up for the inadequacies of sex discrimination jurisprudence under the 14th Amendment. Also, there has been widespread criticism from the legal community of judges that apply the federal standard of intermediate scrutiny when their state ERAs mandate a more rigorous standard (i.e. unreflective adoptionism).

I think these concepts are imperative to add to the ERA discussion and sex discrimination in general. What, if any, consensus is there on creating a separate page outlining all these differences? Reed0310 (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds alright, as long as the new article is bigger than a stub and this article continues to have the material regarding State ERAs. SMP0328. (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wording: "The Feminists"

In the "background" section especially, there are several references to unnamed "feminists" advocating for specific policies, as if "feminists" were a monolithic group with a single voice: "feminists demanded", "the feminists rejected", "at the demand of feminists", "made largely of anti-ERA feminists", etc. Besides being potentially confusing, this usage seems to me rather condescending; would we discuss the civil-rights-era campaigns of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X by referring to demands of "The Negroes"?

Surely the people behind the label in question had diverse motives and perspectives, and the article would be more interesting and relevant if it described those motives and perspectives. Who were these "feminists"? What reasons did they give for their positions? How were they related to one another ideologically? I think that answering these questions would make for a more illuminating article then simply slapping the label "feminist" onto people. Even being a self-avowed feminist does not imply that other feminists will agree with you. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 06:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

"feminists" are people working actively for rights for women. The text clearly indicates that there was a century long battle between two factions of feminists, see the text near footnote 5. it states: "Their debate reflected the wider tension in the developing feminist movement of the early 20th century between two approaches towards the equality of gender. One approach emphasized shared similarities between the sexes and demanded rights based on women's humanity. The other approach emphasized women's unique experiences and how they were different from men to obtain recognition for their specific needs." All the RS agree on this issue so I don't see it as controversial. Rjensen (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

And which of the two factions is being referred to here? The very issue of what constitutes women's rights has been divisive, as the above quote shows. Therefore, it's not as straightforward as being a "suffragist" or an "abolitionist" or a "Democrat", for example. Before putting a label on people, I would rather define the terms better. My original point was that feminists were not a monolithic entity; therefore, saying that "feminists" asked for something doesn't impart much useful information. Plus, I see an important difference between being involved in a feminist movement and being identified as "a feminist". If they call themselves that, fine, but that's not the same as being labeled as such in an encyclopedia by someone else labeling them without their permission. Apropos, the section quoted above does not refer to feminist people, but to the feminist movement. As I understand it, unless reliable sources go beyond simply agreeing generally that feminists are those who work for women's rights, and explicitly call so-and-so a "feminist", then doing so here would be original synthesis (WP:SYNTHESIS). —Coconutporkpie (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Merriam Webster dictionary: FEMINISM: "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities; organized activity in support of women's rights and interests." The two factions have fought for over 90 years on the issue, as text explains. Rjensen (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

When I say "original synthesis", I mean that if source A says that feminism is "organized activity in support of women's rights and interests" and source B says that Person X worked in support of women's rights and interests, then to say that Person X is a "feminist" is not justified unless a source explicitly makes that claim, per WP:SYNTHESIS; it may be logical, but it amounts to original research. But lumping participants in a debate together as "feminists" in this case is not logical. For example:

The feminists rejected any ERA containing the Hayden rider, believing such an ERA did not provide for equality.

The source cited mentions "ERA adherents", "ERA backers", and "ERA adversaries". It mentions several of these by name. There is no mention of "feminists" doing anything. That part is original research. But beyond that, who are "the feminists"? Are they all feminists? Most feminists? Some feminists? If someone were to find a lonely feminist who supported the Hayden rider, would it be "the feminists minus one"? It makes no sense. Better to stick with what the source actually says. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

What term would you want to be used in place of "feminists"? SMP0328. (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer to stick to what is published in reliable sources, and not to synthesize material from those sources according to personal taste. I don't see why this is such a difficult concept. The source above uses the term "ERA proponents adherents", for example. To paraphrase this as "feminists" is dishonest and sloppy. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

What about "ERA supporters"? It's straight forward and does not say who are the supporters. SMP0328. (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's better to name specific persons where possible it's reasonable to do so rather than identifying them by labels or epithets. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that specific people should be mentioned when possible, but that is not always possible. In the material you quoted, the opposition to the Hayden rider was by ERA supporters generally. Even if a specific person was mentioned, the sentence would still have to refer to ERA supporters generally for the sake of clarity. SMP0328. (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The English language has a perfectly good word for activists on behalf of women's rights. It's "feminist." Using a standard dictionary is not forbidden original research. The Wikipedia rule is: If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. WP:OR Here we only have one reliable source A that says the person X worked for women rights. We restate source A by saying X was a feminist. Wikipedia rules (WP:CLOP) strongly recommend using your own words: Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words. That means using words that are NOT in source A to make the same point. And that's all that we are doing here, there is no source B and no conclusions C And no synthesis, only our own words that mean the same thing. Rjensen (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Were the supporters of the Hayden rider also feminists? If so, then saying "feminists" alone may not be sufficiently clear. SMP0328. (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

"ERA adherent" does not mean the same as "feminist" in all cases. The one refers to support for a specific measure, where the other is a characterization of the whole person. why does the source cited not use the term "feminist" to refer to the parties in question? Maybe because it would be inappropriate, as discussed. Paraphrasing sources to avoid plagiarizing them is not the same as re-wording statements to put one's own slant on them. I don't see any problem with referring to "ERA adherents" or "ERA supporters" in exactly those terms. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Coconutporkpie is recommending the rejection of Wikipedia rules. The rules state: Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words.--that is they can and should use different words than those in the source. He says "To paraphrase this as 'feminists' is dishonest and sloppy." It is not dishonest, it is the usual synonym according to all the dictionaries.... I'm really baffled why Coconutporkpie believes that it is dishonest to call advocates for equality for women "feminists." Rjensen (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am advocating the use of common sense. Why does the source cited not use the term "feminist" to refer to the parties in question? Maybe because it would be like talking about a Lakers/Celtics game thusly: "A basketball player nearly scored until a basketball player took the ball away. Later, a basketball player did score. Then a basketball player passed to a basketball player. There were a lot of basketball players on the court". It doesn't really tell you anything. Feminists may disagree on certain issues and still be feminists. What about feminists who may have opposed the ERA altogether on the grounds of "women's rights"? Using a dictionary to characterize a given person or group in the context of a specific debate is not just dishonest and sloppy, it's lazy. Unless published, reliable sources invoke the term "feminist" regarding the parties to that debate, then doing so would be irresponsible editing. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Calling Replacing "ERA adherents" with feminists in this particular instance is not summarizing, but euphemising: placing a categorical label on a person or group that ignores the subtleties of the actual situation. It would be like writing an article about "hominids" while avoiding all mention of the term "Homo sapiens". —Coconutporkpie (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The dictionary argument is nonsense. since Merriam-Webster defines politician as "someone who is active in government usually as an elected official", why don't we replace all mention of Democrats and Republicans, senators and state legislators, mayors and city council members, with the label "the politicians"? After all, they fit the definition. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Feminist is an important word, and I hate to see it misused. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not think the term "feminist" is actually misused in the article. Everyone identified as a feminist, in my opinion, was in fact a feminist according to the RS. There is a question in one or two cases where it might be ambiguous, because some feminists opposed ERA and other feminists supported it. Rjensen (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Hayden Rider

This article includes three mentions of "Hayden Rider", simply used as "The Hayden Rider" and used to refer to an additional provision to this law/amendment that this page is talking about. There does not seem to be any reference to what a "Hayden Rider" is. And I was unable to find any help on the wider Internet as well. If we are going to use random jargon, please define it. "Hayden Rider" does not appear to be an official word, and does not make sense. Is it a term for some sort of addendum added to a proposed law/amendment? Is it the name of the person who first drafted this particular addendum, and only used to refer to this specific addition to the ERA and nothing else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.204.116 (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It is in there already and I expanded it a little bit see footnote 10. Basically the rider said that the ERA would allow women to keep all the old special protections that men did not have. That was a denial of equality, and feminists rejected the Hayden rider. see Cynthia Ellen Harrison (1989). On Account of Sex: The Politics of Women's Issues, 1945-1968. University of California Press. pp. 31–32. Rjensen (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The Hayden rider subsection contains material that is not about the Hayden rider. That material should be moved or the subsection should be renamed. SMP0328. (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Broadly speaking the Hayden Rider means a provision to allow special protections for women, and most of the section deals with that issue. Sub headers or guide to readers, to find information, and so they typically referred to the main topic of the section. Rjensen (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the subsection's title from Hayden rider to Hayden rider and protective labor legislation. The Hayden rider was one notable way to protect such laws. Later, those wanting to protect such laws simply opposed the ERA. The subsection's title now clearly shows that the material is not only about the Hayden rider. SMP0328. (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Equal Rights Amendment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131118135458/http://www.alicepaul.org:80/alicep3.htm to http://www.alicepaul.org/alicep3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150406112028/http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,902696,00.html to http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,902696,00.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction in article

The article states in the history section "The National Woman's Party already had tested its approach in Wisconsin, where it won the first state ERA in 1921". But under the State ERA section, Wisconsin is not listed at all, and several State ERA provisions are listed that are older. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.240.111 (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I corrected that passage. Wisconsin enacted the Wisconsin Equal Right Law in 1921. This was a statute, not a State Equal Rights Amendment. The source for that passage confirms this. A 1971 attempt to add a State ERA to the Wisconsin State Constitution was defeated in a referendum. An earlier editor must have confused the two. With this correction, there is no longer a conflict. SMP0328. (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! That clears up my confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.240.111 (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Equal Rights Amendment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160203010709/https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?161+vot+SP0086 to http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?161+vot+SP0086
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019174107/https://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Equal_Rights_Amendment_-_Extension_of_ratification_deadline/id/1367020 to http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Equal_Rights_Amendment_-_Extension_of_ratification_deadline/id/1367020
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://lccn.loc.gov/83215444

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Equal Rights Amendment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160811025826/http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/98/senate/09800SC0075_05222014_049000D.pdf to http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/98/senate/09800SC0075_05222014_049000D.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120905024905/https://www.nrlc.org/Federal/ERA/IdahovFreeman.pdf to http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/era/IdahovFreeman.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090812221001/http://www.now.org/organization/conference/resolutions/2009.html to http://www.now.org/organization/conference/resolutions/2009.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203021428/http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-news/ci_22568975/roundhouse-roundup-feb-11-2013 to http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-news/ci_22568975/roundhouse-roundup-feb-11-2013
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150925123041/http://www.dailyguardiannews.com/oregon-state-voting-results/ to http://www.dailyguardiannews.com/oregon-state-voting-results/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Ratification map

A new ratification map is needed since Nevada's recent post-deadline ratification. Maybe with Nevada as a new color. Also should Kentucky be a different color based on the veto of the rescission? Libertybison (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Three-state strategy

Now that Nevada has ratified the ERA, proponents of the three-state strategy believe they two States away from the ERA being adopted. In light of this, should the section title be changed? SMP0328. (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with that idea because the question of the validity of the legislative deadline, and if the deadline is valid whether the previous ratifications are still valid if Congress removes the deadline are legal questions (ie not an ex post facto law, which the Constitution prohibits Congress from passing) that only the Supreme Court can decide. Without a Supreme Court decision the legality of any subsequent ratifications would always be in doubt no matter what Congress does. Any subsequent ratifications and the strategy will always be linked together, so I don't see any need to rename the section. Unless, of course, Congress admits a new state before it reaches 38 ratifications. Libertybison (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Does the current section title assume that only three more ratifications (putting aside Nevada's recent action) are needed? Maybe that's a reason to change the title. I'm not endorsing changing the tile, just looking for opinions. SMP0328. (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You make a good point about the section title, but that is what it's proponents call it and I can't think of a succinct replacement for it. Libertybison (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I just found this recent Chicago Law Bulletin article that might be of interest on these issues. Libertybison (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we should change the title to "Post-deadline ratifications". SMP0328. (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. Libertybison (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The title has been so changed. Thank you for your input. SMP0328. (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)