Isn't It About Time to Pass and Ratify the Equal Rights Amendment? Rep. Maloney Thinks So
If what she's hoping for comes to pass, tomorrow will go down in the annals of women's history as the turning point in the long struggle to secure women's rights once and for all in the United States.
Blast from the Past
On Tuesday, July 21, 2009, Rep. Maloney will reintroduce the Equal Rights Amendment in Congress for the umpteenth time. (The amendment, first proposed in 1923, came very close to being ratified in the mid-1970s.) The ERA as it's commonly called is an amendment that guarantees equal rights to both women and men. Maloney has introduced this in Congress before. But this year, she fervently believes the time is ripe for hearings, action, passage, and ratification.
Is This Really Necessary?
Really, now, why do we need this? We came close to having a woman at the top of a presidential ticket. We have women in the Cabinet, in the boardroom, and in the corner office. We're essentially equal, aren't we?
Next Step After Women's Right to Vote
Alice Paul, the original author of the Equal Rights Amendment, felt strongly that the ERA needed to be ratified to solidify the rights guaranteed by the 19th Amendment which gave women the right to vote. She once said:
I never doubted that equal rights was the right direction. Most reforms, most problems are complicated. But to me there is nothing complicated about ordinary equality.What's Taking So Long?
That's all this is about -- ordinary equality. So why has it taken extraordinary effort over the course of nearly nine decades to get the ERA passed? Maloney believes that having a pro-women's issues president will pull the ERA up from obscurity and increase its viability. As she told members of the National Women's Political Caucus at a recent event, "If we can get [the ERA] to the floor [of Congress], it can pass."
Counting on 18 Million...and 38
She does make a great deal of sense. Hillary Clinton's 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling prove that women voters are not to be trifled with. What Senator or Representative would vote against the ERA? And if/when it goes to the states for ratification, 38 states (three-quarters to be precise) are needed for ratification. In light of the fact that a more heated (and for some, controversial) battle for gay rights is being fought across the country, wouldn't the issue of adding women's equality to the Constitution be a much milder proposition?
Hot Irons and Righteous Anger
Keep your eyes open to see if mainstream media picks up on this Equal Rights Amendment story tomorrow. We need to get this passed and put before the states to be ratified. Many of us are still smarting from the sexism and gender bias of last year's election (remember "Iron My Shirt"?) and the Sotomayor nomination. Let's strike while that iron is hot...while we're still mad as hell and no longer willing to take it anymore.
Related article: What is the Equal Rights Amendment?
Share your thoughts: Do women really need equal rights to be guaranteed by law?
Comments
I like that this amendment is being introduced during the 161st anniversary of the Seneca Falls convention.
But, I am VERY dismayed that the NAACP has come further in 100 years.
I used to be in favor of this when I was a very young, idealistic, naive boy. But after a lifetime watch our system of laws, lawyers, litigents, pundits, and worst of all vehement holders of anykind of belief system (liberal or conservative) I wonder the wisdom of adding more words to our founding documents. Look what has happened to the simplicity of “Congress shall make no law…” All I can say is becareful what you wish for… you may get it.
Actually Rep Maloney is not introducing the ERA. She is introducing the WEA – The Women’s Equality Amendment. It has been introduced before and, as is required, it gets re-introduced into each new congress. The ERA has been introduced most years in the recent past, by Senator Kennedy and Rep Rob Andrews but it has not been introduced yet.
The ERA and the WEA both call for women to be explicitly included in the US Constitution, however the ERA calls for no discrimination on account of sex and the WEA calls for women to be included.
Either of them will accomplish the same thing ~ equality for all.
Zoe, I actually spoke to Rep. Maloney about this personally at the event where she announced it publicly, and she says she will introduce the ERA (she also did so in the 110th Congress.) The website EqualRightsAmendment.org also states Maloney will be reintroducing the ERA. Whether it’s that or the WEA, I’ll be curious to see what happens tomorrow and if the media pays any attention. Maloney truly believes that the time is right for passage and ratification.
I will be heading to the event tomorrow in Washington, D.C., and it is billed as the WEA, not ERA. The big difference is the WEA is a start over. The ERA would require getting only three more states, while the WEA goes back to ground zero.
By the way, people wanting to assist with the effort to ratify the ERA can join my group, ERA NOW, at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=45860562011.
The Equal Rights Amendment is taking so long because it is an economic issue. It is really about equal pay. Scratch the surface of most discrimination and you will find an economic component. Someone makes money by paying less or charging more as insurance companies do with individual health insurance policies for women. Men get charged more for other kinds of insurance. The ERA would put and end to discriminatory laws that discriminate against anyone male or female because of there sex or gender.
She should add black folks in with it too– but I don’t think anyone will accept the sincerity of her intent!
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/07/rep_maloney_and_the_n-word.php