ERA Summit Report

On Friday evening, NOW President Patricia Ireland set the stage when she spoke about "Why We Need an ERA." She began by saying that the goal is not for women to be treated equally to men, but to be equal to men.

What needs to take place is a paradigm shift. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, women and men have to be treated equally only if they are "similarly situated" and if the government doesn't have a "good" reason for treating them differently. Unfortunately the reason is not subject to "strict scrutiny" by the court. The reality is that women and men are different, and courts have gone out of their way to find a difference in their situations that is then used to justify discrimination. If the equality standard is the male standard, women lose. Instead of asking whether women are being treated equally to men, Ireland argued, we must craft an amendment that forces courts to ask whether women are disadvantaged relative to men. This approach would reach, for example, discrimination based on pregnancy or child care responsibilities.

Brief ERA History

• It was only after NOW activists disrupted a meeting of the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments that a hearing on the ERA was finally scheduled for May 1970.
• In 1972, when the ERA finally was approved by Congress, NOW activists were witnesses not leaders. Because there were so few women in Congress, we did not participate in the development of the legislative history of the ERA. Our Congressional "supporters" not only allowed the language and history to be weakened, but then defeated key votes that would have specified that it had been watered down -- thus allowing our opponents to argue that it was stronger than it really was.
• In 1977, knowing the ERA was in trouble, NOW pushed for an extension of the time limit for passage. That proposal lost by one vote in the Judiciary Committee. To prevent state legislatures from considering the ERA after reapportionment and redistricting, which would have increased the number of women legislators in key states, Congress approved only a three year and three month extension.
• It is a myth that women defeated the ERA. At the time, only a small percentage of state legislators were women. And those women who were members of state legislatures overwhelmingly supported the ERA. Not one Black legislator voted against the ERA.
• The people were overwhelmingly with us, as was demonstrated in poll after poll. The real opposition to the ERA was silent and stayed in the background. For example, during the Illinois campaign for passage of the ERA, Smeal was shown an internal General Electric memo outlining their reasons for opposing the ERA. It talked about wages, benefits, health insurance and money. At the time women were making 59 cents for every man's dollar. Someone was pocketing 41 cents. If you think the ERA was a debate about the draft or single-sex toilets, you're wrong; it was and is about money.
• Insurance companies were also major players behind the defeat of the ERA. They wanted to continue their discriminatory practices. In Florida, the "dean" of the Senate was a partner in a law firm that represented 14 insurance companies. Guess which way the Florida Senate voted? The same was true in many other states; the number one ERA opponent in Louisiana was a state legislator who was an insurance defense attorney.
• The ERA was defeated by a total of six votes in three states.

Past Work on a New ERA

Some said discrimination based on sexual orientation is "sex discrimination," and should be treated that way. Others asked: If a person is denied the opportunity to do something, such as getting married or adopting a child, based upon their gender (or the gender of the person they have a relationship with) isn't that "sex discrimination?"

Participants also argued that women cannot control our bodies or our destinies without freedom from coerced pregnancy or coerced abortion. Clearly, they said, the right to bodily integrity is required before women will fully enjoy the benefits of equal citizenship -- and therefore must be a part of any constitutional strategy.

The resolution finally adopted by NOW members from around the country at the 1994 conference sets forth the basic principle that any new ERA amendment must include specific language that guarantees an end to discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, reproductive decisions and reproductive status.

The ERA Summit Proposal

It is unlikely that the Republican-controlled Congress will pass any Equal Rights Amendment, even a weak version, given that they removed support for the ERA from their platform in 1980.

If the dream of women's equality is ever to become a reality, it is critical that we effectively utilize this time to organize support for an Equal Rights Amendment that will guarantee constitutional equality for all women.

NOW members are urged to attend the National NOW Conference, July 21-23, in Columbus, Ohio, to share in the development of the next campaign for the ERA.

ERA Summit Report

"Women and men shall have equal rights and privileges regardless of class, without discrimination based on sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, race, ethnicity, national origin or color in the United States and every place and entity subject to its jurisdiction. Women's equality includes the absolute right to make reproductive decisions including termination of pregnancy and to be free from pregnancy discrimination. This does not preclude any law, program or activity that would remedy the effects of prior discrimination."

ERA Summit Minority Report

"Women and men shall have equality of rights, privileges and liberties throughout the U.S. and in every place and entity subject to its jurisdiction."

We insist that any form that is adopted include a full legislative history specifically including lesbian rights and protection of all categories as well as reproduction freedom.

Return to NOW Home Page