Donate search


  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • send Email
  • print Print

The Equal Rights Amendment Would Irreparably Damage the Constitution

If you want to read the text of the Equal Rights Amendment, you can click here.

Oops. They took the page down. Funny, because the site is called “” and if you Google “Equal Rights Amendment,” the first link that appears is the one leading to a dead page. I wonder why.

No worries, I’ll supply it for you here.

Section 1. Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate
legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the
date of ratification.

You might ask, what’s so bad about that?

The Georgia Senate might ask, what’s so bad about that? Erick Erickson gave one reason, that it would mandate taxpayer-funded abortions.

Georgia Democrats, energized in a paroxysm of wokeness, want to gaslight Republicans into being the 38th state to ratify the ERA, putting it into a legal no-man’s-land for Congress to deal with. Technically, the amendment is “dead” since it had a 1982 deadline, but that particular provision may or may not be as clear as mud.

And that muddiness is just the beginning of the problems with the ERA. Look at the text; look at the loaded words: “equality,” rights,” “sex.” Do you begin to see how this could unravel 230 years of American jurisprudence and legislative initiative?

It’s bad enough that the courts get to define what same-sex marriage is and make it the law of the land by judicial edict, when the will of Congress and the states with their own constitutions is subverted. But now we’d see Congress mandated to define “sex” in the most liberal (muddy) terms possible.

It would also define “sex equality rights” to be supreme over the First Amendment since all the tests currently used to determine if the government has a legitimate interest in anyone’s religious practice or conscience would be thrown away to be rewritten. Believe me, the rewritten rules would favor whatever definition of “sex,” “equality” and “rights” the ERA would usher in.

We cannot know the ultimate end of such a thread-pulling and unweaving of our social contract with government. But I can say with total confidence that it will be confusing, harsh, and unyielding for people who have a Biblical worldview.

Maybe that’s why the Alice Paul Institute, named for the author of the ERA, doesn’t have the text of the amendment itself featured on the website, but hidden in the FAQ. They want to gaslight about “empowerment” and use sentences like “The ERA would clarify the legal status of sex discrimination for the courts, where decisions still deal inconsistently with such claims.”

Our Constitution does just fine without making a muddy, loaded word like “sex” a “suspect classification” such as race. Race has always been an issue in our Constitution, since Southerners wanted to treat African-American slaves as “full persons” for representation purposes but as property for economic purposes. That led abolitionists to make the “three-fifths compromise.”

The 13th and 14th Amendments cured the compromise and gave former slaves full rights as persons and citizens.

Women were never–ever–denied citizenship or representation. They were denied the vote. So are citizen criminals in prison, ex-felons, and those who renounce their citizenship. The denial of voting rights to women was cured by the 19th Amendment.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

There’s that word “sex,” but it really doesn’t matter in the context of voting. Nobody can pass a law robbing transgenders of the right to vote because the 19th Amendment protects them. There’s no need to open up Pandora’s box of every possible “right” that the courts and Woke America can cook up based around the loaded and muddy word “sex.”

If we want to pass the ERA, we should add a provision defining “sex” as the biological gender of a person, defined by genetic and physical properties. And we should enumerate the “rights” that the government should have interest in protecting. But that would ruin liberal plans to have ever-expanding state control based on the definitions of these words.

By all means, Georgia legislators, ratify the ERA, if you want to unravel the entire Constitution. Every signature on S.R. 55 will live forever–in infamy. You will all be engraved in history books, mostly titled “the Rise and Fall of the United States of America.” Have at it.

Or simply refuse to go there, because the ERA is the knife with which the New Jacobins will use to carve up the Constitution, throwing the specter of originalism and textualism into the trash heap, forever.


  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • send Email
  • print Print


More Top Stories

A Brief Confession

In 2000, the United States’ economy began to show signs of a recession. The Federal Reserve began cutting interest rates. Growth in GDP slowed in the third quarter of 2000 to a rate not seen sin …

Let Me Tell You What the New York Times Gets Right in the 1619 Project

Not far from my home used to stand an old dilapidated house everyone referred to the “half-house.” Back in the 1950’s and 1960’s as the all white Georgia Department of Transpor …

A Payroll Tax Cut Is Not What The Economy Needs

The tax cut that would benefit Americans most is an end to the tariff war.