The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) offers no benefit to women. The ERA language does not even include the word “women.”

The ERA was written to enforce equality on the basis of “sex” without defining what sex means.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and ERA opponent and constitutional lawyer Phyllis Schlafly both agreed that ERA would make all laws sex-neutral. Is that a good thing?

The far-reaching consequences of the proposed ERA amendment would be to eliminate the sex differences that favor women in schools, athletics, prisons, shelters, privacy, scholarships, set-asides, sororities, pregnancy, and breast-feeding accommodations, and our military forces.

How can anyone think combining men and women in prisons would benefit women?

ERA died in 1979 because the more Americans learned what would happen with the government enforcing sex-neutrality, the more Americans opposed ERA.

ERA would give enormous power to the Judiciary to parse the meaning of “sex” in every law.

Section Two of ERA would transfer enormous power to Congress to enforce sex-neutrality.

And with all the rest of the problems facing girls and women nowadays, the ERA is one thing this country doesn’t need. Not ever.

Richard McCuistian


Load comments