Like a zombie trailing grave cloths through the halls of Congress, the Equal Rights Amendment, dead and buried this quarter-century, has come back to scare the living daylights out of us all. An icon for secular feminists that's coming up on its 85th anniversary next year, the ERA would lock abortion and, some believe, same-sex marriage into the Constitution far into the future.
The revival of the amendment — which these days carries the name "the Women's Equality Amendment" — is no surprise. The Democratic takeover of Congress in last November's elections made it predictable, and the Supreme Court's decision last month upholding a federal ban on partial-birth abortion only heightened pro-abortionist zeal for ERA.
The amendment's operative language is this: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." If you think that sounds unexceptionable, be aware that courts in New Mexico and Connecticut have held similar provisions in the constitutions of those states to bar restrictions on abortion and require publicly-funded abortions for low-income women.
First introduced in Congress back in 1923, the ERA finally secured the necessary two-thirds vote in both houses in 1972. Then it went to the states, with ratification by three-fourths of them required. At first, ratifications came quickly. But on January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade. That radical ruling awakened Americans to the reality of legalized abortion and to the abortion-related dangers inherent in ERA.
In approving the amendment, Congress had set a seven-year deadline for ratification. That later was extended another three years. When time ran out, however, ERA had been ratified by only 35 states, three short of the necessary 38. Not only that, five of them had experienced second thoughts and withdrawn approval.
The amendment has been ritually introduced in every Congress since then, but it's gone nowhere — so far. Now supporters want that to change. It was reintroduced in March with two liberal Democrats — Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Carolyn Maloney of New York — as lead sponsors in the Senate and House and a gaggle of other legislators signing on. Unlike the 1972 version, the new one sets no deadline for ratification.
In making the case for ERA, supporters typically keep mum about abortion. The word didn't even appear in a Washington Post Op Ed article last month by Martha Burk of the National Council of Women's Organizations and Eleanor Smeal of the Feminist Majority. They talked about things like pay and membership on corporate boards. Yet opponents argue that women might actually suffer on certain pocketbook issues with ERA in place.
Be that as it may, though, abortion is the stealth issue here, with same-sex marriage keeping an even lower profile just over the horizon. "Pro-abortion advocacy groups have increasingly employed the ERA-abortion argument in state courts," two officials of the National Right to Life Committee warned in a letter to members of Congress in March.
NRLC legislative director Douglas Johnson and legislative liaison Susan Muskett foresaw "pernicious results" if ERA ever becomes part of the Constitution. The Hyde Amendment against tax-paid abortion, federal and state bans on the partial-birth procedure, and conscience clauses exempting hospitals and medical personnel from participating in abortion would be in danger of being overturned. Even laws requiring parental notification before abortion is performed on a minor would be at risk.
Too bad the nation, with better things to do, must fight this settled issue over again. But have no doubt — we must.
