BYH to Greg Murphy who seems to never have met a government healthcare program he didn't want to expand....

Time has come for equal rights amendment

Steve and Cokie Roberts

Cokie and Steve Roberts


Saturday, February 9, 2019

Women finally achieved the right to vote when the 19th Amendment became law in 1920. Here's a good way to celebrate its centennial: Ratify the Equal Rights Amendment — or ERA — that completes the job of banning all forms of gender-based discrimination, not just in the voting booth.

The entire amendment contains only 24 words: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." As Sens. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, and Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat, wrote in The Washington Post: "It's a little less than a tweet, but it will make a positive difference in the lives of millions of women."

Here's why: Under current law, discrimination "on account of sex" is not subject to "strict scrutiny," the most rigorous legal standard and the one applied to racial injustice. The ERA would change that, equalizing the tests that apply to both race and gender, and making it much harder to justify biases aimed at women.

Legal experts agree that the ERA is needed to clarify the law, since there is still a lot of confusion and uncertainty about how federal courts should interpret claims of sex discrimination.

The ERA was first proposed in 1923, but it was not approved by Congress until 1972. Lawmakers mandated a seven-year period for ratification and later extended the deadline to 10 years, but fierce opposition from conservative women, led by activist Phyllis Schlafly, stalled the ratification effort. By 1982, only 35 states had approved the measure, three short of the 38 needed.

The amendment fell into deep hibernation until it was revived by a combination of powerful forces: the defeat of Hillary Clinton, the rise of Donald Trump and, most important, the growing prominence and potency of women in public life, who fueled the Women's March and the #MeToo movement and ran for office in record numbers.

The new Congress includes 102 women in the House and 25 in the Senate — both historic highs. Nancy Pelosi, the first female speaker, has reclaimed that office. Three female senators have already entered the race for the Democratic presidential nomination and others are likely to follow.

Two years ago, Nevada became the 36th state to ratify the ERA, and last year, Illinois became the 37th, leaving one state to go. Virginia came close last month, with the amendment passing the state senate, but it got blocked by four Republicans in an obscure sub-committee of the house.

"The only thing you've done is added fuel to the fire," Delegate Jennifer Carroll Foy, the measure's lead sponsor, told opponents after the defeat. "We will be back."

They will be back, but obstacles remain. Opponents of the ERA have hauled out the old scare tactics and fear-mongering that helped quash the amendment more than 30 years ago, including the totally unfounded charge that it would lead to unlimited taxpayer-funded abortions.

Another problem is that the statutory limit for passing the amendment expired in 1982, but that's not insurmountable. The Constitution makes no mention of time limits for amendments, and none were imposed until the 18th Amendment, mandating Prohibition was advanced, in 1917.

The deadline has already been extended once, and to guard against legal challenges, bipartisan bills have been introduced in both houses of Congress that would formally extend the deadline a second time.

This is the real question: Is the ERA needed today? Ironically, foes maintain it's not essential because women have made so much progress without it, but that is a disingenuous argument that ignores the gender-based disparities that still exist, starting with unequal pay for equal work.

The unbalanced and unfair legal status of women could not be clearer. Supporters of the ERA point to the late Antonin Scalia, the most influential conservative jurist of his age, who said in a 2011 interview: "Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't."

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a leading supporter of the ERA, agrees with Scalia. Since "our Constitution does not contain the word 'women' ... it does not guarantee our equal rights," she argues. "So we need to make it clear, that equal means equal. To do that we must spell it out in the Constitution. ... Now is the time."

Yes, it is.

Steve and Cokie Roberts are longtime commentators and reporters. They can be contacted by email at stevecokie@gmail.com.


Humans of Greenville


Local photographer Joe Pellegrino explores Greenville to create a photographic census of its people.

Op Ed

April 25, 2019

A crucial cord of priority-setting in government connects the April 15 tax-filing deadline with the May 1 teachers rally in Raleigh. North Carolinians filed their 2019 state income tax forms amid a six-year spree of tax reductions that has eroded North Carolina's ability to afford the teachers'…

Ferrel Guillory

April 24, 2019

On April 18, U.S. Attorney General William Barr released Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on the probe into "Russian meddling" in the 2016 presidential election. The report cleared President Donald Trump and his campaign team of allegations that they conspired with the Russian government in…


April 24, 2019

George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School hired Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh to co-teach a course this summer called Creation of the Constitution. The course will be held 3,668 miles away, in Runnymede, England, where the Magna Carta was sealed 800 years ago.


Walter Williams

April 23, 2019

The Fayetteville Observer

Lumberton got some desperately needed help last week, delivered by Gov. Roy Cooper. The city will get $1.1 million in grants to help prevent repeats of the severe damage the city suffered in Hurricanes Matthew and Florence.

The biggest portion of the grants will help build…

April 23, 2019

The Wi-Fi on my flight from Rome to Newark wasn't working, so phones were buzzing about Notre Dame as soon as we hit the runway. After the initial shock and sadness, gratitude was expressed. There are upsides to being disconnected: At least we didn't have to watch something we couldn't control on…


April 23, 2019

If you value fact-based debate and impactful public policy, the state legislature's action over its "born alive abortion survivor" bill last week was cringeworthy.

The proposal brought the year's most overheated rhetoric to Raleigh, and the outlandish claims kept the fact-checkers busy.

But despite…

Colin Campbell

April 22, 2019

Whether he’s advocating a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border or threatening to completely shut down entries, President Trump is more about theatrics than logistics on immigration policy.

His latest idea: Send undocumented immigrants to so-called sanctuary cities — loosely defined as…

Migrant Surge-8

April 22, 2019

Did you know that manufacturing employment in North Carolina has gone up more than 10 percent since 2010? I didn’t either, until I took a recent dive into economic statistics.

In February 2010, there were about 431,000 jobs at manufacturing enterprises in North Carolina. By February 2019,…


April 22, 2019

Patriotism prevailed, and it is likely to continue prevailing.

This is the most significant revelation to come from the long-awaited Mueller report when it documented instances of individuals in President Trump’s circle of aides and allies refusing to do his bidding. They helped save him from…

April 21, 2019

State Senate leader Phil Berger held a news conference recently to announce changes in his plan to improve student reading levels, but the real news was the man he invited to join him, J.B. Buxton, a member of the State Board of Education.

Buxton, a Democrat, is a former deputy superintendent of…

264 stories in Op Ed. Viewing 1 through 10.
«First Page   «Previous Page        
Page 1 of 27
        Next Page»   Last Page»