Imagine this: It’s the 1970s. Women across the United States are marching, demanding equality—not just in words but in the Constitution itself. The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was supposed to be the answer. Fast forward to today, and we’re still talking about it. Why? Because something that should have been simple—equal rights for all—got tangled in political and legal drama that still isn’t resolved.
Let’s break it down.
What Is the Equal Rights Amendment?
At its core, the ERA is a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that says:
“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”
Sounds straightforward, right? Yet, this simple sentence has been stuck in political limbo for over a century.
The goal was to ensure that no laws or government policies could discriminate based on gender. This would mean stronger protections for women in workplaces, courts, and society as a whole. The amendment would also provide a solid legal foundation for gender equality in cases involving pay gaps, sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, and more.
So, why isn’t it part of the Constitution yet? Well, that’s where things get messy.
Timeline of the ERA: From the 1920s to Biden’s 2025 Push
The fight for gender equality isn’t new. In fact, the ERA has been in the works since 1923—yes, over 100 years ago!
1923: The Birth of the ERA
Alice Paul, a suffragist who helped secure women’s right to vote, proposed the Equal Rights Amendment. But it gained little traction.
1972: Congress Approves the ERA
After nearly 50 years of fighting, the ERA finally cleared Congress. The House and Senate passed it with overwhelming support. But there was a catch—states had to ratify it within seven years (by 1979).
1972–1979: States Start Ratifying… but Not Enough
Thirty-five states ratified the ERA—just three short of the 38 needed to make it law. However, a fierce opposition movement, led by conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, argued that the ERA would harm women by eliminating gender-based legal protections (like exempting them from the draft). The movement slowed progress, and the deadline loomed.
1979: Deadline Extended, But Still Falls Short
Congress extended the deadline to 1982, but those final three states never came on board. The ERA stalled.
1990s–2000s: The “Three-State Strategy”
Activists launched a new strategy: Instead of restarting the amendment process, why not just get the final three states to ratify?
2017–2020: The Last Three States Finally Ratify
Decades later, three states—Nevada (2017), Illinois (2018), and Virginia (2020)—finally ratified the ERA, bringing the total to 38. But there was one big problem: the deadline had already passed.
2021–2024: Biden and Congress Try to Revive the ERA
President Joe Biden and Democrats have pushed for the ERA’s official recognition, arguing that the deadline shouldn’t matter. However, legal challenges and political gridlock continue to block its certification.
That brings us to the biggest controversy of all: Does the ratification deadline matter?
The Controversy Over the Ratification Deadline
This is where things get really complicated. When Congress passed the ERA in 1972, they gave it a seven-year deadline. Later, they extended it to 1982, but even then, the necessary states didn’t ratify it in time.
Now, here’s the debate:
Arguments Against the Deadline Mattering
- The Constitution Doesn’t Require Deadlines – The original Constitution doesn’t mention ratification deadlines at all. Some amendments, like the 27th Amendment (which took over 200 years to ratify), had no time limit.
- Congress Created the Deadline, So Congress Can Remove It – Since Congress set the deadline in the first place, supporters argue they can just vote to remove it.
- States Have Spoken – The required 38 states have now ratified the ERA, so why should an old deadline stand in the way?
Arguments That the Deadline Matters
- The Deadline Was in the Original Process – Unlike other amendments without time limits, Congress clearly included one for the ERA. Some legal scholars say that means the deadline is legally binding.
- Some States Rescinded Their Ratifications – Five states (Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee, and South Dakota) originally approved the ERA but later rescinded their support. Does that mean they shouldn’t count?
- Opposition Still Exists – Some lawmakers argue that the ERA isn’t needed because women already have equal protections under laws like Title IX and the 14th Amendment.
So, Where Does the ERA Stand Today?
Right now, the ERA is in legal and political limbo. Supporters, including President Biden, are pushing Congress to recognize the amendment as valid. Meanwhile, opponents argue the deadline has passed, and the process would have to start over.
Could the ERA still become law? Possibly. But it would likely require one of these things to happen:
- Congress votes to remove the deadline (which Republicans currently oppose).
- The Supreme Court rules that the deadline doesn’t matter (which is unlikely under its current conservative majority).
- A new ERA proposal starts from scratch—a long and difficult process.
Why Does the ERA Still Matter Today?
Some people argue that the ERA is outdated because women have already made legal gains in areas like voting, work, and education. But ERA supporters say that without it, gender equality isn’t truly guaranteed. Here’s why it still matters:
- Pay Inequality – Women, on average, still earn less than men for the same work. The ERA would create stronger legal grounds to challenge this.
- Gender-Based Violence – Laws addressing domestic violence and sexual harassment could be strengthened under the ERA.
- Reproductive Rights – Some argue the ERA could provide legal protections for abortion rights and access to contraception.
- LGBTQ+ Protections – The ERA’s broad language could help secure legal protections for gender identity and sexual orientation.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Why hasn’t the ERA been added to the Constitution yet?
Even though 38 states have ratified it, the original deadline for ratification expired in 1982. Congress would need to remove the deadline, or the Supreme Court would have to rule that the deadline doesn’t matter.
What does the ERA actually do?
The ERA would ensure that gender equality is explicitly protected under the U.S. Constitution, impacting areas like workplace discrimination, pay equity, and legal protections against gender-based violence.
Do we still need the ERA today?
Supporters argue that while women have gained rights through laws and court rulings, those protections aren’t permanent. The ERA would guarantee gender equality at the highest legal level.
Can Congress still remove the deadline?
Yes, but it would require a majority vote, and as of now, Republicans generally oppose it.
Has any amendment taken this long to pass before?
Yes! The 27th Amendment, which deals with congressional pay raises, took over 200 years to be ratified. That’s why some argue the ERA should still be valid.
The ERA’s journey is a prime example of how politics can derail even the simplest ideas. It’s been 100 years, and we’re still debating whether men and women should have equal constitutional protections.
But here’s the real question: Should a legal technicality (the deadline) decide whether or not equality is enshrined in the Constitution?
That’s something the courts, Congress, and the American people will have to answer.
