re: #23 Simply Sarah

The language for the ERA is the same, but since the version under consideration died without being ratified, members of Congress have reintroduced it for consideration at each session.

In the current session, these are the four resolutions relating to the ERA:

1. H.J.RES.47 : Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment.
Sponsor: Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] (introduced 3/8/2011) Cosponsors (33)
Committees: House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 3/21/2011 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

2. H.J.RES.69 : Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women.
Sponsor: Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] (introduced 6/22/2011) Cosponsors (185)
Committees: House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 6/22/2011 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

3. S.J.RES.21 : A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women.
Sponsor: Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] (introduced 6/22/2011) Cosponsors (15)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 6/22/2011 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

4. S.J.RES.39 : A joint resolution removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment.
Sponsor: Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] (introduced 3/22/2012) Cosponsors (10)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 3/22/2012 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The language for the joint resolution - SJR21/HJR69 incorporates the same language as the original ERA proposal.

You could make an argument that the ERA doesn’t go far enough in protecting rights (prohibiting discrimination against those on grounds of gender, sexual preference, etc.) and that we need to explicitly protect these people. Otherwise we end up having to deal with courts reading rights into the Constitution that aren’t explicitly there - along with claims that they’re activist jurists, rather than following the Constitution.

An alternative take is that the ERA is unnecessary as the Constitution can and should be read to prohibit discrimination on grounds of gender (that men was meant to describe all persons, not just those with an XY chromosome).

I lean towards having an ERA, precisely because the courts have not been consistent in protecting the rights of women, and that the differing interpretations leaves women in some places without recourse for government-sanctioned discrimination.