The Start of an ERA?

When Congress approved the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution nearly three years ago, it seemed a logical, even perhaps perfunctory capping of women's renewed struggle for equality. The wording could not have been simpler or seemingly less controversial: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied nor abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." Within nine months, 22 states had ratified the amendment and the necessary 16 more were expected to do so long before the 1979 deadline. Then in early 1973 various groups mounted a powerful opposition drive protesting that the amendment would abolish many legal safeguards for women, like protective labor legislation, and would require women to be drafted and go into combat. Only eight more states approved the ERA in 1973 and three in 1974. Meanwhile, Nebraska and Tennessee voted to rescind their ratification. (Whether or not to accept these reversals may eventually be up to Congress.)

Rallying Support. This year supporters of the ERA predict a turnaround. Last fall's elections drastically changed the makeup of many state legislatures. They now contain about 28% more women and a majority of Democrats. Both of these groups--outside the South--tend to be pro-ERA. Of those states considered good prospects, Missouri should be the first to act, with a vote expected as soon as the legislature convenes in January. Other states likely to vote in the next six months: Illinois, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Oklahoma. According to a poll taken by the League of Women Voters, 52% of the legislators in nine states that have not ratified the amendment are pro-ERA, only 28% against.

The National Organization for Women, which has 40,000 members and is the largest and most influential feminist group in the nation, has played an important role in rallying support for the amendment. Faced with the sudden opposition, NOW began to organize a public relations and election campaign in states that had not voted for ratification. Overcoming labor's 50-year opposition to such an amendment, NOW in late 1973 managed to win endorsement of the ERA from the AFL-CIO. The 2,400-member Coalition of Labor Union Women that was formed last spring to end sex discrimination in union hiring, wages and job classification also endorsed it. The American Bar Association resolved last summer at its annual convention to "approve and affirmatively act" toward the ERA'S ratification. A few days later President Ford urged the passage of the amendment.

As the momentum grows, other groups like the Catholic Women for the ERA, headquartered in Cincinnati, are stepping up their support. The group is planning a "pray-in" in Columbus and other state capitals. The National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs recently raised $250,000, part of which they are using to hire a Washington-based political consulting firm, Bailey, Deardourff & Eyre; the company will guide the strategy for pro-ERA forces in states where the vote is considered close.

The opposition has not given up. Groups such as the Daughters Already Well-Endowed, Women Who Want to be Women and the League of Housewives, which claims 20,000 members, object that the amendment is in conflict with woman's most important role as housewife and mother. Phyllis Schlafly, author of A Choice Not an Echo, a book boosting the 1964 presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater, is still giving speeches around the country as head of a group called Stop ERA. The John Birch Society has its nationwide staff of 90 men churning out arguments against the amendment. Sample headline for a Birch pamphlet: LOOK OUT! THEY'RE PLANNING TO DRAFT YOUR DAUGHTER! Says Birch Society Official Wallis Wood: "It's a very emotional issue--almost like sex education was five years ago."

Alimony Laws. One sensible though not conclusive argument against the ERA comes from Paul Freund, the distinguished constitutional law expert at Harvard Law School. Freund has written that equality would be more effectively brought about by simply changing individual laws and outlawing specific discriminatory practices. "If three-fourths of the states are prepared to ratify the amendment," he argues, "it is hard to see why they must first admonish themselves to do justice before they do justice." The difference, he points out, between a constitutional amendment and writing laws that eliminate sexist practices "resembles that in medicine between a single broad-spectrum drug with uncertain and unwanted side effects and a selection of specific pills for specific ills."

If the ERA is indeed approved by the states, it will go into effect two years after ratification. The amendment will not repeal any law or invalidate any regulation already on the books. It will, however, provide a basis for challenging existing laws and sexist practices. Hence so-called protective labor legislation for women, such as state laws limiting working hours or the amount of weight a female worker can lift, may be broadened to extend to men or be dropped altogether. Alimony laws could be written in terms of marital contribution and ability to pay, rather than the sex of the spouse. If the draft is reinstated, men or women will be able to challenge men-only conscription laws.

Prospects for passage of the ERA look reasonably good this year. "We'll do it," says Ann Scott, legislative vice president of NOW. "I think this is the year," insists Douglas Bailey of Bailey, Deardourff & Eyre. Opponents of the ERA like Schlafly do not agree; but, said she last week, "I don't have a crystal ball."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.