ERA: An Outdated Icon of Radical Feminism     3/27/2007

Washington, D.C. —The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), to be reintroduced today in Congress, is not only unnecessary; it would contradict laws and government positions that were championed by feminists to give preferences to women. Concerned Women for America (CWA) strongly opposes the ERA, an outdated yet harmful icon of radical feminism.

CWA’s President Wendy Wright said, “Women in America not only have equal opportunity, but access to vast and powerful remedies if discrimination occurs. The ERA is a simplistic, naïve effort that would not allow any distinction between men and women – and is limited to actions by the government, not individuals, businesses, or private entities.

“Ironically, government offices such as the FDA’s Office of Women’s Health would be illegal under the ERA, and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) federal law would be unconstitutional for discriminating against men.”

Wright points out, “Federal and state laws already exist to protect women, but without the harmful consequences of the naïve language of the ERA. The Fourteenth amendment protects women against discrimination by the government and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects women against discrimination in the private sector. The ERA would be used to do far more harm than good.

“State-passed ERAs were used by courts to declare same-sex marriage in Hawaii and force taxpayers to subsidize abortions in New Mexico.

“ERA proponents argue that it would merely require legislators to conform laws ‘by including the other sex or by using a legal category other than sex (e.g., "chief caregiver" instead of "mother").’ According to supporters’ own example, ERA could rightfully be called the anti-mother amendment.”

For Information Contact:
Demi Bardsley
(202) 488-7000, ext. 1020
media.cwfa.org

Printer Friendly Version