Pres. Biden believes Equal Rights Amendment is ratified, cites ABA opinion

1 hr ago

Listen

Lauren Taylor Anchor

By Lauren Taylor (Anchor), Roey Hadar (Producer)

President Joe Biden issued a statement Friday, Jan. 17, saying he believes the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is the law of the land and should be added as the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the statement has virtually zero legal effect.

Bias Distribution Powered by Ground News™

While Congress passed the ERA in the 1970s, it failed to be ratified by the requisite three-quarters of 38 states by a 1982 deadline.

Biden is leaning on an opinion by the American Bar Association, the country’s largest association of lawyers and legal professionals. They concluded that the ERA did not have a time limit for ratification, meaning it should be accepted. After 1982, more states ratified the ERA, with Virginia pushing it to the 38-state threshold in 2020.

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

The Equal Rights Amendment centers around one section of its text: Section 1 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.” In effect, it would formally protect the equal rights of men and women in the Constitution.

But the Constitution probably is not changing.

For starters, the National Archives would have to certify and publish the amendment. They’ve also leaned on previous legal opinions, saying Congress or courts would have to take action to remove the deadline.

In December, National Archivist Colleen Shogan and her deputy William Bosanko published a statement saying they couldn’t do that.

“In 2020 and again in 2022, the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice affirmed that the ratification deadline established by Congress for the ERA is valid and enforceable. The OLC concluded that extending or removing the deadline requires new action by Congress or the courts.”

What comes next is unclear. Biden’s statement could further inspire legal challenges to overturn the deadline. It could also open the door to some political battles that led to the ERA falling short of its original window.

Reproductive rights advocates hope enacting the amendment could bolster protections for access to abortion and contraception. The law passed Congress just a few months before the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which made abortion legal in all 50 states.

The ERA faced opposition, led by conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, in the 1970s and 1980s. She held up or stopped votes to ratify the amendment. Her arguments against the bill suggested that it threatened gender roles, risking the fate of laws like those protecting alimony and preventing women from being eligible for the military draft.

President-elect Donald Trump has not said much about the ERA. However, in 2020, his administration’s Justice Department said they considered the ratification window closed.

Tags: Constitution, Gender equality, Joe Biden, National Archives, Reproductive rights, Women’s Health

LAUREN TAYLOR: President Joe Biden issued a statement Friday saying he believes the proposed Equal Rights Amendment is the law of the land and should be added as the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

But the statement has nearly zero legal effect. While Congress passed the ERA in the 1970s, it fell a few states short of reaching the three-quarters requirement of 38 states ratifying it by a 1982 deadline.

Biden is leaning on an opinion by the American Bar Association, the country’s largest association of lawyers and legal professionals. They concluded that the ERA did not have a time limit for ratification, meaning that it should be accepted. After 1982, more states ratified the ERA, with Virginia pushing it to the 38-state threshold in 2020.

The Equal Rights Amendment centers around one section of its text – Section 1 of the amendment 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.”

In effect, it would formally protect the equal rights of men and women in the Constitution.

But the Constitution probably is not changing.

For starters, the National Archives would have to certify and publish the amendment. And they’ve leaned on previous legal opinions saying Congress or courts would have to take action to remove the deadline.

In December, National Archivist Colleen Shogan and her deputy William Bosanko published a statement saying they couldn’t do that.

The next steps are very unclear. Biden’s statement could add fuel to legal challenges to try to overturn the deadline.

But it could also open the door to some of the political battles that led to the ERA falling short in its original window.

Reproductive rights advocates hope enacting the amendment could bolster protections for access to abortion and contraception. The law passed Congress just a few months before the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision made abortion legal in all 50 states.

The ERA faced opposition in the 1970s and 1980s led by conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly. She rallied opposition to the ERA, which held up or stopped votes to ratify the amendment. Her arguments against the bill suggested that it threatened gender roles, risking the fate of laws like those protecting alimony and preventing women from being eligible for the military draft.

President-elect Donald Trump has not said much about the ERA in 2020, the Trump administration Justice Department said they considered the ratification window closed.

For Straight Arrow News, I’m Lauren Taylor.

And for all the latest updates on this and other top stories, download the Straight Arrow News app or visit SAN.com.