Read on Twitter
[Thread] The Equal Rights Amendment is proposed as a necessary addition to the #Constitution.
While the ERA would explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, it risks undermining the other anti-discrimination gains made in the last 60+ years.
And that's dangerous.
While the ERA would explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, it risks undermining the other anti-discrimination gains made in the last 60+ years.
And that's dangerous.
The danger lies in how the ERA would alter our understanding of existing constitutional provisions (e.g., 14th Am. Equal Protection Clause).
The Constitution is currently understood to prevent all forms of arbitrary discrimination by gov't.
The Constitution is currently understood to prevent all forms of arbitrary discrimination by gov't.
By adding the ERA, we risk conceding that the Constitution did not, and does not, prevent such discrimination--except when explicitly spelled out as the ERA would do.
I address these issues and more in my recent article "Is the Equal Rights Amendment Worth the Risk?" https://medium.com/@paul.d.taske/is-the-equal-rights-amendment-worth-the-risk-f3b37996b3f5?sk=368e695b834e0cb74a43aa1525d37093
