The Democrats might want to rethink this
Today I'm affirming what I have long believed and what three-fourths of the states have ratified:
The 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law regardless of their sex. pic.twitter.com/oZtS6Q89zG
— President Biden (@POTUS) January 17, 2025
Let’s go to a story
President Joe Biden announced a major opinion Friday that the Equal Rights Amendment is ratified, enshrining its protections into the Constitution, a last-minute move that some believe could pave the way to bolstering reproductive rights.
It will, however, certainly draw swift legal challenges – and its next steps remain extremely unclear as Biden prepares to leave office.
The amendment, which was passed by Congress in 1972, enshrines equal rights for women. An amendment to the Constitution requires three-quarters of states, or 38, to ratify it. Virginia in 2020 became the 38th state to ratify the bill after it sat stagnant for decades. Biden is now issuing his opinion that the amendment is ratified. It would next fall upon the archivist of the United States, Dr. Colleen Shogan, to certify and publish the amendment.
“It is long past time to recognize the will of the American people. In keeping with my oath and duty to Constitution and country, I affirm what I believe and what three-fourths of the states have ratified: The 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law regardless of their sex,” Biden said in a statement Friday. (snip)
But legal experts contend it isn’t that simple: Ratification deadlines lapsed and five states have rescinded their approval, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s law school, prompting questions about the president’s authority to ratify the amendment more than 50 years after it first passed.
Really, I’d say Republicans should totally support this
The equal rights amendment, in sum, would dedicate the nation to a new view of the rights and responsibilities of men and women. It firmly rejects sharp legislative lines between the sexes as constitutionally tolerable. Instead, it looks toward a legal system in which each person will be judged based on individual merit and not on the basis of an unalterable trait of birth that bears no necessary relationship to need or ability.
A major argument in favor of the ERA is that it would guarantee that all citizens, regardless of sex, are treated equally under the law. Currently, the 14th Amendment gives equal rights to all citizens but does not explicitly mention women. The 19th Amendment explicitly gives women equal voting rights relative to men but does not broaden its scope beyond that issue. An amendment combining the two — guaranteeing women equal rights with no caveats — is considered necessary by proponents of this perspective.
See, the thing is, the ERA would enshrine in the Constitution that women are actually, you know, women, and not those fake trans ones. More importantly, it would mean that men and women are, in fact, utterly equal under the law. It would mean that, get this, women would be required to register for Selective Service. Because the law must apply equally.
Another major argument against the ERA is that the ratification of the ERA would mean laws cannot be passed to protect men and women differently. The ERA states, “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex,” implying all laws must affect men and women equally. That standard is present in legislation surrounding racial discrimination. An example is present in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital from 1923. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to guarantee women a minimum wage because earlier, the court had ruled that men could not be guaranteed a minimum wage. The court based its decision on the 19th Amendment.
It could very well mean that existing laws that give extra protections to women would either be null and void or men would get the same protections, because the ERA calls for equal protection under the law.
Anyhow, we’ll see if Trump supports it and Congress does something to make it legally the 28th Amendment.
Our esteemed host is way wrong on this:
Hardly! Se3veral states have already taken moved to declare that the transgendered are the sex they claim to be, rather than the sex they are, allowing changes in birth certificates and drivers licenses. The text of the ERA does not define men and women, males and females, in any particular way.
Section 2 of the ERA states, “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” That means that Congress would have the power to declare Brayden Fleming or Bradley Manning or Bruce Jenner or Will Thomas to be real women, and no state could bar ‘trans women’ from women’s and girls’ sports. Just because sensible people have control of the Congress and Presidency now — or will after Monday — doesn’t mean that control won’t go over to the idiots following the 2022 and 2024 elections.
Why does anyone care what a person says they are?
We know! We know! It distracts us from important issues!!