{"id":19007,"date":"2025-01-19T15:33:32","date_gmt":"2025-01-19T21:33:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/?p=19007"},"modified":"2025-01-19T15:33:32","modified_gmt":"2025-01-19T21:33:32","slug":"the-era-of-1972-no-longer-exists-in-2024","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/2025\/01\/the-era-of-1972-no-longer-exists-in-2024.html","title":{"rendered":"The ERA of 1972 no longer exists in 2024"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

\"\"
https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Trump-WomensMarch_2017-top-1510075_(32409710246).jpg<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>

So on Friday, President Joe Biden declared that the Equal Rights Amendment is henceforth adopted, following the urging of supporters, based on arguments that the constitution doesn\u2019t have any provision for Amendment approvals setting time limits, so that the 1982 deadline was never valid.\u00a0 The National Archivist said, \u201cno, it\u2019s my job to certify amendments and I do not,\u201d and Biden supporters said, \u201cher role is purely ministerial,\u201d and, well, it should be apparent that if the role of certifying amendments is not really the National Archivist\u2019s, then neither is it the President\u2019s, as the constitution hardly specifies anything on this point.\u00a0 I think it\u2019s rather credible to say that it is left to ordinary legislation to fill in the details of a process the broad outlines of which are stated in the Constitution, but, even if that\u2019s not the case, it is the Supreme Court which makes this determination, and there have already been rulings which accept the deadline expiration as valid.<\/p>\n

Thus far, I\u2019m not going to hunt down references and links.<\/p>\n

But let\u2019s take a look at the text itself, the key statement, anyway, with a simple reference to Wikipedia for the factual context<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u201cEquality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What does this mean?<\/p>\n

In 1972, when it was passed by Congress and ratified by most of the states who would ultimately choose to do so, it would have been very straightforward.\u00a0 Neither the federal government nor the states can discriminate against women.\u00a0 To take simple examples, men and women must have equal access to Social Security or unemployment benefits, rather than, say, a woman who loses her job being treated as having been \u201cworking for pin money,\u201d as they used to say, rather than a breadwinner.<\/p>\n

Now?<\/p>\n

Pretty much every word in that sentence is contested.<\/p>\n

Equality<\/em>? That\u2019s a dirty word according to activists who push for \u201cequity\u201d instead, or \u201cequality of outcome.\u201d<\/p>\n

Rights<\/em>?\u00a0 The notion of what constitutes a right, again according to activists, has shifted very dramatically.\u00a0 In particular, in 1972, there was no \u201cright to abortion,\u201d as this was this expected to be resolved through legislation.\u00a0 Now, there\u2019s a long list of similar \u201crights\u201d which were never dreamed to have existed in 1972.<\/p>\n

Under the law<\/em>?\u00a0 In the year 2024, the government\u2019s new standard is \u201cdisparate impact.\u201d<\/p>\n

By the United States or any State<\/em>?\u00a0 It goes without saying that the principles of anti-discrimination are now applied to private sector employers, schools, organizations, etc.<\/p>\n

and, finally, sex\u00a0<\/em>has been redefined by the Biden administration and other activists to include:<\/p>\n