Several attorneys general have filed a lawsuit seeking to block efforts to illegally extend the Equal Rights Amendment ratification; the deadline to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, or as we call it, the ‘Everything Related To Abortion Act’ was 1982.
AL.com reports, “Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall has filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop what he says is a belated and illegal attempt to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, which was proposed by Congress in 1972 to prohibit discrimination based on sex but was not ratified by the required number of states.
The attorneys general for Louisiana and South Dakota joined Marshall in the lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Western Division.”
The lawsuit also points out that the archivist of the United States is illegally recognizing states as having ratified the Equal Rights Amendment, when those states have since passed ERA rescission legislation, which removes their support for the Equal Rights Amendment. ERA proponents claim they have 37 states in support of the ERA, meaning they are only one state short. However, 5 states have passed rescission legislation, meaning there are only 32 states that have passed the ERA (Idaho, Nebraska, Tennessee, Kentucky, and South Dakota have rescinded their ERA legislation).
ERA proponents, including Planned Parenthood and NARAL, have set their sights on South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia. However, as it cannot be repeated enough, the deadline passed in 1982.
ERA proponents argue that there should be no deadlines on Constitutional amendments. However, there is a good reason to do so; our understanding of legislation and its effects changes over the years, and the original meaning of the ERA has changed. For example, several court cases have said that a state-level ERA language requires government funding of abortions.
If ERA proponents want to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, they are free to restart the process and make their case in order to convince 38 states to pass it.
Furthermore, be wary of proponents who argue that NO Constitutional amendment, except the ERA, has had a deadline attached to it. That is false, and anyone who says otherwise must be corrected.
Even equalrightsamendment.org concedes, “The first amendment with a time limit was the 18th Amendment (Prohibition), proposed in 1917. For political reasons, Congress included an arbitrarily chosen seven-year deadline in Section 3. The amendment was also the first to include a time delay before it would take effect, in that case one year after the date of ratification.
The next two proposed amendments, the 19th Amendment (Woman Suffrage) and the never-ratified Child Labor Amendment, had no time limit attached. However, beginning with the 20th Amendment, Congress has attached a time limit to the ratification of all proposed amendments.”
Uhh, sure. For political reasons. Yes, that’s what Congress has the power to do and often does. Sunset provisions are common in legislation, and acknowledges the reality that legislation can have unintended consequences, so elected officials should be able to let programs die. An amendment is very hard to repeal, so if anything, it needs to be taken even more seriously.
You can learn more about the problems with the Equal Rights Amendment at rejectera.org.