Phyllis was right about the ERA

Ted Meehan writes:

In the late 1960’s and early 70’s, as the feminist movement was rising in influence, its leaders wrote and promoted passage of an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) presumably to guarantee the rights of women. Very few people saw any problem with agreeing that women and men should be equal under the law.

The prescient Phyllis Schlafly led opposition to passage of the ERA, and took plenty of abuse for doing so. What objection could justify opposing such a nice gesture that codified what nearly everyone already believed?

Phyllis recognized this as a legislative Trojan Horse that could force upon America, a number of unintended results that very few people approved. She feared passage would open the door to legalizing abortion. She warned that some people could use the ERA to justify men entering women’s bathrooms or locker rooms. She also believed that ERA could remove some legal protections for women – like Title IX. She was called an alarmist and was ridiculed. But a look at America in 2025 shows her to be the visionary she was.

Some public service jobs have physical requirements. A fire department or police candidate may be required to lift and carry a 200-pound man for 100 yards in under 45 seconds. If women firefighters are physically unable to perform such a task, are they disqualified? Well, no. Recognizing the unequal physical attributes of men and women, some physical qualifications were lowered – only for women – to allow some women to qualify. Discrimination lawsuits by men have not been noted. But a strict interpretation of the ERA would certainly prohibit lowering physical standards to favor one gender over the other.

The pseudo-scientific transgender movement has had nearly no effect at all on men’s sports. Can anyone recall reports of men feeling threatened by a transitioning female displacing male athletes on any sports teams? There have been none! But we regularly see controversy over female records being broken by biological males. Or females being displaced or injured after being physically overmatched by a post-pubescent biological male. We read reports of trans-identifying biological males entering female locker rooms, or bathrooms – with some even sexually assaulting the females! Once again, score this one for Phyllis Schlafly.

What about abortion? How could something like that possibly be justified by the ERA? Well, today three pro-abortion judges – Christine Donahue, Kevin Dougherty, and David Wecht (up for retention) — are citing ERA to argue that a “gender-based law” is unconstitutional. They argue that since only mothers (females) are prohibited from having abortions, then laws regulating abortion, discriminate only against women, and so they are unconstitutional. So, for these judges, the ERA contradicts and supersedes basic laws of nature! Imagine the outcry from feminists if the same abuse of logic was directed at them!

The Equal Rights Amendment is not a part of our federal Constitution, but the passage of a state version in Pennsylvania in 1971 should not be cited to declare abortion to be a constitutional right — or to require taxpayers to fund elective abortions. Our elected legislature — with approval by our elected governors — has passed laws to regulate abortion – as had been required by the since-overturned Roe v. Wade decision, with the recent Dobbs decision. Absent Roe, no federal law imposes abortion on states. Roe’s overturning should teach us that laws passed by legislators – not lawsuits by profit-motivated abortion businesses, decided by pro-abortion judges – should be the basis for governance.