Editing Equal Rights Amendment (section)

== History ==

=== Early history (1920s–1940s) ===
[[File:Alice paul.jpg|thumb|[[Alice Paul]] toasting ([[Prohibition in the United States|with grape juice]]) the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, August 26, 1920<ref name="WhoWas">{{Cite web|url=http://www.alicepaul.org/who-was-alice-paul|title=Who Was Alice Paul?|publisher=Alice Paul Institute|access-date=April 6, 2017|archive-date=April 8, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170408164043/http://www.alicepaul.org/who-was-alice-paul/|url-status=dead}}</ref>]]
On September 25, 1921, the [[National Woman's Party]] announced its plans to campaign for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to guarantee women equal rights with men. The text of the proposed amendment read:

{{blockquote|
Section 1. No political, civil, or legal disabilities or inequalities on account of sex or on account of marriage, unless applying equally to both sexes, shall exist within the United States or any territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.<ref name="BaltSun">{{Cite news |title=WOMAN'S PARTY ALL READY FOR EQUALITY FIGHT; Removal Of All National and State Discriminations Is Aim. SENATE AND HOUSE TO GET AMENDMENT; A Proposed Constitutional Change To Be Introduced On October 1 |last=Henning |first=Arthur Sears |date=September 26, 1921 |work=[[The Baltimore Sun]] |page=1 |title-link=c:File:Equal Rights Amendment proposed in Congress 1921.jpg}}</ref>}}

Alice Paul, the head of the National Women's Party, believed that the [[Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Nineteenth Amendment]] would not be enough to ensure that men and women were treated equally regardless of sex. In 1923, at [[Seneca Falls, New York]], she revised the proposed amendment to read:

{{blockquote|Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.<ref name="WhoWas" />}}

Paul named this version the [[Lucretia Mott]] Amendment, after a female abolitionist who fought for women's rights and attended the First Women's Rights Convention.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.nps.gov/wori/learn/historyculture/lucretia-mott.htm. |title=Lucretia Mott |publisher=National Park Service |access-date=March 21, 2016}}</ref> The proposal was seconded by Dr. [[Frances Dickinson (physician)|Frances Dickinson]], a cousin of [[Susan B. Anthony]].<ref name="LATimes-22jul1923">{{cite news |title=Dr. Frances Dickinson women's equal rights |url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/21792666/dr-frances-dickinson-womens-equal/ |access-date=9 February 2021 |work=Los Angeles Times |via=Newspapers.com |date=22 July 1923 |page=3 |language=en-US}}</ref>

Following its introduction in 1923, the Equal Rights Amendment was reintroduced in each subsequent Congress, but made little progress.<ref>{{Cite web |date=December 11, 1923 |title=English: A newspaper article from 1923 talking about the ERA |url=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ERA_Amendment_First_Introduced.pdf |work=The Baltimore Sun}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=October 3, 1921 |title=English: Newspaper article from 1921 talking about the ERA |url=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ERA_Going_to_Be_Introduced.pdf |newspaper=The Washington Post |via=Wikimedia Commons}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=January 16, 1922 |title=English: Newspaper article from 1922 talking about the ERA |url=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Still_Not_Introduced.pdf |work=The New York Times |via=Wikimedia Commons}}</ref>

In 1943, Alice Paul further revised the amendment to reflect the wording of the [[Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifteenth]] and Nineteenth Amendments. This text would later become Section 1 of the version passed by Congress in 1972.<ref name="auto">{{Cite web |url=http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/336era.html |title=Equal Rights Amendments, 1923–1972 |publisher=Hanover College |access-date=September 23, 2016}}</ref>

As a result of this revision, ERA opponents proposed an alternative in the 1940s. This alternative provided that "no distinctions on the basis of sex shall be made except such as are reasonably justified by differences in physical structure, biological differences, or social function." It was quickly rejected by both pro- and anti-ERA coalitions.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ioM-8naFn60C |title=Moving the Mountain: The Women's Movement in America Since 1960 |last=Davis |first=Flora |date=January 1, 1999 |publisher=University of Illinois Press |isbn=978-0-252-06782-2 |language=en}}</ref>

When the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution]] was adopted in 1868, the [[Equal Protection Clause]], which guarantees equal protection of the laws, did not apply to women. It was not until 1972 that the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] extended equal protection to sex-based discrimination.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/404/71/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190330171457/https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/404/71/ |archive-date=March 30, 2019 |access-date=2024-01-15 |website=Justia Law |language=en}}</ref> However, women have never been entitled to full equal protection as the Court subsequently ruled that statutory or administrative sex classifications were subject to an [[Intermediate scrutiny|intermediate standard of judicial review]], a less stringent standard than that applied to other forms of discrimination.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/429/190/ |access-date=2024-01-15 |website=Justia Law |language=en}}</ref>

==== Split among feminists ====
Since the 1920s, the Equal Rights Amendment has been accompanied by discussion among [[Feminism|feminists]] about the meaning of women's equality.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Sealander |first=Judith |year=1982 |title=Feminist Against Feminist: The First Phase of the Equal Rights Amendment Debate, 1923–1963 |journal=South Atlantic Quarterly |volume=81 |issue=2 |pages=147–161 |doi=10.1215/00382876-81-2-147}}</ref> [[Alice Paul]] and her [[National Woman's Party]] asserted that women should be on equal terms with men in all regards, even if that means sacrificing benefits given to women through protective legislation, such as shorter work hours and no night work or heavy lifting.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Cott |first=Nancy |year=1984 |title=Feminist Politics in the 1920s: The National Woman's Party |journal=[[Journal of American History]] |volume=71 |issue=1 |pages=43–68 |doi=10.2307/1899833 |jstor=1899833}}</ref> Opponents of the amendment, such as the [[Women's Joint Congressional Committee]], believed that the loss of these benefits to women would not be worth the supposed gain to them in equality. In 1924, ''The Forum'' hosted a debate between [[Doris Stevens]] and [[Alice Hamilton]] concerning the two perspectives on the proposed amendment.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Modern American Women: A Documentary History |publisher=McGraw-Hill Higher Education |year=1997 |isbn=0-07-071527-0 |editor-last=Ware |editor-first=Susan |chapter=New Dilemmas for Modern Women |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/modernamericanwo00susa_1 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/modernamericanwo00susa_1}}</ref> Their debate reflected the wider tension in the developing feminist movement of the early 20th century between two approaches toward gender equality. One approach emphasized the common humanity of women and men, while the other stressed women's unique experiences and how they were different from men, seeking recognition for specific needs.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/groundingofmoder00cott |title=The Grounding of Modern Feminism |last=Cott |first=Nancy |publisher=Yale University Press |year=1987 |isbn=0-300-04228-0 |author-link=Nancy Cott}}</ref> The opposition to the ERA was led by [[Mary Anderson (labor leader)|Mary Anderson]] and the [[Women's Bureau]] beginning in 1923. These feminists argued that legislation including mandated minimum wages, safety regulations, restricted daily and weekly hours, lunch breaks, and maternity provisions would be more beneficial to the majority of women who were forced to work out of economic necessity, not personal fulfillment.<ref>{{Cite book |title=The Other Women's Movement: Workplace Justice and Social Rights in Modern America |last=Cobble |first=Dorothy Sue |publisher=Princeton University Press |year=2004 |isbn=0-691-06993-X |location=Princeton, New Jersey |page=[https://archive.org/details/otherwomensmovem0000cobb/page/51 51] |url=https://archive.org/details/otherwomensmovem0000cobb/page/51}}</ref> The debate also drew from struggles between working class and professional women.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Olson |first1=James S. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SZK5BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA200 |title=American Economic History: A Dictionary and Chronology |last2=Mendoza |first2=Abraham O. |date=April 28, 2015 |publisher=ABC-CLIO |isbn=978-1-61069-698-2 |language=en}}</ref> Alice Hamilton, in her speech "Protection for Women Workers", said that the ERA would strip working women of the small protections they had achieved, leaving them powerless to further improve their condition in the future, or to attain necessary protections in the present.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Modern American Women: A Documentary History |last=Dollinger |first=Genora Johnson |publisher=McGraw-Hill Higher Education |year=1997 |isbn=0-07-071527-0 |editor-last=Ware |editor-first=Susan |pages=[https://archive.org/details/modernamericanwo00susa_1/page/125 125–126] |chapter=Women and Labor Militancy |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/modernamericanwo00susa_1 |url=https://archive.org/details/modernamericanwo00susa_1/page/125}}</ref>

The [[National Woman's Party]] already had tested its approach in [[Wisconsin]], where it won passage of the Wisconsin Equal Rights Law in 1921.<ref>{{Cite book |title=The Quest for Social Justice III: The Morris Fromkin Memorial Lectures, 1992–2002 |last=McBride |first=Genevieve G. |publisher=University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee |year=2005 |isbn=1-879281-26-0 |editor-last=Boone |editor-first=Peter G. Watson |location=Milwaukee |chapter='Forward' Women: Winning the Wisconsin Campaign for the Country's First ERA, 1921}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=s3H087kqzlUC&pg=PA284 |title=Public Women, Public Words: A Documentary History of American Feminism, Volume II: 1900 to 1960 |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |year=2005 |isbn=978-0-7425-2225-1 |editor-last=Keetley |editor-first=Dawn |pages=284–5 |editor-last2=Pettegrew |editor-first2=John}}</ref> The party then took the ERA to Congress, where U.S. senator [[Charles Curtis]], a future [[List of vice presidents of the United States|vice president of the United States]], introduced it for the first time in October 1921.<ref name="BaltSun" /> Although the ERA was introduced in every congressional session between 1921 and 1972, it almost never reached the floor of either the Senate or the House for a vote. Instead, it was usually blocked in committee; except in 1946, when it was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 38 to 35—not receiving the required two-thirds supermajority.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R42979.html |title=The Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: Contemporary Ratification Issues |website=everycrsreport.com |language=en |access-date=June 3, 2019}}</ref>

=== Post-World War II developments (1940s–1960s) ===
[[World War II]] was correlated with a rise supporters of the ERA. Due to the war, many women had to take on untraditional roles at home and in the workforce. Protectionists were against the ERA because they believed women need to be treated differently than men, because they are biologically different. Women entered the workforce and proved they could handle working the same jobs as men, including joining the U.S. Armed Forces. Women were supporting their country, despite not being compensated or respected fairly. With the increased patriotism in the country people began to see the value of women being involved in their country. As the war continued, more opportunities for women to work opened up due to fewer men being available. The support for equality grew with this as women continued to prove their ability and willingness to work.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Rebecca DeWolf |date=2017 |title=The Equal Rights Amendment and the Rise of Emancipationism, 1932–1946 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5250/fronjwomestud.38.2.0047 |journal=Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies |volume=38 |issue=2 |pages=47 |doi=10.5250/fronjwomestud.38.2.0047|jstor=10.5250/fronjwomestud.38.2.0047}}</ref>

==== Initial support from the Republican Party and the Hayden rider ====
The [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] included support of the ERA in its platform beginning in [[1940 Republican National Convention|1940]], renewing the plank every four years until [[1980 United States presidential election|1980]].<ref name="'70s 245">{{Cite book |last=Frum |first=David |author-link=David Frum |url=https://archive.org/details/howwegothere70sd00frum/page/245 |title=How We Got Here: The '70s |publisher=[[Basic Books]] |year=2000 |isbn=0-465-04195-7 |location=New York, New York |pages=[https://archive.org/details/howwegothere70sd00frum/page/245 245–248]}}</ref> The main support base for the ERA until the late 1960s was among middle class Republican women, while some Southern Democrats also supported it.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |title=From Suffrage to Women's Liberation |url=https://www.cwluherstory.org/classic-feminist-writings-articles/from-suffrage-to-womens-liberation |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190603070901/https://www.cwluherstory.org/classic-feminist-writings-articles/from-suffrage-to-womens-liberation |archive-date=June 3, 2019 |access-date=June 3, 2019 |website=CWLU Herstory |language=en-US}}</ref><ref name="'70s 245" />

In 1950 and 1953, the ERA was passed by the Senate with a provision known as "the Hayden rider", introduced by [[Arizona]] senator [[Carl Hayden]]. The Hayden rider added a sentence to the ERA to keep special protections for women: "The provisions of this article shall not be construed to impair any rights, benefits, or exemptions now or hereafter conferred by law upon persons of the female sex." By allowing women to keep their existing and future special protections, it was expected that the ERA would be more appealing to its opponents. Though opponents were marginally more in favor of the ERA with the Hayden rider, supporters of the original ERA believed it negated the amendment's original purpose—causing the amendment not to be passed in the House.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt6f59n89c&brand=calisphere&doc.view=entire_text |title=Conversations with Alice Paul: Woman Suffrage and the Equal Rights Amendment. |website=cdlib.org |publisher=Suffragists Oral History Project}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.jofreeman.com/lawandpolicy/eraname.htm |title=What's in a Name? Does it matter how the Equal Rights Amendment is worded? |website=jofreeman.com}}</ref><ref name="auto1">{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AXlSB6-WpKUC&pg=PA31 |title=On Account of Sex: The Politics of Women's Issues, 1945–1968 |last=Harrison |first=Cynthia Ellen |publisher=University of California Press |year=1989 |isbn=978-0-520-90930-4 |pages=31–32}}</ref>

ERA supporters were hopeful that the second term of President [[Dwight D. Eisenhower|Dwight Eisenhower]] would advance their agenda. Eisenhower had publicly promised to "assure women everywhere in our land equality of rights," and in 1958, Eisenhower asked a [[joint session of the United States Congress|joint session of Congress]] to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, the first president to show such a level of support for the amendment. However, the National Woman's Party found the amendment to be unacceptable and asked it to be withdrawn whenever the Hayden rider was added to the ERA.<ref name="auto1" />

==== Initial opposition from the New Deal Democrats ====
[[Eleanor Roosevelt]] and most [[New Deal]]ers opposed the ERA. They felt that ERA was designed for middle-class women, but that working-class women needed government protection. They also feared that the ERA would undercut the male-dominated labor unions that were a core component of the [[New Deal coalition]]. Most Northern [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrats]], who aligned themselves with the anti-ERA labor unions, opposed the amendment.<ref name="'70s 245" />

The ERA was also opposed by the [[American Federation of Labor]] and other labor unions, which feared the amendment would invalidate protective labor legislation for women. The [[League of Women Voters]], formerly the [[National American Woman Suffrage Association]], opposed the Equal Rights Amendment until 1972, fearing the loss of protective labor legislation.<ref name=":2" />

At the [[1944 Democratic National Convention]], the Democrats made the divisive step of including the ERA in their platform, but this was a hotly contested change not reflected in later party platforms.<ref name="'70s 245" /> At the [[1960 Democratic National Convention|Democratic National Convention in 1960]], a proposal to endorse the ERA was rejected after it was opposed by groups including the [[American Civil Liberties Union]]<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/annualreportamer00amer_2/page/106/mode/2up |title=Clearing the Main Channels, ACLU's 1954–55 Annual Report |publisher=American Civil Liberties Union <!-- |others=University of Alberta Libraries --> |year=1955 |pages=106–107}}</ref> (ACLU), the [[AFL-CIO]], labor unions such as the [[American Federation of Teachers]], [[Americans for Democratic Action]] (ADA), the [[American Nurses Association]], the Women's Division of the [[Methodist Church (USA)|Methodist Church]], and the National Councils of Jewish, Catholic, and Negro Women.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LF8ov6Vc4YQC&pg=PA209 |title=A Room at a Time: How Women Entered Party Politics |last=Freeman |first=Jo |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-8476-9805-9 |page=209 |author-link=Jo Freeman}}</ref> 

Between 1948 and 1970, chairman [[Emanuel Celler]] of the House Judiciary Committee, refused to consider the ERA in the House of Representatives.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Neale |first=Thomas |date=December 23, 2019 |title=Congressional Research Service, Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: Contemporary Ratification Issues |url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42979}}</ref>

==== Support from the Democratic Party under Kennedy ====
Presidential candidate [[John F. Kennedy]] announced his support of the ERA in an October 21, 1960, letter to the chairman of the National Woman's Party.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=74146 |title=Letter to Mrs. Emma Guffey Miller, Chairman of the National Woman's Party |last=Kennedy |first=John F. |author-link=John F. Kennedy |date=October 21, 1960 |publisher=University of California at Santa Barbara}}</ref> Ultimately however, as president, Kennedy's ties to labor unions meant that he and his administration did not support the ERA.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PEojQDou7MIC&pg=PA864 |title=Encyclopedia of the Kennedys: The People and Events That Shaped America |last=Siracusa |first=Joseph M. |publisher=[[ABC-CLIO]] |location=Santa Barbara, California|year=2012 |isbn=978-1-59884-539-6 |page=864}}</ref>

Kennedy did appoint a [[Blue-ribbon committee|blue-ribbon commission]] on women, the [[Presidential Commission on the Status of Women|President's Commission on the Status of Women]], to investigate the problem of sex discrimination in the United States.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Harrison |first=Cynthia E. |date=1980 |title=A "New Frontier" for Women: The Public Policy of the Kennedy Administration |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1889871 |journal=The Journal of American History |volume=67 |issue=3 |pages=630–646 |doi=10.2307/1889871 |jstor=1889871 |issn=0021-8723}}</ref> The commission was chaired by [[Eleanor Roosevelt]], who opposed the ERA but no longer spoke against it publicly. In the early 1960s, Eleanor Roosevelt announced that, due to unionization, she believed the ERA was no longer a threat to women as it once may have been and told supporters that, as far as she was concerned, they could have the amendment if they wanted it. However, she never went so far as to endorse the ERA. The commission that she chaired reported (after her death) that no ERA was needed, believing that the Supreme Court could give sex the same "suspect" test as race and national origin, through interpretation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=55XG0oS3XyYC&pg=PA184 |title=Eleanor Roosevelt and the Media: A Public Quest for Self-fulfillment |last=Beasley |first=Maurine Hoffman |publisher=University of Illinois Press |year=1987 |isbn=978-0-252-01376-8 |page=184}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://guides.loc.gov/american-women-essays/era-ratification-effort |title=Research Guides: American Women: Topical Essays: The Long Road to Equality: What Women Won from the ERA Ratification Effort |last=Berberian |first=Laura |website=guides.loc.gov |language=en |access-date=November 5, 2019}}</ref> The Supreme Court did not provide the "suspect" class test for sex, however, resulting in a continuing lack of equal rights. The commission did, though, help win passage of the [[Equal Pay Act of 1963]], which banned sex discrimination in wages in a number of professions (it would later be amended in the early 1970s to include the professions that it initially excluded) and secured an [[executive order]] from Kennedy eliminating sex discrimination in the [[civil service]]. The commission, composed largely of anti-ERA feminists with ties to labor, proposed remedies to the widespread sex discrimination it unearthed.<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EDd2aNCoGlYC |title=Public Women, Public Words: A Documentary History of American Feminism, Volume III: 1960 to the Present |publisher=[[Rowman & Littlefield]] |location=Lanham, Maryland|year=2005 |isbn=978-0-7425-2236-7 |editor-last=Keetley |editor-first=Dawn |page=251 |editor-last2=Pettegrew |editor-first2=John}}</ref>

The national commission spurred the establishment of state and local commissions on the status of women and arranged for follow-up conferences in the years to come. The following year, the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]] banned workplace discrimination not only on the basis of race, religion, and national origin, but also on the basis of sex, thanks to the lobbying of [[Alice Paul]] and [[Coretta Scott King]] and the political influence of Representative [[Martha Griffiths]] of [[Michigan]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Haug |first=Kate |date=2016 |title=News Today: A History of the Poor People's Campaign in Real Time |url=http://www.resurrectioncity.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/News_Today.pdf |journal=Irving Street Projects |pages=1–84}}</ref>

==== Impact of second-wave feminism ====
[[File:Shirely Chisholm at the 1984 DNC.jpg|thumb|Shirley Chisholm seated at the 1984 Democratic National Convention in San Francisco, California.  ]]
[[Second-wave feminism|A new women's movement]] gained ground in the later 1960s as a result of a variety of factors: [[Betty Friedan]]'s bestseller ''[[The Feminine Mystique]]''; the network of women's rights commissions formed by Kennedy's national commission; the frustration over women's social and economic status; and anger over the lack of government and [[Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]] enforcement of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In June 1966, at the Third National Conference on the Status of Women in [[Washington, D.C.]], Betty Friedan and a group of activists frustrated with the lack of government action in enforcing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act formed the [[National Organization for Women]] (NOW) to act as an "NAACP for women", demanding full equality for American women and men.<ref name="Schneir 1994 95">{{Cite book|title=Feminism in Our Time: The Essential Writings, World War II to the Present|last=Schneir|first=Miriam|publisher=[[Vintage Books]]|location=New York City|year=1994|page=95}}</ref> In 1967, at the urging of Alice Paul, NOW endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment.{{citation needed|date=May 2018}}<ref>{{Cite web |title=Highlights |publisher=National Organization for Women |url=https://now.org/about/history/highlights/ |access-date=2024-12-11 |language=en-US}}</ref> The decision caused some union Democrats and social conservatives to leave the organization and form the [[Women's Equity Action League]] (within a few years WEAL also endorsed the ERA), but the move to support the amendment benefited NOW, bolstering its membership.{{citation needed|date=May 2018}} By the late 1960s, NOW had made significant political and legislative victories and was gaining enough power to become a major lobbying force. In 1969, newly elected representative [[Shirley Chisholm]] of [[New York (state)|New York]] gave her famous speech "Equal Rights for Women" on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Chisolm|first=Shirley|author-link=Shirley Chisholm|date=May 21, 1969|title=Equal Rights for Women|url=http://www.emersonkent.com/speeches/equal_rights_for_women.htm|access-date=June 6, 2020|publisher=Emerson Kent}}</ref>