Editing Equal Rights Amendment (section)

=== 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>