{"id":9998,"date":"2015-03-23T15:49:34","date_gmt":"2015-03-23T15:49:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.genealogybank.com\/?p=9998"},"modified":"2022-03-21T09:52:33","modified_gmt":"2022-03-21T13:52:33","slug":"congress-passed-the-amendment-for-womens-equal-rights-in-1972","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.genealogybank.com\/blog\/congress-passed-the-amendment-for-womens-equal-rights-in-1972.html","title":{"rendered":"Congress Passed the Amendment for Women\u2019s Equal Rights in 1972"},"content":{"rendered":"

On 22 March 1972, 50 years of hard work by women\u2019s rights activists finally paid off when Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). As soon as 38 states ratified the amendment within the next seven years, the U.S. Constitution would be amended with this statement:<\/p>\n

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

\"graphic<\/a><\/p>\n

However, only 35 states ratified the ERA by the original deadline of 22 March 1979 (the deadline was later controversially extended to 30 June 1982, with no further state\u00a0ratifications), and the victory that had seemed so close to the women\u2019s liberation movement was once again denied. Since then, some states have rescinded their ratification while others have approved; the status of the ERA is still very much to be determined.<\/p>\n

When the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified on 18 August 1920 granting women the right to vote, some thought the women\u2019s liberation movement was over because it had achieved its main goal. However, voting rights were only one form of equality, and women\u2019s rights advocates pressed for full equality before the law. Suffragist Alice Paul wrote the first ERA: \u201cMen and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction,\u201d and it was introduced in Congress in 1923.<\/p>\n

Showing the perseverance of women\u2019s rights advocates and their supporters, the ERA was introduced into every congressional session from 1923 until 1970, when the version was introduced that Congress finally passed in 1972 \u2013 by wide margins in both Houses.<\/p>\n

The following five newspaper articles are about the (what seemed to be) historic congressional action in passing the ERA. Some of the old articles are news reports of the congressional action, some record people\u2019s reactions, and others are editorials either supporting or condemning the ERA. By providing details of some of the congressional debates and divisions over the ERA \u2013 as well as the public\u2019s reaction \u2013 these articles give indications of why the amendment ultimately was never ratified.<\/p>\n

This article reports the amendment\u2019s passage.<\/p>\n

\"Senate<\/a>
Dallas Morning News (Dallas, Texas), 23 March 1972, page 1<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

According to this newspaper article:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe National Women\u2019s Political Caucus viewed the passage of the ERA as a major victory.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe significance of women as a new and powerful political force is demonstrated by the overwhelming margin of passage of the ERA,\u2019 said Rep. Bella Abzug, D-N.Y., co-chairwoman of the caucus.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe caucus is now urging women in all states to maintain the momentum by pressuring for ratification in their state legislatures.<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2018Forgive them, Father, they know not what they do,\u2019 said Sen. Sam Ervin, D-N.C., in concluding his unsuccessful fight for a host of amendments. This brought a hiss from around the gallery which was dominated by women three to one.<\/p>\n

\u2026\u201cErvin, who led the opposition alone through three days of debate, said the amendment will create chaos in the nation\u2019s legal system.<\/p>\n

\u201cBut the proponents said this simple language of the amendment means equal legal treatment of men as well as women: \u2018Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.\u2019<\/p>\n

\u201cErvin contended all laws requiring a father to support his legitimate or illegitimate children would be stricken from the books.<\/p>\n

\u201cBut the amendment\u2019s floor manager Sen. Birch Bayh, D-Ind., said: \u2018Most fathers have the primary responsibility of supporting their children not because they are fathers, not because they are men, but because they are the primary source of their family\u2019s income.\u2019<\/p>\n

\u201cErvin said the amendment means the end of laws guaranteeing separate restrooms. Bayh said there are ample constitutional safeguards for this sort of privacy.<\/p>\n

\u201cErvin saw the amendment as a blow to states\u2019 rights. \u2018State legislatures will be meaningless zeroes on the map of the nation,\u2019 he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cSen. Marlow Cook, R-Ky., said: \u2018I was not aware states maintained their power by legislating discriminating laws against women.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

This historical news article reports the defeat of an amendment to the ERA by Sen. Sam Ervin, D-N.C., that would have exempted women from the draft.<\/p>\n

\"Senate<\/a>
Mobile Register (Mobile, Alabama), 22 March 1972, page 25<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

According to this news article:<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2018I believe if women want equal rights they should have them all the way,\u2019 said Sen. Charles Percy, R-Ill.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn effect, senators declined the advice of the Armed Services Committee chairman, Sen. John Stennis, D-Miss., who said the women\u2019s rights amendment would create \u2018great doubt, chaos and confusion\u2019 with the draft and in the military.<\/p>\n

\u201cSen. Sam Ervin, D-N.C., proposed the draft exemption as an amendment to the women\u2019s rights measure. But he urged his colleagues to vote against it \u2018if they believe in their heart that women should be drafted and sent into combat where they will be slaughtered and maimed by the bayonets, bombs, bullets, grenades, napalm and poison gas of the enemy.\u2019<\/p>\n

\u201cSen. Birch Bayh, D-Ind., manager of the amendment, did not deny women might see combat duty.<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2018If the country needs them I see no alternative but to require their services,\u2019 he said, and they \u2018will answer the call.\u2019<\/p>\n

\u201cHowever, Bayh said, women would be eligible for all service benefits and be assigned as commanders see fit, just as men.<\/p>\n

\u201cMothers could be exempted by federal law if the amendment passed, Bayh continued. And in any event the number of women drafted and assigned to combat duty, if the draft continued, \u2018would be significantly less than one per cent,\u2019 he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis would be because some of them could not pass required physical tests such as doing push-ups.\u201d<\/p>\n

This editorial from an Ohio newspaper supports the ERA and urges immediate passage by the state legislature.<\/p>\n

\"editorial<\/a>
Plain Dealer (Cleveland, Ohio), 26 March 1972, page 40<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

This editorial states:<\/p>\n

\u201cClearly, the equal rights amendment\u2019s day has come.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn many states there still are, in 1972, legal restrictions on women buying or selling property or conducting businesses.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere still are laws setting different ages at which men and women attain legal majority or become eligible for retirement. Some states still have different jail sentences on the books for men and women convicted of identical crimes.<\/p>\n

\u201cWork laws and unemployment compensation requirements still treat pregnancy differently from other temporary physical disabilities. Alimony and child-custody laws are notoriously discriminatory.<\/p>\n

\u2026\u201cIt would be well for Ohio\u2019s image and prestige if the state legislature acts immediately to ratify the prospective 27th<\/sup> Amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n

This editorial from an Alabama newspaper opposes the ERA.<\/p>\n

\"editorial<\/a>
Mobile Register (Mobile, Alabama), 23 March 1972, page 4<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

This editorial states:<\/p>\n

\u201cWere the \u2018Women\u2019s Rights\u2019 scheme made part of the federal Constitution, it would deprive women of exemption from military service, of safeguards (dearly won over the past two centuries) against bad conditions and hours of labor, and of benefits at law they now enjoy as mothers, wives, and widows. This is liberation?<\/p>\n

\u201cSenator Ervin endeavored in committee to substitute a proposal that would have prevented this eroding of women\u2019s real present rights, and would have recognized physiological and functional differences between the male and female. He was beaten down by his timid or demagogic colleagues, who feared retaliation by the Women\u2019s Liberation zealots.\u201d<\/p>\n

This article reports the opinions of women in Portland, Oregon, who opposed the ERA.<\/p>\n

\"Women<\/a>
Oregonian (Portland, Oregon), 23 March 1972, page 64<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

According to this historical newspaper article:<\/p>\n

\u201cWashington\u2014The Senate vote Wednesday on an equal rights amendment for women sparked a flurry of long distance telephone calls from the Portland area to Sen. Mark Hatfield, R-Ore.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe calls came from women who voiced strong concern with the amendment\u2019s effect on moral values.<\/p>\n

\u201cHatfield staff members said the approximately 30 calls they received was the greatest number on a single issue since the vote on the supersonic transport.<\/p>\n

\u2026\u201c\u2018They were mostly worried the amendment will destroy family life and would force women into a role they didn\u2019t want,\u2019 said Lyn Jenks, who fielded the calls for Hatfield.\u201d<\/p>\n

Historical newspapers<\/a> are not only a great way to learn about the lives of your ancestors \u2013 they also help you understand American history and the times your ancestors lived in, and the news they talked about and read in their local papers. Did any of your ancestors get involved in the fight \u2013 for or against \u2013 the ERA? Please share your stories with us in the comments.<\/p>\n

Related Articles:<\/strong><\/p>\n