As President Joe Biden approaches the twilight of his presidency, he has chosen a peculiar and legally questionable hill to stand on: the resurrection of the long-dead Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). On January 17th, Biden issued a statement proclaiming the ERA as the “28th Amendment” to the Constitution, despite its ratification having expired 43 years ago. This move, accompanied by the assertion that the amendment is now the “law of the land,” has ignited a firestorm of debate and criticism.

For a president who has spent years emphasizing the importance of the “rule of law,” this declaration appears not only frivolous but also an alarming departure from constitutional norms. Critics argue it demonstrates either a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional processes or a deliberate attempt to undermine them for political gain.

The ERA was designed to ensure that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” At first glance, this language may seem harmless, even commendable. However, the implications of the amendment-if it were ever to be enacted-extend far beyond its surface appeal.

Proponents of the ERA have long argued that it would solidify gender equality in areas such as pay, education, and employment. Opponents, however, warn that its sweeping language could erase necessary and reasonable distinctions between men and women in law and policy. For instance, the ERA could dismantle protections for pregnant and nursing mothers in the workplace, eliminate sex-segregated spaces such as bathrooms and locker rooms, and even challenge the exemption of women from the military draft.

One of the most controversial potential consequences of the ERA would be........

© Blitz