What are the main arguments against the Equal Rights Amendment?

1. Summary of the results

The main arguments against the Equal Rights Amendment fall into several distinct categories, ranging from procedural concerns to ideological opposition. The most prominent historical opposition came from conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, who campaigned against the ERA in the 1970s with specific concerns about its societal implications ^[1]. Schlafly argued that the ERA would dismantle financial support for women as legal dependents of their husbands and would lead to gender-neutral bathrooms, same-sex marriage, and women in military combat ^[2]. A key component of her opposition was that the ERA would take away women's exemption from the military draft ^[1].

Contemporary opposition appears to stem from two primary sources: religious organizations like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which opposes women's equality, and corporate America, which allegedly makes billions of dollars each year from paying women less than men and charging them more ^[3]. Some opponents express concerns that the ERA would strengthen abortion rights, though this may not be the primary motivation behind the opposition ^[3].

Procedural and legal arguments form another significant category of opposition. The Trump administration's Office of Legal Counsel argued that the seven-year time limit for ratification had expired, making the amendment no longer pending before the states ^[2]. Legal experts contend that ratification isn't straightforward, citing that ratification deadlines lapsed and five states have rescinded their approval, raising questions about presidential authority to ratify an amendment more than 50 years after it first passed Congress ^[4].

Some feminists themselves have expressed concerns that the ERA could undermine programs designed to benefit women, such as single-sex sports or shelters serving female survivors of intimate-partner violence ^[2]. There are also worries about the potential elimination of sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, sports teams, and schools ^[2].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal significant procedural complexity surrounding the ERA that often gets overlooked in public discourse. The Archivist of the United States has declined to certify the amendment due to established legal and procedural decisions, despite President Biden's statement that the ERA is "the law of the land" ^[5]. The Archivist maintains that the Equal Rights Amendment cannot be certified without further action by Congress or the courts ^[6].

However, there's a competing legal perspective arguing that all constitutional requirements have been met and that the deadline for ratification is not binding, suggesting the Archivist can and should publish the ERA ^[7]. The Biden administration believes the best path forward is for Congress to lift the deadline to eliminate the risk of legal challenge ^[6].

The historical context shows that opponents to the ERA have evolved over the past century ^[1], indicating that opposition arguments have shifted and adapted over time. Some scholars argue that the present resurgence of textualism puts at risk past precedent protecting gender equality under the law, making the ERA more necessary than ever ^[1].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself appears neutral and seeks factual information rather than making claims. However, the analyses reveal potential bias in how ERA opposition is characterized by different sources. One source suggests that concerns about abortion rights are not the primary motivation behind ERA opposition ^[3], potentially downplaying legitimate ideological concerns held by some opponents.

There's also a notable disparity in how sources characterize the motivations of ERA opponents. While some sources present opposition arguments as legitimate policy concerns about military service, sports, and facilities, others characterize opposition as primarily driven by religious organizations opposing women's equality and corporate interests profiting from gender discrimination ^[3]. This framing could oversimplify complex constitutional and social concerns.

The procedural arguments about ratification deadlines and state rescissions represent genuine legal complexities rather than mere obstructionism, yet some sources may present these as technical barriers rather than substantive constitutional questions. The fact that the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly prohibit discrimination or guarantee equal rights on the basis of sex or gender ^[1] underscores the legitimate constitutional debate surrounding this issue, regardless of one's position on the ERA itself.