Some Women Opposed The Equal Rights Amendment Because

The Equal Rights Amendment(ERA) sparked intense debate throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, drawing passionate supporters who saw it as a necessary step toward gender equality and equally fervent opponents who warned of unintended consequences. While many women championed the amendment as a safeguard against discrimination, a notable segment of women actively resisted its ratification. Understanding why some women opposed the Equal Rights Amendment requires examining the social, cultural, economic, and political currents that shaped their perspectives at the time.

Historical Background of the ERA

First introduced in Congress in 1923 by suffragist Alice Paul, the Equal Rights Amendment sought to guarantee 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.” After decades of limited progress, the amendment gained renewed momentum in the 1970s following the women’s liberation movement. Congress passed the ERA in 1972, sending it to the states for ratification with a seven‑year deadline (later extended to 1982). By 1977, 35 of the required 38 states had ratified the amendment, but opposition stalled further progress, ultimately preventing its adoption.

Core Concerns Raised by Women Opponents

1. Fear of Losing Protective Legislation

Many women who opposed the ERA argued that the amendment would erase existing laws designed to protect women in the workplace and at home. These protective statutes included:

• Limits on working hours for women in certain industries
• Maternity leave provisions that guaranteed job security after childbirth
• Restrictions on hazardous occupations deemed unsuitable for women

Opponents contended that a blanket guarantee of equality would force courts to strike down these safeguards, leaving women vulnerable to exploitation. They believed that true equality required recognizing biological and social differences rather than ignoring them.

2. Concerns About Family Structure and Traditional Roles

A significant portion of ERA resistance stemmed from worries that the amendment would undermine traditional family dynamics. Critics warned that legal equality could be used to:

• Challenge laws that favored mothers in custody disputes
• Eliminate alimony and child support obligations that many women relied on after divorce
• Pressurize women to enter the workforce regardless of personal preference or family needs

For many, the family was seen as a foundational institution where complementary roles benefited both partners. They feared that the ERA would impose a one‑size‑fits‑all model that disregarded individual choices and cultural values.

3. Religious and Moral ObjectionsReligious groups, including many Catholic and evangelical Protestant organizations, mobilized women to oppose the ERA on moral grounds. Key arguments included:

• The amendment might facilitate the expansion of abortion rights by removing legal distinctions that could restrict access.
• It could weaken laws that prohibited same‑sex marriage or other practices deemed contrary to religious teachings.
• Some viewed the ERA as part of a broader secular agenda that threatened traditional moral frameworks.

These concerns resonated with women who prioritized faith‑based values over legislative gender neutrality.

4. Economic Arguments and Labor Market Fears

Opponents also raised practical economic worries. They argued that eliminating sex‑based distinctions could lead to:

• Increased competition for jobs that had historically been male‑dominated, potentially lowering wages for women entering those fields. * Loss of gender‑specific benefits such as pension plans that accounted for longer female life expectancies.
• Unintended consequences in industries where physical strength differences were relevant, possibly raising safety concerns.

These arguments appealed to women who were wary of sudden, sweeping changes that might disrupt their livelihoods or those of their peers.

5. Political Strategy and Perceived Redundancy

Some women believed the ERA was unnecessary because existing legislation already addressed gender discrimination. They pointed to:

• The Equal Pay Act of 1963
• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited sex discrimination in employment
• Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which tackled discrimination in education

From this viewpoint, the ERA was seen as a redundant symbolic measure that could provoke backlash without delivering tangible benefits. Additionally, certain political operatives feared that a prolonged battle over the amendment would divert energy from other pressing issues such as healthcare, education reform, or welfare policy.

The Role of Prominent Female Leaders in Opposition

Phyllis Schlafly emerged as the most visible face of anti‑ERA activism. Through her organization, Stop ERA, she rallied thousands of women across the nation, framing the amendment as a threat toprivileges they valued. Schlafly’s campaign emphasized:

• The potential loss of exemptions from the military draft for women
• The risk of unisex public restrooms and other facilities that some found uncomfortable
• The idea that the amendment would empower feminists to pursue a radical agenda beyond simple equality Her ability to connect with grassroots women—particularly homemakers, religious adherents, and those skeptical of feminist rhetoric—helped sustain opposition long after the initial congressional push.

Impact of the Opposition on the ERA’s Fate

The concerted resistance led by women opponents played a decisive role in the ERA’s ultimate failure to achieve ratification before the 1982 deadline. By shifting public perception, influencing state legislators, and generating sustained media coverage, the opposition transformed what began as a bipartisan effort into a polarizing cultural battle. Even after the deadline expired, the debate left a lasting imprint on American politics, influencing subsequent discussions about women’s rights, workplace equality, and the balance between protective legislation and gender neutrality.

Frequently Asked QuestionsDid all women oppose the ERA? No. While a significant number of women voiced opposition, many others—especially those involved in the feminist movement, labor unions, and progressive advocacy groups—strongly supported the amendment as a vital tool for ending systemic discrimination.

Would the ERA have eliminated all protective laws for women?
Legal scholars remain divided. Some argue that courts could have interpreted the amendment to allow for substantive equality, permitting laws that address genuine disparities. Others contend that a strict reading would have required the removal of any sex‑based distinctions, including protective measures.

Is the ERA still relevant today?
Yes. Efforts to revive the ERA continue, with advocates arguing that a constitutional guarantee is necessary to safeguard gains made through statutes that could be more easily repealed or weakened. Recent ratifications by Nevada (2017), Illinois (2018), and Virginia (2020) have renewed national conversation, though legal questions about the original deadline persist.

How did opposition to the ERA shape later feminist strategies?
The experience taught activists the importance of addressing concerns about family, religion, and economic security when advocating for broad equality measures. Modern campaigns often emphasize intersectionality and seek to frame gender equality as complementary to, rather than antagonistic toward, traditional values.

Conclusion

The opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment among certain women was not a monolithic stance but a mosaic of fears, values, and strategic calculations rooted in the social realities of the 1970s and 80s. Concerns about losing protective workplace laws, preserving family structures, adhering to religious beliefs, avoiding economic

continue the article seamlessly would reveal how these debates continue to shape contemporary discussions on equality and policy reform. The legacy of the ERA battle underscores the delicate balance between protecting individual rights and respecting diverse societal norms. As new generations engage with these issues, the conversation around the amendment serves as a reminder of the power of dialogue in driving legislative change. Ultimately, the fight for the ERA reflects broader struggles over identity, justice, and the evolving understanding of rights in a diverse nation. Understanding this history offers valuable insight into the challenges and possibilities of advancing gender equality through constitutional means.