Georgina Burros 10 In 1776 Abigail Adams sent a letter to her husband, the future second U.S.

President John Adams, as he participated in the Continental Congress. Mrs. Adams wrote that, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestorsIf particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation (Letter from Abigail Adams). Despite her plea, women were not granted rights in the Constitution, and it was nearly 150 years before women took constitutional action to ensure themselves equal rights. The Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution was initially proposed in 1923 and states 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 (Eisler and Hixson VIII). However, it took another half century before the ERA was fully considered by Congress, and eventually it fell three states short of the three-fourths majority or 38 states required. The Equal Rights Amendment failed to ensure gender equality through constitutional reform, due to society's different perspectives of gender roles and fears regarding the actual impact of the amendment, but still led to advancements for women's rights in the U.S. The effort to add an ERA to the Constitution was triggered by womans rights suffragist Alice Paul. Even after passage of the 19th Amendment adopted in 1920 and guaranteeing women the right to vote, Paul believed another step was needed to ensure womens rights (United States National Archives). In 1923, Paul drafted the ERA to ensure that women would be free of discrimination against them because of their sex (United States National Archives). The ERA was first introduced into Congress that same year but failed, and was re-introduced into Congress annually for over 40 consecutive years, never receiving a vote (Eisler and Hixson 20).

Georgina Burros 10 The ERA never became a main priority of Congress that over time had to deal with the Great Depression, World War II, the Civil Rights Movement, and other national, political and economic issues that were perceived as more important concerns. Many U.S. senators, members of the House of Representatives, and state legislators believed that the 19th Amendment, the Equal Pay Act of 1964, and similar amendments adopted by individual states were enough to defend women's rights (Congress 26). The ERA was also opposed by the labor union movement, which feared that it could threaten laws protecting women working in nursing and other occupations (Gladstone). Although there had been many efforts to convince Congress to hear the ERA, it was repeatedly dismissed without any action by the House Judiciary Committee (Congress 4). ERA lobbyists used several tactics including interviewing Members of Congress on their views of women's rights and publicizing celebrity endorsements. In the 1950s and 1960s, high profile supporters included President Eisenhower, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Vice President Richard Nixon. During his campaign for President in 1960, Nixon said that women in America are not "second-class citizens" and must not be forced to struggle for equal rights (Nixon). According to Raine Eisler and Allie C. Hixson: Proponents of the ERA sometimes have a hard difficulty getting across the fact that women are legally second-class citizens (11). Lobbyists also sought to prove to America that women were discriminated against because homemakers that did not have protection if they became widows. However, society was not listening to the lobbyists themselves, causing them to rely on the celebrity endorsements (TwentyFour Little Words). Despite these high profile endorsements, longtime House Judiciary Committee Chairman Emanuel Cellar refused to schedule any hearings (Gladstone). This unequal action

Georgina Burros 10 angered ERA supporters who did not approve of the gender constraints Cellar imposed by not allowing a fair hearing of the ERA. Finally in 1970, Congresswoman Martha Griffiths decided to take courageous action (Congress 2). Griffiths demanded that the ERA be given priority instead of receiving the usual dismissive attitude (1). She gathered ERA supporters in Congress and created a discharge petition demanding that the ERA receive a full vote (1). The leaders of her own party, the Democrats, doubted that she could collect the 218 signatures she needed for a vote. Griffiths said that Democratic leader Hale Boggs of Louisiana: Promised to sign as Number 200, convinced that I would never make it. You may be sure that when I had Number 199 signed up, I rushed to his office, and Hale Boggs became Number 200. (United States National Archives). Griffiths collected the necessary 218 signatures and the Judiciary Committee was forced to discharge the ERA for a full House vote, the first legislative success of the ERAs long history. (United States National Archives) Though the ERA was approved by Congress with overwhelming support, passing the House 352 to 15 and the Senate 84 to 8, some conservative senators and representatives were opposed, particularly from the South. These opponents were described as old white men who did not believe in equal rights for women and opposed the ERA in dramatic terms (Twenty-Four Little Words). Seventy five year old Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina introduced nine amendments to protect womens 'traditional' rights and roles in society, and to keep society from 'suffering' the impacts the ERA would have on the family (Congress 11). Ervin and other opponents in Congress believed that the ERA could lead to women being drafted for military combat on the same basis as men, gender integration of prisons with limited protection for privacy between the genders, ban single sex organizations like the Girl Scouts, force unisex

Georgina Burros 10 bathrooms, and allow homosexual marriages (Boles 33). Other concerns were more practical, such as women paying the same fees for life insurance, despite the fact that on average they live longer than men, and reducing social security benefits for women who had not had a wage paying job (Twenty-Four Little Words). The most comprehensive amendment to protect traditional gender roles was called the Hayden Rider, which stated that passage of the ERA "shall not be construed to impair any rights, benefits, or exemptions now or hereafter conferred by law upon persons of the female sex" (National Women's Party). The opposition amendments were all defeated, but they conveyed to American society that the ERA would mean complete equality between men and women, with no benefits or exemptions based on gender, causing a large percentage of society to reconsider their opinion, and possibly find the ERA objectionable. Those same arguments of assumed gender roles in society would be used by ERA opponents later in the state ratification process. The historic success in Congress for the ERA thrilled almost all of its supporters except one, Alice Paul. ERA supporter and future Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney sat next to Paul as the final House vote was taken, and said that the women's rights pioneer cried because she feared that the ERA as passed would eventually fail (Twenty-Four Little Words). Paul believed that Congress' seven year deadline was not enough time for ratification and that pro-ERA groups were not adequately prepared for the ratification process. They did not have enough resources and supporters in state legislatures and did not realize that previous amendments had taken several years of preplanning and were passed by Congress with no deadlines for ratification (Twenty-Four Little Words). This later proved to be a key problem in the equality struggle. The leading pro-ERA organizations like National Organization for Women (NOW), National Women's Party (NWP), and Happiness of Women (HOW) mobilized to address the

Georgina Burros 10 enormous challenge of state ratification. However, many ERA supporters were optimistic that state legislators would vote for the ERA as 57% percent of Americans supported the ERA in 1972, and a 'mere' 24% were opposed. ERA supporters also believed that the 19% who were 'undecided' could be convinced to vote for the ERA (Boles 102). Public opinion polling conducted in 1975 and 1976 showed that support remained strong, as 58% favored ratification of the ERA, and 24% opposed it (Gillis). Such high levels of support led ERA supporters to believe that the amendment could be passed without struggle. To become part of the Constitution, any amendment must be passed by a clear three fourths majority or 38 of the states. After winning in Congress, pro-ERA groups immediately began convincing state legislators to ratify, spending their limited funding on conventions and marches in states thought to support equal rights, and produced a newspaper called Equal Rights to keep women informed on events for the ERA (Krafchik). Many womens organizations used funding of $100,000 per each organization per year for state conventions supporting the ERA (Boles 65). Hawaii was the first state to ratify, within two hours after the ERA was passed by Congress, and three more states followed the next day. By the end of the 1972 a total of 22 states had ratified, and by March 22 1973, exactly one year after the ERA was passed by Congress, 30 states had ratified. (Schlafly). The leading pro-ERA organizations were less effective in convincing remaining states to ratify; however, as only five more states approved the ERA after 1973. Judy Carter, the pro ERA daughter of President Jimmy Carter, described the proERA side as less organized compared to the opposition, who represented a smaller percent of women but were more effectively organized in the key remaining and mostly Southern states (Klemesrud). NOW held conventions in states that had already ratified, not in states that were still considering ratification, a fatal mistake that

Georgina Burros 10 partially contributed to the failure of the ERA (O'Connor). The pro-ERA side was also exclusive in terms of membership, and mostly consisted of white middle and upper class women, so they missed out on potential additional support from African American, Hispanic, and other minority women (Twenty-Four Little Words). Most importantly, pro-ERA groups left the Southern states until 1977, two years before the original 1979 deadline, even though they knew from the beginning that it would be more challenging to get them to ratify (Hunter). This mistake left ERA lobbyists with a tough decision: keep using the tactics they already had, or strive for an extension. As the 1979 ratification deadline neared, more than 100,000 ERA supporters chose to attend the July 8, 1978 'March on Washington' intended to put more pressure on Congress for an extension. The rally helped win the extension but also took resources away from organization in states that had not ratified (Herbers). By 1978, 35 states had ratified, the last one being Indiana (Eisler and Hixson V.I.) ERA supporters focused on the states of Florida, North Carolina, Illinois and Nevada to get the final three needed for full ratification (Hunter). In each of these states, however, the ERA lost support over time. The ERA was passed by the House in both Florida and North Carolina, but failed in each by two votes to pass the state Senate, as legislators who said they were supporters changed their minds at the last minute (Hunter). Many anti-ERA groups described the ERA as a dead amendment (Schlafly). Historians argue that the outcome might have been different if ERA supporters had focused on states like Florida and North Carolina in 1973 instead of 1978 (De Hart and Matthews Preface). Pro-ERA groups also did not anticipate the opposition they would encounter from antiERA groups who mobilized more quickly, had an effective leader and spokesperson, and were

Georgina Burros 10 more focused in their main goals to defeat the ERA (Klemesrud). Most prominent of all the ERA opponent organizations was Phyllis Schlaflys STOP ERA, created as soon as the ERA passed Congress in 1972. (Boles 68). Schlafly was a conservative Republican who played a key role in convincing, spreading the message, and recruiting volunteer staff in states where the ERA had not been ratified. Unlike the pro-ERA groups, STOP ERA focused almost entirely on state legislators in the mostly Southern, conservative states that did not quickly ratify. Other opposition groups such as the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, and the John Birch Society joined with STOP ERA to argue that the ERA would drastically change traditional gender roles (The Church and the Proposed Equal Rights Amendment). State legislators in the states that had not ratified received opposition group warnings that women would have to financially support themselves, and not rely on their husbands (Congress 24). The Catholic Church and other religious groups claimed that ERA would grant abortion funding to women, and it would be considered discrimination to not give them abortion rights (TwentyFour Little Words). The Mormon Church also feared the ERA would promote abortion and threaten the traditional family, and set a precedent that could lead to other anti-family decisions (The Church and the Proposed Equal Rights Amendment) Religious organizations and other opponents of ERA were particularly alarmed by the controversial 1973 Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision that protected access to abortion (O'Connor). The Roe v. Wade case was used to argue against the ERA by opponents such as Senator Ervin, who became famous as the Chairman of the Watergate hearings that began in1973. Ervin used his newly gained national respect to criticize the Roe v. Wade decision and raise concerns that the ERA threatened the traditional role of women in society (De Hart and Matthews 193).

Georgina Burros 10 Support would have increased in the remaining states and within their state legislatures if the ERA lobbyists had better explained the impact, instead of simply stating that the ERA would not allow discrimination against women (Mansbridge 5). According to NOW and other pro-ERA groups, the ERA meant that women would be able to manage their wages, property and bodies independently without male help, causing society to believe that women wanted to be treated exactly like men and adding to the uncertainty raised by opponents about the possible impacts of ratification (Berry 31). Being considered a man was frightening for those Southern women who respected the assumed traditional roles of women in American society. (Twenty-Four Little Words). Fear of the impact of the ERA on family and daily life slowed the ERA's path as it neared the 1979 deadline. In 1978, as the pro-ERA side went to Congress to demand an extension of the 1979 deadline, public opinion polls indicated that support was not as overwhelming as in 1972, when the ERA was first passed. Support for ERA ratification fell most in the fifteen states rejecting ratification, below 50% in 1978 and to 44% in 1980 (Bolce, De Maio, and Muzzio 561). ProERA Members of Congress accepted an extension of three years and three months, to June 30 1982, which was less time than they had hoped for to place true supporters of the amendment into the legislatures that had not ratified. The U.S. House of Representatives approved the extension with a vote of 233 to 189, and the Senate by a vote of 60 to 36, both with much smaller majorities than in 1972 (United States National Archives). Anti-ERA groups believed this extension would not provide enough time to get three more states to ratify. They continued their campaign against ratification, and also went to states that had passed the ERA by one or two votes and tried to convince them to rescind their ratification. Five states did rescind, namely Kentucky, Tennessee, South Dakota, Nebraska, and

Georgina Burros 10 Idaho, partially due to the antiERA groups time, money, and effort spent on lobbying these legislators to maintain traditional gender roles and rights in America (Hunter). Many groups targeted specific states to take back their ratification, for example the Mormon Church encouraged California legislators to reconsider California's vote (Twenty-Four Little Words). Despite the efforts by pro-ERA forces, no state beyond the first 35 ratified the ERA after 1978, still three states short when the final deadline came on June 30, 1982, even with the five states that had rescinded included in the total. The failure was due to a number of reasons. ERA supporters lacked the organizational skills and did not have an effective strategy to make the ERA a constitutional amendment. Pro-ERA groups did not have focused objectives in the final states required for ratification and did not effectively communicate to American society that the ERA would simply prevent discrimination toward women, and not impose changes in the daily life of society. Opponents were more effectively organized and took advantage of fear and confusion over what the ERA would actually do (Twenty-Four Little Words). The ERA's simple wording was also a problem, since it led to fears that the Supreme Court would constantly have to decide how it should be applied to daily life (Eisler and Hixson 24). Even though the ERA failed, it made history and contributed to women's rights. The ERA was the first proposed amendment in post-Civil war history that was passed by Congress but failed to achieve ratification (Steiner 3). The effort to pass the ERA brought millions of women together to fight for a cause and raised the profile of women and gender equality through the efforts to promote constitutional reform. For the pro-ERA side, the reaction was heartbreak but the fighting spirit survived. Eleanor Smeal, President of NOW at the time, addressed a NOW rally in Lafayette Park opposite the White House on the deadline day of June 30, 1982 and described the failure as an opportunity to become a more powerful political force. Smeal said

Georgina Burros 10 that: We are a majority. We are determined to play majority politics...We are not going to be reduced again to the ladies' auxiliary (Gladstone). Smeal added that the ERA organizations had been receiving donations of up to $1 million dollars per month, and many supporters were beginning to sue discriminatory organizations (Group to Distribute the Text of Equal Rights Amendment). Even though the ERA failed, women on both sides of the issue became more politically active. From the 1970 to 1990, the number of women in the House increased from 13 to 30, though just two to three in the Senate (Amer 82). Looking ahead another 20 years to the current Congress elected in November 2010, 72 women serve in the House and 17 serve in the Senate, and in 2006 Rep. Nancy Pelosi became the first ever women House Speaker, the third highest political position in the U.S. (86). The effort to pass the ERA forced American society to examine traditional gender roles. Two centuries after Abigail Adams made her request for equal rights for women, that movement has not died and the dream of American women to be treated equally continues. The ERA was re-introduced into Congress in June 2011, again recognizing the importance of womens long struggle for equality. The ERA's introduction into Congress also refreshed the dream that many women believe shall never die and will continue until the next generations of women do not have to fight to be recognized as first class citizens in the United States of America.

Georgina Burros 10 Works Cited Primary: Congress. Congress & the Equal Rights Amendment. Congressional Digest Fiftieth Year (Jan. 1971). Letter from Abigail Adams to John Adams, 31 March - 5 April 1776. The Massachusetts Historical Society. N.p. Web. 22 Nov. 2011. <http://www.masshist.org////.cfm?id=L17760331aa>. National Womens Party. Why We Do Not Want the Hayden Rider. N.p. The National Womens Party, 1961. Nixon, Richard. Statement by Vice President Richard Nixon - September 2, 1960 on Equal Rights for Women. O'Connor, Karen. Telephone Interview. 4 Nov. 2011. Secondary: Amer, Mildred. Women in the United States Congress: 1917-2008. CRS Report for Congress. U.S. Congress, July 23, 2008. Berry, Mary Frances. Why ERA Failed. Ed. Joan Hoff-Wilson and Susan Grubar. Indianapolis: Indiana UP, 1986. Bolce, Louis, De Maio, Gerald, and Muzzio, Douglas. The Equal Rights Amendment, Public Opinion, & American Constitutionalism. Polity 19 .No. 4 (1987): 551-569.

Georgina Burros 10 Boles, Janet. The Politics of the Equal Rights Amendment. New York: Longman, 1979. De Hart, Jane Sherron, and Matthews, Donald G. Sex, Gender, and Politics of ERA. New York; Oxford: Oxford UP, 1990. Eisler, Riane, and Hixson, Allie C. Short History of the Equal Rights Amendment. The ERA Facts and Action Guide. N.p.: National Womens Conference Committee, 1986. Gillis, Phillis Public Backs Female Rights, Would Split over Abortion Law. N.p.: Gallup International Research Institution, 1976. Group to Distribute the Text of Equal Rights Amendment. The New York Times 2 Dec. 1981. Herbers, John. Equal Rights Amendment Is Mired In Confused and Emotional Debate. The New York Times 27 Nov. 1978: 1. Hunter, Marjorie. "Lobbyists for Equal Rights Amendment Focus on 4 States." The New York Times 27 Nov. 1978: n. pag. Print. Klemesrud, Judy. Judy Carter: Trouble Shooter for the Equal Rights Amendment. The New York Times 8 Nov. 1977: S7. Krafchik, Jennifer. Equal Rights Newspapers Overview. Sewall Belmont House & Museum. Sewall Belmont House & Museum, n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2011. <http://www.sewallbelmont.org//rights-newspapers/>. Mansbridge, Jane J. Why We Lost the ERA. Chicago; London: U of Chicago P, 1986. Twenty-Four Little Words: The Story of the Equal Rights Amendment. Karen O Connor. 2008. Documentary film with interviews of leading ERA figures.

Georgina Burros 10 Steiner, Gilbert Y. Chapter 1. Constitutional Inequality. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1985. Schlafly, Phyllis. A Short History of E.R.A. Eagle Forum: The Phyllis Schlafly Report. N.p., 1986. Web. 22 Sept. 2011. <http://www.eagleforum.org///86/.html>. The Church and the Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: A Moral Issue. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. March 1980. Web. 16 Dec 2011. <http://lds.org/ensign/1980/03/the-church-and-the-proposed-equal-rights-amendment-amoral-issue?lang=eng>. The Long Road to Equality: What Women Won from the ERA Ratification Effort. Library of Congress. U.S. Government, n.d. Web. 17 Dec. 2011. <http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/aw03e/aw03e.html>. United States National Archives. Martha Griffiths and the Equal Rights Amendment. National Archives. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2011. <http://www.archives.gov///>.