Clarification on what the ERA Amendment says and Women legal status

[curious]

The good the bad and the hypocritical
The GOOD
USAID, a key player in this, emphasizes placing local actors and organizations at the forefront of development initiatives, according to SID-US.
USAID's 2023 Gender Equality & Women's Empowerment Policy has four key objectives, including reducing gender disparities, eliminating gender-based violence, increasing women and girls' capabilities, and advancing structural changes that address root causes of gender inequality.
This policy highlights the importance of integrating gender equality across various sectors, recognizing intersectionality, fostering collaboration, and embracing a transformative and locally led approach to development.
USAID supports programs focusing on women's economic security, peace and security, and other initiatives to empower women and girls globally.
However, funding for gender equality and women's empowerment programs has declined in recent years compared to other major donor countries, and the current administration's budget proposal sought significant cuts, according to Together Women Rise.

THE BAD
2. Sterilization and US foreign aid
USAID has a history of involvement in family planning and reproductive health programs, including providing contraceptives.
There have been documented cases of US government involvement in controversial sterilization programs in other countries, such as in Peru between 1993 and 1998, notes the Foundation for Economic Education.
In this period, USAID played a role in funding sterilization programs and effectively took control of Peru's national health system, leading to accusations of involvement in forced sterilizations of indigenous women.
The Helms Amendment, a US law enacted in 1973, prohibits the direct use of US foreign assistance to pay for abortion as a method of family planning or to coerce individuals into practicing abortion.
The Mexico City Policy, another policy that has been in effect under various administrations, has placed restrictions on foreign nongovernmental organizations receiving US funds if they perform or promote abortion services.

the HYPOCRITIAL
Its one thing topromote gender equalityto 3rd world NATIONS
YET THOSE IN POWER IN THE US WILL NOT GO FORWARD AND PROMOTE IT IN THE US ITSELF   THE Refusal to MAKE THE ERA AMENDENT INTO LAW

 



The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly grant the President the power to dictate to other nations' domestic policies how they should govern themselves.. While the President has significant authority in foreign affairs, including negotiating treaties and appointing ambassadors, these powers are not unlimited and must be exercised within the framework of the Constitution and in accordance with international law.
{Something Obuma and Bidden ignored]

[curious]

December 17,2024

Today, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand released the following statement following the archivist’s refusal to certify the Equal Rights Amendment:

“The archivist is correct that she has a responsibility to uphold the law. Unfortunately, by refusing to certify the ERA, she is wrongfully inserting herself into a clear constitutional process, despite the fact that her role is purely ministerial.  

The archivist’s arguments on the ratification process for the Equal Rights Amendment are deeply flawed in multiple ways.

First, the 2022 Office of Legal Counsel memo did not affirm that a deadline was valid and enforceable; rather, it said that the deadline remained an open legal question. Furthermore, it should be obvious that the Trump administration’s 2020 OLC memo was a political document, given its departure from prior OLC opinions and its problematic reliance on superseded and invalid precedent. Clearly, it was issued as an attempt to kill the ERA after it had met the necessary requirements for certification. Finally, the simple truth is that OLC memos are advisory in nature and can easily be disregarded by the current administration.

Second, the statement mischaracterizes the district and circuit court decisions, which did not affirm that the ratification deadlines set by Congress were valid. In reality, the district court found that the parties lacked standing, and the circuit court found that the standard for injunctive relief was not met.

Third, there is no shortage of precedent demonstrating that so-called deadlines in the preamble of legislation—not in the text itself—are inoperative. In fact, the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to set ratification deadlines for amendments at all, nor does it include any timeliness requirement of its own. A previous archivist certified and published an amendment written more than two hundred years before its ratification.

Our argument has strong support from legal experts, twenty-three attorneys general, and the American Bar Association. I continue to urge President Biden to direct the archivist to certify and publish the ERA and enshrine equality for all in the Constitution.”


Here it is in Black and white....an admenment to change over 100 years of discrimination....3/8 of states approved it....the President certifoed it....yet he never remeinded the US National Archivist that it is theor duty to uphold the law and publish the admendment    yet in her 2023 Confirmation hearing she stated her prejudice against the ERA: "...During the hearings, Shogan stated that she would not publish the Equal Rights Amendment as part of the United States Constitution, stating that the job of the archivist is to publish constitutional amendments following proper ratification, not to decide when an amendment is published, in line with a Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel memo on the subject in January 2020.[14] Shogan's views were criticized by the ERA Coalition..."

[curious]

Ignoring real-world benefits: Proponents argue that the ERA would have strengthened legal protections against discrimination and furthered women's rights and gender equality in various aspects of American life, including areas like pay and pregnancy discrimination and gender-based violence.
Distorting the amendment's purpose: Critics are accused of creating "half-truths and distortions" about the ERA's potential impacts, diverting attention from the amendment's core goal of guaranteeing equal rights for all citizens regardless of sex.
Focusing on secondary issues: Some argue that opponents deliberately shifted the focus to controversial issues like abortion to derail the ERA's passage, even though the amendment itself wasn't primarily about reproductive rights

[curious]

Incidenetly there is  fine line between lying and SIMPLISTIC STEROTYPE propropganda which ignores facts in view of one self centered view point
ExampleS 1937-1973 tERRY AND THE pIRATES AND  1947-1988 boring Steve cANYON pRO us BEATING THE ussr EVERY TIME Anti-Communist: The strip, especially during the height of the Cold War, often featured plots involving Steve Canyon and his allies battling Communist forces and spies. Several sources highlight how Caniff's work, including Steve Canyon, evolved to reflect and support the prevailing anti-communist ideology in the U.S. during the Cold War. Anti-Communist: The strip, especially during the height of the Cold War, often featured plots involving Steve Canyon and his allies battling Communist forces and spies. Several sources highlight how Caniff's work, including Steve Canyon, evolved to reflect and support the prevailing anti-communist ideology in the U.S. during the Cold War.

Speaking of Lies one should not reply on pseudo quackery science
First of all, what's blood quantum?

Blood quantum simply is the amount of "Indian blood" that an individual possesses. The federal government, and specifically the Department of the Interior, issues what is called a "Certified Degree of Indian Blood," and that is a card similar to an ID card. So the way that blood quantum is calculated is by using tribal documents, and usually it's a tribal official or a government official that calculates it.

But really it's a mathematical equation. So the quantum is a fraction of blood that is derived going back to the original enrollees of a tribe who were counted on Census rolls, and then their blood quantum was documented, and usually those original enrollees had a full blood quantum. Typically.

How did people know that those original enrollees had "full blood quantum"?

Well, they didn't. And that's that's one of the major problems with blood quantum today is that a lot of times, the people taking the rolls were federal government officials who were unfamiliar with Native ways of establishing and defining their own communities.

And so, for example, these officials would mark someone potentially as "full blood" when potentially that person was not. And that assumption was based on their appearance, on their level of cultural involvement with their community.

But a great example for how to understand this problem in real life is that there is a history of freedmen who are black individuals who were living as fully incorporated members of Indian tribes. And when these original roles were taken, oftentimes these freedmen were not included, even though those individuals may be of mixed heritage: black and Indian. Because of their black appearance, they were listed on a separate roll. And today, the ramification is that they do not have that original enrollee [in their past]. They do not have enough blood quantum, and therefore oftentimes cannot be extended tribal membership.
NPR website

Blood quantum, a system of quantifying a person's Native American ancestry, is widely viewed by scholars and critics as a pseudoscientific concept that has caused lasting harm to Indigenous communities.
Here's why:
Colonial origins: Blood quantum was imposed by European colonizers and the U.S. government to define and control Indigenous populations, often for the purpose of allocating land, resources, and rights. It was not a concept that originated within Native Nations.
Lack of scientific basis: The idea that "blood" can be measured and quantified to determine a person's identity or abilities is not supported by science. Critics highlight that when a person has children, their biological features are not simply split in half or quantified, according to the Native Governance Center.
Negative impacts on Indigenous communities:
Divisive and harmful: Blood quantum can create divisions within families and communities, as individuals may not meet the minimum requirements for tribal enrollment despite strong cultural and familial ties.
Threat to sovereignty and survival: Critics argue that blood quantum requirements, combined with high rates of intermarriage and environmental impacts on fertility, could lead to a decline in eligible tribal members and ultimately threaten the survival of Native Nations as sovereign entities, according to the California Law Review.
Strain on relationships and family planning: Blood quantum can impact personal decisions such as dating and marriage, as individuals may feel pressure to find partners with sufficient blood quantum to ensure their children are eligible for tribal enrollment.
Inaccuracies in initial recordings: When the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) began recording blood quantum designations in the 1880s, these amounts were often inaccurate, sometimes based on guesses about a person's physical appearance.
In essence, blood quantum is largely seen as a tool of colonization that has been used to control and diminish Native American identity and sovereignty.

[curious]

How to Identify False Prophets:
Examine their teachings: Do their teachings align with Scripture? Do they distort or reinterpret the Bible to fit their own agenda?
Look at their fruits: Do their actions match their words? Do they exhibit love, humility, and integrity?
Be wary of sensationalism and emotional appeals: False prophets often use emotional appeals and sensational claims to attract followers.
Be cautious of those who add to or subtract from Scripture: True prophets will not add to or take away from God's word.
Be aware of those who deny the deity of Christ: False prophets may deny Jesus' divinity or his role as the Son of God.
Be discerning: Don't blindly accept everything you hear. Test the spirits and seek guidance from God's word.

[curious]

why did phyllis schlafly claim passing the era amendment would result in women being drafted into the Military; promote aboration and legalize homosexual relationships when in fact the ERA (which is remove the disabilty of making women legally interior to men) has still not been legally written into the US Constitution and in rgard to the three terrible things that would happen if this admendment were passed the following results have happened: while no woman has been drafted into the military since 1972 (they voluntary sign up); aboration has been declared legal by the US Supreme Court (although states have the rights to deceide weather ot be Pro life or Pro aboration) and Obama has been the formost advocate of homosexual rights...

Phyllis Schlafly's claims against the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) were a successful political tactic that exploited public anxiety over social change in the 1970s. Her arguments were not based on the legal text of the ERA itself but on painting "worst-case scenarios" and portraying the amendment as a threat to traditional family values and the social status of women.
Schlafly's claims leveraged specific cultural fears at the time, and while her predictions about the ERA proved false, some of the outcomes she feared (like the expansion of abortion and LGBTQ+ rights) have since been achieved through different legal and social pathways.
The claims and the political context of the 1970s
Claim: The ERA would lead to women being drafted into the military
Schlafly's Argument: She painted military conscription for women as a negative outcome that would strip them of their "privileges" and protection, such as exemption from the draft. This argument resonated with many Americans who were skeptical of the Vietnam War and the draft.
The Outcome: The male-only draft was suspended in 1973, shortly after the ERA was sent to the states for ratification. While a military draft has not been implemented since, the debate over registering women continues, with some modern arguments suggesting it's necessary to leverage the full range of talent in a national emergency. It was a powerful anti-ERA talking point because it framed a new responsibility as a loss rather than an expansion of rights.
Claim: The ERA would promote abortion and legalize homosexual relationships
Schlafly's Argument: Schlafly associated the ERA with a broader "moral decline" that she claimed would result from greater sex equality. She explicitly linked the ERA to legal abortion, which had recently been secured nationally by Roe v. Wade (1973), and to the promotion of same-sex marriage. By doing so, she mobilized social conservatives and religious fundamentalists who viewed these issues as threats to "family values".
The Outcome: While the ERA was not needed to advance these rights, the legal victories for abortion and LGBTQ+ rights did occur later through separate court decisions and legislative actions.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) overturned Roe v. Wade, but legal scholars note that a ratified ERA could potentially be used to challenge restrictions on reproductive healthcare.
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) legalized same-sex marriage, and other legal protections for LGBTQ+ people were secured independently of the ERA.
Claim: The ERA would eliminate protections for women
Schlafly's Argument: Schlafly's campaign, called "STOP ERA," which stood for "Stop Taking Our Privileges," framed the ERA as a loss of benefits for women, not a gain in rights. She warned it would eliminate "protective" laws like alimony and the preference given to mothers in child custody battles. This appeal to tradition successfully framed the ERA as a threat to homemakers who depended on these legal protections.
The Outcome: These "privileges," often rooted in discriminatory stereotypes, were viewed by feminists as reinforcing the idea of women as dependent on men. The ERA would have eliminated such sex-based distinctions, treating men and women equally under the law in all respects, not just in employment.
Schlafly's strategy was based on emotion, not law
Ultimately, Schlafly's success lay in shifting the debate from the ERA's legal text, which sought to prohibit sex discrimination, to a cultural battle over gender roles and "family values". Her campaign used fear and worst-case scenarios to portray the amendment as a radical social experiment rather than a legal guarantee of equal rights. This mobilization of conservative opposition is widely credited with derailing the ERA's ratification in the 1970s

Phyllis Schlafly's claims about the ERA's consequences were based on an ideological opposition to feminism and gender-neutral laws, which she argued would harm women by removing legal protections and traditional social structures. Her predictions, while often presented as worst-case scenarios, were central to mobilizing conservative opposition and ultimately stopping the ERA's initial ratification. The current status of military conscription, abortion rights, and same-sex relationships is the result of decades of separate legal and social changes, not the ERA.
The ERA and its ratification status
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has been a subject of legal and political debate for decades, and its constitutional status remains contested.
The ERA was passed by Congress in 1972 and sent to the states for ratification with a seven-year deadline.
The deadline was later extended to 1982, but by that time, only 35 of the required 38 states had ratified it.
Three additional states (Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia) ratified the ERA after the deadline, with Virginia becoming the 38th state in 2020
Despite reaching the 38-state threshold, the ERA has not been legally certified as an amendment to the Constitution due to legal challenges and the expired deadline.
The military draft and women
Schlafly successfully used the draft to frame the ERA as a threat to women's "privileges."
Schlafly's claim: Schlafly's anti-ERA campaign, known as STOP ERA (Stop Taking Our Privileges), argued that an equal rights amendment would subject women to the military draft, removing a special exemption traditionally afforded to them. With the Vietnam War draft still a recent memory, this argument was a powerful way to stoke fear among American women.
Current status: Since 1973, the United States has had an all-volunteer military, and there has been no draft. In 2015, the Department of Defense opened all military occupations to women, including combat roles. There has been ongoing debate and legal action regarding whether women should be required to register for the Selective Service, but Congress and the Supreme Court have so far deferred a final decision.
Abortion rights and the ERA
Schlafly linked the ERA to abortion rights by arguing that legal equality would be used to promote "abortion on demand."
Schlafly's claim: In the context of the 1970s, Schlafly and her supporters predicted that a federal ERA would compel judges to strike down abortion restrictions, leading to "abortion on demand" nationwide.
Current status: Abortion rights in the U.S. have been a separate legal matter determined by Supreme Court precedent, not the ERA.
The Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade established a constitutional right to abortion, which is what led to the nationwide legalization of the procedure, not the ERA.
This precedent was overturned by the Court's 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling, which eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion and returned regulatory power to the states.
Homosexual relationships and the ERA
Schlafly used concerns about family values to suggest the ERA would lead to a broader erosion of traditional norms.
Schlafly's claim: Schlafly claimed the ERA would lead to "coed bathrooms" and the legalization of same-sex marriage by erasing legal distinctions based on sex. For opponents of LGBT rights, this was presented as a feared outcome of radical social change.
Current status: The legalization of same-sex marriage was achieved through decades of advocacy and legal action culminating in the Supreme Court's 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which held that same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. This was a completely separate legal path from the ERA.
Conclusion: Predictive fears vs. historical outcomes
Phyllis Schlafly's claims were successful because they appealed to anxieties about feminism and social change, and framed potential, albeit tenuous, consequences of the ERA as immediate and dire threats. The subsequent outcomes regarding the military, abortion, and marriage equality were driven by independent legal and social shifts. These later developments, even if some aligned with Schlafly's predictions, cannot be used as proof that her logic was sound. Instead, they demonstrate how different parts of the culture war have evolved over time and that her opposition to the ERA was a battle over defining equality itself.

Phyllis Schlafly chief claims aginst the ERA was that it a federal ERA would compel judges to strike down abortion restrictions, leading to "abortion on demand" nationwide. Along with a miltiary draft for women and homosexual rights....Yet a reading of the ERA Admendment  is 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".  THE ERA  It Does not have anything  to do Aboration rights; Military draft or Homosexual rights or Unisex restrooms  (Those questions are the responbilty of Congress which makes laws and the US Supreme  Court which defines laws) Could Schlafly claims classic cases of A false argument claim refers to a logical fallacy, which is an error in reasoning that makes an argument appear sound but is actually flawed?

Yes, many of Phyllis Schlafly's key arguments against the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) are considered classic examples of logical fallacies, particularly the "slippery slope" fallacy. This rhetorical strategy was central to her successful campaign to defeat the amendment in the 1970s.
Schlafly's core arguments using the slippery slope fallacy
A slippery slope fallacy argues that a relatively small, first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related, negative events. Schlafly used this technique to link the seemingly simple text of the ERA to alarming, worst-case-scenario consequences.
Her specific arguments included:
Abortion on demand: Schlafly claimed the ERA would compel judges to strike down all abortion restrictions, leading to "abortion on demand" nationwide. While courts interpreting state-level ERAs have sometimes found a protected right to abortion, nothing in the text of the federal ERA explicitly mentions abortion. Schlafly's argument was a worst-case prediction of how courts might interpret the amendment.
The military draft: A major concern during the Vietnam War, Schlafly warned that the ERA would subject women to mandatory conscription on an equal basis with men. This argument played on fears that the ERA would strip women of perceived "privileges," like exemption from military service.
Homosexual rights and unisex restrooms: Schlafly also warned that the ERA would promote homosexual marriage and result in unisex public bathrooms. These arguments connected sex-equality provisions to unrelated issues of sexuality and gender identity to stoke public fears about radical social change.
Why these were fallacious arguments
While Schlafly's claims were based on speculative judicial interpretations rather than the explicit text of the ERA, her opponents were forced to defend against the most extreme outcomes.
Jumping to conclusions: Schlafly's arguments skipped over the complex legislative and judicial processes required for these outcomes. While the ERA would have enabled courts to address sex discrimination, there was no certainty that it would lead directly to "abortion on demand" or gay marriage.
Preying on social fears: The campaign played on a public wary of social change by creating an us-vs-them narrative that defined the ERA as an assault on the traditional nuclear family. By framing supporters as "marital misfits," she discredited the feminist movement and built her "pro-family" coalition.
Distraction from the text: By focusing on the imagined, negative consequences, her campaign diverted public attention away from the simple, core principle of the amendment: that "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged... on account of sex".
The effectiveness of the strategy
Though built on logical fallacies, Schlafly's campaign was highly effective. Her ability to tap into popular fears about abortion, the draft, and radical social change was a key reason the ERA failed to be ratified in the 1970s. Her rhetoric was so potent that it helped make "family values" a central and polarizing issue in American politics.

The military draft: A major concern during the Vietnam War, Schlafly warned that the ERA would subject women to mandatory conscription on an equal basis with men. This argument played on fears that the ERA would strip women of perceived "privileges," like exemption from military service.
Homosexual rights and unisex restrooms: Schlafly also warned that the ERA would promote homosexual marriage and result in unisex public bathrooms. These arguments connected sex-equality provisions to unrelated issues of sexuality and gender identity to stoke public fears about radical social change.
Why these were fallacious arguments
While Schlafly's claims were based on speculative judicial interpretations rather than the explicit text of the ERA, her opponents were forced to defend against the most extreme outcomes.
Jumping to conclusions: Schlafly's arguments skipped over the complex legislative and judicial processes required for these outcomes. While the ERA would have enabled courts to address sex discrimination, there was no certainty that it would lead directly to "abortion on demand" or gay marriage.
Preying on social fears: The campaign played on a public wary of social change by creating an us-vs-them narrative that defined the ERA as an assault on the traditional nuclear family. By framing supporters as "marital misfits," she discredited the feminist movement and built her "pro-family" coalition.
Distraction from the text: By focusing on the imagined, negative consequences, her campaign diverted public attention away from the simple, core principle of the amendment: that "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged... on account of sex".
The effectiveness of the strategy
Though built on logical fallacies, Schlafly's campaign was highly effective. Her ability to tap into popular fears about abortion, the draft, and radical social change was a key reason the ERA failed to be ratified in the 1970s. Her rhetoric was so potent that it helped make "family values" a central and polarizing issue in American politics.

Your analysis is correct: Phyllis Schlafly's claims against the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) were indeed a classic case of using false arguments and logical fallacies, specifically the "slippery slope" and "straw man" fallacies. While the ERA's text is simple and direct, Schlafly and her movement distorted its meaning by connecting it to issues it did not explicitly address.
Schlafly's arguments as logical fallacies
Slippery Slope: Schlafly's main tactic was to argue that one small change (the ERA) would inevitably lead to a host of disastrous and unwanted outcomes, such as women being drafted, unisex bathrooms, and abortion on demand. This is a slippery slope fallacy because it asserts that a sequence of events will follow without providing sufficient evidence for the chain of causation.
Straw Man: Schlafly often misrepresented the views and goals of feminists and ERA supporters, framing them as a "radical" assault on traditional family values. By mischaracterizing her opponents' position, she created a "straw man" argument that was easier to attack and rally support against.
Appeals to emotion: Schlafly's campaign, which she named "STOP ERA" (Stop Taking Our Privileges), strategically appealed to the anxieties of traditional, stay-at-home women. She framed the ERA as a threat to their "privileges," such as the legal right to financial support from a husband and exemptions from the military draft. The use of fear tactics, such as the imagery of unisex bathrooms and men invading women's private spaces, also played on public emotion rather than fact.
The ERA and the issues Schlafly raised
The military draft
Schlafly's claim: The ERA would force women into military combat roles and make them subject to the draft.
Reality: In 1981, before the ERA deadline, the Supreme Court case Rostker v. Goldberg held that the male-only draft was constitutional because women were not eligible for combat roles. The court's reasoning has since been undermined by the Pentagon's 2013 decision to open all combat jobs to women. The issue of drafting women is a matter of congressional law, not an inevitable consequence of the ERA.
Abortion
Schlafly's claim: The ERA would compel judges to strike down all abortion restrictions, leading to "abortion on demand".
Reality: Abortion rights were not created by the ERA but by the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade (1973), which was based on the right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment. Schlafly used the timing of the Roe decision to link the ERA to the controversial issue of abortion, even though they were legally distinct.
LGBTQ+ rights
Schlafly's claim: The ERA would lead to the legalization of homosexual marriage and other LGBTQ+ rights.
Reality: The ERA's simple language—prohibiting denial of rights based on "sex"—does not explicitly mention sexual orientation or gender identity. However, modern legal scholars have argued that its interpretation by courts would likely protect LGBTQ+ rights, given the modern understanding of "sex discrimination". Schlafly's early accusations foreshadowed a later evolution in legal thought, but she presented it as an immediate and guaranteed negative outcome.
Unisex restrooms
Schlafly's claim: The ERA would force the creation of unisex public bathrooms and put women at risk.
Reality: The text of the ERA says nothing about public facilities. Schlafly's campaign successfully exploited public fears by creating a vivid, fear-mongering image of a "common toilet law". This is a clear example of using a logical fallacy to distract from the actual text and legal implications of the amendment
The larger picture
While Schlafly's arguments relied heavily on fallacies, her campaign was successful because it effectively tapped into genuine anxieties about changing gender roles and traditional family structures. By focusing on emotional issues like military service, abortion, and privacy, her anti-ERA movement helped make feminism a polarizing political issue and ultimately contributed to the amendment's failure to be ratified

Phyllis Schlafly Claimed the ERA would lead to the legalization of gay marriage, normalize homosexuality, and mandate unisex bathrooms.   "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged... on account of sex".  In this case ERA  means Sex as defining male or female gender [that is the legal inequality of women in regard to their rights as US Citizens vs Male US Citizens- for example women could not legally vote until 1923] Yet Schlafly herslf who talked long and loud of woman traditional place in the home  was too busy campaigning in politics to practice  woman traditional place in the home thus showing her hyprocrisy

Phyllis Schlafly's position on traditional family roles, despite her own active public career, has been widely cited by opponents as a point of hypocrisy. She built her anti-Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) campaign on the principle that a woman's fulfillment came from the roles of wife, mother, and homemaker, but did not strictly adhere to this ideal in her own life.
Schlafly's public actions vs. stated beliefs
Political Activism: Schlafly spent decades as a prominent conservative activist, author, and public speaker. She founded the Eagle Forum in 1972, a major conservative interest group, and ran for Congress twice. For her opponents, these activities seemed at odds with her public defense of a domestic, non-political role for women.
Education and Career: After marrying, Schlafly referred to herself as a "homemaker" and "volunteer," yet she held a Master's degree from Radcliffe College (Harvard) and later earned a law degree in 1978. The fact that she was a lawyer campaigning against the ERA while urging other women to embrace domesticity was often used by feminists to highlight her perceived double standard.
Media image: Schlafly consciously managed her public image to present a traditional domestic scene. She posed for photos in her kitchen, staging her life to portray her ideal of a woman's place in the home. Critics viewed this as a performance designed to sell her anti-feminist message.
Responses to the criticism
Schlafly and her supporters often argued that her public career did not contradict her values. Their reasoning included:
Acting in defense of traditional women: Schlafly and her allies framed their activism as an extension of their domestic roles—leaving the home to protect the traditional family model. In their view, engaging in politics was necessary to defend the "privileges" that women supposedly enjoyed as homemakers.
Husbands' support: Schlafly claimed her husband encouraged her political activities. She and other Eagle Forum leaders highlighted how their husbands' support made it possible for them to engage in public life.
The "positive woman": Schlafly developed the concept of the "positive woman," whose happiness came from embracing her female nature, including the ability to bear children and find fulfillment in the home. This framing allowed her to present her own political and legal successes as a way to empower other women to make the choice of domesticity Yet her own actions showed she did not practiced what she preached !
Commentators have long noted the apparent hypocrisy in Phyllis Schlafly's life, as her career as a highly successful political organizer, author, and lawyer seems to contradict her message that a woman's primary fulfillment should come from being a homemaker. Her anti-feminist activism was particularly criticized for being at odds with her own life choices and ambitions.
Actions that conflict with her message
Built a public career: Schlafly was a national political figure for decades, writing 27 books, running for Congress, hosting a radio show, and founding the influential conservative organization Eagle Forum. Her constant public engagement directly defied her assertion that a woman's most socially useful role was in the home.
Pursued advanced education and a law degree: While advocating for the domestic role of women, Schlafly earned a master's degree from Radcliffe (part of Harvard) and later a law degree from Washington University. The latter was obtained in 1978, at the height of her campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).
Employed domestic help: Critics pointed out that Schlafly was able to balance her intense political activism with raising six children largely because she employed a housekeeper and had support from her mother. This contrasted with her public image as the epitome of the average American homemaker she championed.
Clashed with her husband over career ambitions: According to some accounts, Schlafly's intense career pursuits caused conflict in her marriage. Her husband reportedly had a "tantrum" after she enrolled in law school, feeling it competed with his own legal practice. This tension undermined her public rhetoric about the traditional domestic harmony she promoted
Schlafly's defense
Schlafly consistently refuted accusations of hypocrisy by presenting her political career as an extension of her homemaking and maternal roles.
"My hobby": Schlafly described her political work as a "hobby" pursued after her children were in school or college. This framing allowed her to maintain her image as a mother first, though many view it as disingenuous given her political influence.
Husband's permission: In debates with feminists, Schlafly made comments such as, "I'd like to thank my husband for allowing me to speak here tonight," to antagonize opponents and reinforce the traditional dynamic she promoted. However, she also reportedly canceled speeches to accommodate her husband's wishes.
Acting on behalf of other women: Schlafly claimed her activism was a fight for the rights of housewives content with their traditional roles and did not want them affected by the ERA. Her work, in her view, was to protect other women's choices, not to limit her own.
Why her hypocrisy was a powerful political tool
The perceived contradictions in Schlafly's life may have strengthened her political message by demonstrating that a woman could be a powerful political figure without embracing feminism. By presenting herself as an "average housewife" while wielding immense political power, she showed her followers that they could be politically active in service of traditional values. This empowered a generation of conservative women and was instrumental in defeating the ERA.

t is a widely held criticism that Phyllis Schlafly's actions contradicted her message promoting women's role as homemakers. While she gained fame advocating for women to find fulfillment in the domestic sphere, Schlafly herself pursued a highly successful and active career in law, politics, and media.
Key examples of Schlafly's contradictions:
A "homemaker" with a career: Schlafly, a mother of six, often referred to herself as a "homemaker" and "volunteer," saying she spent 25 years as a full-time homemaker before traveling extensively. However, her "career" was extensive and included:
Running unsuccessfully for Congress twice, in 1952 and 1970.
Founding and leading the conservative political interest group the Eagle Forum starting in 1972.
Earning a law degree from Washington University in St. Louis in 1978, while leading the campaign against the ERA.
Writing or editing over 20 books and a syndicated column.
Hosting a weekly radio talk show.
Reliance on her husband's income: Schlafly's advocacy for the traditional family was premised on the husband as the provider and the wife as the homemaker. Her political opponents often pointed out the irony that her own career was subsidized by her husband, Fred Schlafly, a prominent attorney.
Advocating against the ERA from a privileged position: As a well-educated woman with a supportive husband, Schlafly's life was made possible by many of the same freedoms that feminists sought to secure for all women. Critics noted her campaign against the ERA worked to deny opportunities to other women that she enjoyed herself.
Political tactics: Schlafly's political tactics included delivering homemade bread to lawmakers as a symbol of the "traditional" housewife. Critics noted this tactic was at odds with the serious political maneuvering she engaged in to defeat the ERA.
The political commentator and activist did not deny the contradiction and offered justifications:
A hobby, not a career: Schlafly often insisted that her political activism was simply a "hobby" and that her "primary occupation" was being a mother.
Getting permission: In a 2014 interview, Schlafly said she spent 25 years as a homemaker before traveling extensively for her activism, and that her husband was supportive. In 1978, she told Time magazine she had canceled speeches when her husband felt she had been away too much.
A contrast to "unhappy feminists": Schlafly wrote about her career as proof that women could be happy homemakers while also pursuing interests outside the home. This, she argued, was a choice that feminists did not believe women had

Critics' perspective on her reconciliation
Critics and scholars often viewed Schlafly's public statements as a smokescreen for her personal ambition. Her reconciliation strategies were seen as a political maneuver that allowed her to wield power while maintaining a traditionalist identity.
Exploiting the patriarchal system: Scholars note that Schlafly relied on patriarchal structures to achieve her goals. Her political activities were made possible by the financial support of her wealthy attorney husband, Fred Schlafly.
Inauthentic representation: Some critics saw her public persona as a calculated performance rather than a genuine reflection of her life. In one interview, she was observed arranging her appearance for a photo while cooking, attempting to project the image of a contented homemaker.
Individual vs. collective advancement: While Schlafly presented her traditionalism as empowering, her ideology did not advocate for the collective advancement of women. The opportunities for personal fulfillment she experienced, such as going to law school and running an organization, were not broadly promoted for other women

PHyllis Schlafly's concept of the "Positive Woman," which she introduced in her 1977 book The Power of the Positive Woman, was her primary philosophical counterargument to the feminism of the era. She presented the "Positive Woman" as someone who finds fulfillment and power by embracing her God-given female nature, particularly her capacity for marriage and motherhood. This was framed as a path to true happiness and security, in stark contrast to what Schlafly characterized as the negative and resentful trajectory of feminist "liberation".
Core components of the "Positive Woman"
Biological essentialism: Schlafly's concept was founded on the belief that men and women are fundamentally and biologically different by divine design. She argued that happiness for women depended on aligning their lives with their "uniquely female" nature, centering on the ability to give birth. Feminism, in her view, denied these inherent differences, attempting to force a gender-neutral society that went against God's will.
Embracing domesticity as a source of power: Unlike feminists who saw traditional gender roles as oppressive, Schlafly insisted that they were a source of strength and social advantage for women. She argued that a woman's greatest power came from her role as wife, mother, and homemaker. This elevated the domestic sphere as a domain of female control and influence.
The advantages of marital dependence: Schlafly argued that traditional heterosexual marriage offered women invaluable protection and benefits. In exchange for a woman's domestic and nurturing role, her husband fulfilled the role of provider and protector. Schlafly presented this "wife's right to support" as a crucial benefit that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) would take away. In her view, the ERA would force women into the workplace and strip them of their dependent status, which she framed as a privilege.
Freedom through traditional roles: Schlafly reframed traditional roles as a form of "positive freedom," a path to self-fulfillment through duty and sacrifice, as opposed to the feminists' "negative freedom" from traditional constraints. She argued that pursuing liberation from men and the family would only lead to bondage and unhappiness. For Schlafly, a woman had the freedom not to work and to instead devote herself to her family, a valuable right that she claimed feminism wanted to eliminate.
Politicizing domestic identity: Schlafly effectively mobilized a political movement around the "Positive Woman" identity. Her followers, often describing themselves as homemakers, were encouraged to enter the political sphere to defend their traditional lifestyle. Their activism, including grassroots lobbying tactics like bringing homemade bread to politicians, presented their political actions as an extension of their domestic roles.
The criticism of Schlafly's concept
Critics frequently pointed out the hypocrisy of Schlafly's own life, in which she pursued an ambitious public career while promoting domesticity for other women. Her concept was also critiqued for largely reflecting the experiences of privileged, white, middle- and upper-class women who could afford to be financially dependent on their husbands. For working-class women and single mothers, the concept of marital dependence as a privilege was irrelevant and out of touch with their reality

The disconnect from many women's realities
A platform of privilege: Schlafly's anti-feminist activism has been analyzed as a way to redefine domesticity as a form of "white female privilege". Her campaign appealed to middle-class and upper-class women who could afford to be financially dependent on their husbands. Her 1972 manifesto mentioned indicators of this privileged lifestyle, such as diamonds, furs, and life insurance premiums, which were not accessible to the average American couple.
Irrelevance for working-class women: For women who needed to work to support their families, the idea of marital dependence was an irrelevant luxury. Schlafly's focus on preserving a "privilege" many women did not have or could not afford was out of touch with their reality.
Ignoring the needs of single mothers: For single mothers, including widows and divorcees, the concept of marital dependence was completely inapplicable. While the feminist movement had initially addressed the needs of older, vulnerable women, Schlafly successfully seized on this issue. She argued that the ERA would threaten legal protections like alimony, but failed to address the systemic reasons why many women needed such support in the first place.
The legacy of the critique
These criticisms highlight how Schlafly's platform, while successful in mobilizing a segment of conservative women, was rooted in a selective and privileged perspective.
The disconnect between her public life and the domestic role she promoted made her a powerful, yet controversial, figure in 20th-century American politics.
The critiques illustrate how her vision of traditional gender roles failed to account for the diverse experiences of American women across different socioeconomic backgrounds.

The disconnect from working-class women
The myth of "special privilege": Schlafly frequently framed the traditional family structure as a source of "special privilege" for women, including financial support, alimony, and Social Security benefits. Critics, however, pointed out that this view was out of touch with the reality of many women.
Ignored financial realities: Schlafly's vision primarily reflected the experience of affluent, white women who could afford to be financially dependent. Her critics highlighted that for working-class women, poor women, and single mothers, such financial dependence was not an option. Many of these women were already working outside the home out of necessity and had no husband to depend on.
Protection of class membership: Critics pointed out that Schlafly's movement was ultimately concerned with protecting the privileged lifestyle of the upper-middle class. By emphasizing the "privileges" of domesticity, her movement became a way for conservative women to defend the cultural and socioeconomic markers of their class.
The "Aunt Tom" insult
During a 1973 debate, feminist leader Betty Friedan, author of The Feminine Mystique, famously called Schlafly an "Aunt Tom".
This pointed and racially-charged insult repurposed the term "Uncle Tom," which refers to a Black person who is subservient to white people. In calling Schlafly an "Aunt Tom," Friedan suggested that Schlafly was betraying other women by using her public platform to uphold the patriarchal system.

defination of a female person who claims to uphold tradtional values [man works woman takes care of the home] yet this advocate is more interested in running for public office and doesnt have actually takes care of her home or children}

An individual who publicly advocates for traditional family values—such as a husband being the sole provider and the wife being the homemaker—while personally pursuing a career in public office is typically described as a hypocrite.
Several related concepts from politics and psychology describe the apparent conflict between the person's stated beliefs and their actions.
Political hypocrisy
This is a general term for a politician who publicly holds a certain moral position while privately or professionally acting in a contradictory manner. The conflict becomes especially pronounced when a politician's public platform, such as one built on traditional family values, is used to gain the trust of voters while their own life does not align with that platform.
Cognitive dissonance
This is a psychological term that refers to the mental discomfort experienced by a person who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values simultaneously. In this case, the politician's belief in traditional gender roles and their actions in pursuing a demanding career would be in conflict, causing psychological tension. To resolve this, an individual might downplay their own actions or rationalize them as a necessary exception for a greater cause (e.g., "I'm pursuing my career to better serve my community").
Do as I say, not as I do
This is a colloquial phrase used to describe a person who does not practice the advice or beliefs they preach to others. It highlights the double standard where a person promotes a lifestyle or set of values for others that they do not follow themselves.
The "family values" talking point
Since the 1990s, "family values" has been a common political phrase, particularly in conservative politics. Critics often point out the hypocrisy of politicians who invoke the phrase while supporting policies that may not help all families or while not adhering to those "traditional" family structures themselves.


The description refers to a person engaging in hypocrisy. Specifically, this is a politician who uses "traditional values" and the "man works, woman at home" framework as a public platform, while personally acting contrary to that messaging. This type of contradiction is often leveraged to criticize political candidates as being insincere or opportunistically using identity politics for personal gain.
Related concepts and terminology
Hypocrisy: The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform. In the scenario described, the candidate is accused of advocating for a traditional role for women while pursuing a public-facing political career that contradicts that very role.
"Tradwife" influencer or politician: While the term "tradwife" describes a woman who adopts traditional homemaking roles, the "influencer" or "politician" aspect refers to those who monetize or weaponize this identity for public attention or political gain. Critics have accused some public figures of inauthenticity, presenting a sanitized, idealized version of homemaking while pursuing a public career that makes a demanding home life impossible.
Political pandering: The act of expressing or acting on beliefs that are popular with an audience in order to win their favor, but which may not be genuinely held. The scenario you describe, where a candidate leverages traditional values for political support while living differently, would be an example of pandering.
Identity politics: The use of a group's identity—in this case, an idealized traditional family structure—as a basis for political action. When an advocate appears to manipulate this identity for personal ambition, it can be viewed as an insincere or "grifter" version of identity politics.
The criticism of hypocrisy in public life
Accusations of hypocrisy against public figures are common, particularly when their private actions contradict their public messaging. The specific example you provided highlights several areas of political and cultural tension:
Feminism vs. traditionalism: A candidate's push for a traditional domestic role for women while simultaneously competing in the public sphere can highlight the contradictions between modern female empowerment and idealized historic gender roles.
Authenticity and populism: Voters often react with outrage when a public figure is exposed as a hypocrite. A candidate's alleged inauthenticity can undermine their populist appeal and suggest that their political platform is based on manipulation rather than genuine belief.
"Culture wars": In modern political discourse, issues related to gender roles and family structure are central to broader "culture wars". A candidate's contradictory behavior can become a talking point in this conflict, with supporters defending their leader and opponents using the hypocrisy as a weapon.

The description refers to a hypocritical "tradwife" politician, a person who adopts the persona of a traditional housewife for political gain while their personal actions contradict their public image.
While there is no single official term for this specific archetype, the description combines several distinct, widely understood concepts:
Tradwife: A portmanteau of "traditional wife," referring to a woman who embraces and promotes a highly traditional, patriarchal model of marriage where the man is the sole breadwinner and the woman focuses on homemaking and child-rearing.
Political Grifter: An individual who exploits a political or ideological movement for personal gain, such as attention, power, or money.
Hypocrite: Someone whose stated moral standards or beliefs are not in line with their actual behavior. This can involve misrepresenting oneself to manipulate others.
This individual's political platform benefits from projecting a domestic, traditional image, which appeals to a segment of the electorate that values such ideals. The hypocrisy arises from the discrepancy between their rhetoric and their actual life—trading homemaking for political pursuits—while maintaining the public-facing image of a dedicated homemaker to advance their career.

[curious]

Similar case of a mob Mentalty who accepts SChlafly false claims is the mob mentality that rejects the truth:
query what word best describes a mob mentality when in case ofa famous sports hero who was arrested for murder and acquitted when prejudice was alleged;the suspect would found guilty in a civil trial. what kind of mob mentality rejects the truth?
he term denialism best describes the mob mentality that rejects the truth in defense of a famous sports hero acquitted of murder in a criminal trial but found liable in a subsequent civil case. The most prominent example is the O.J. Simpson case.
What is denialism?
Denialism is the rejection of an empirical reality in favor of a more comfortable falsehood. In the context of a famous, beloved figure accused of a heinous crime, denialism functions on multiple levels:
Psychological denialism: Individuals and groups refuse to accept an uncomfortable truth as a defense mechanism to protect their psyche or their "idols" from disturbing facts.
Celebrity worship syndrome: Fans who engage in obsessive idolization of a celebrity may develop a type of denial rooted in "cognitive inflexibility," where they become uncompromising in their belief in the celebrity's innocence, regardless of contradictory evidence.
How did the mob mentality in the O.J. Simpson case reflect denialism?
In the O.J. Simpson case, the reaction to the 1995 criminal acquittal and subsequent 1997 civil judgment highlighted deep divisions and denial.
The criminal acquittal: Despite a "mountain" of forensic evidence, Simpson was acquitted. The defense capitalized on the racial bias and misconduct of the LAPD, which had a history of racism, to create "reasonable doubt". Many observers noted that public reaction to the verdict was largely divided along racial lines, which was dubbed the "racial gap".
Rejection of the civil verdict: The civil trial, which found Simpson liable for the victims' deaths, required a lower burden of proof than the criminal trial. Still, many who celebrated the criminal acquittal denied the civil verdict, rejecting its different legal standard and the outcome.
Projection and false equivalence: For some, the defense's arguments about police misconduct were not seen as one part of a complex case but as proof of a vast conspiracy that outweighed all other evidence. This is a key tactic of denialism: magnifying isolated issues to discredit overwhelming evidence.
What fuels this form of mob mentality?
Several factors contribute to the kind of mob mentality seen in such a high-profile case:
Confirmation bias: People tend to seek out and interpret information that confirms their existing beliefs. For fans, it's easier to believe in a heroic athlete than a murderer.
Media manipulation: Celebrities and their teams can use their relationships with media to craft narratives and influence public perception.
Diffusion of responsibility: Within a crowd or large group, individuals feel less personal responsibility for their actions and beliefs. In the Simpson case, this meant that those who held strong opinions about his innocence felt emboldened by others who felt the same way.
Prejudice and identity politics: The case's racial dynamics exacerbated pre-existing biases. The use of the "race card" tapped into long-held resentments toward the justice system, allowing some to frame the verdict as a corrective to racial injustice, regardless of the facts of the case.

The best words to describe this type of mob mentality involve groupthink and denialism, often fueled by cognitive dissonance. The situation you describe, involving a famous sports hero and a civil trial verdict contradicting a prior acquittal, evokes the psychological defense mechanisms of devoted fans who refuse to accept an uncomfortable truth.
Groupthink
Definition: A psychological phenomenon where a desire for harmony or conformity within a group leads to an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome.
Application: In this scenario, the "mob" of fans may have been a cohesive "in-group" with a strong belief in their hero's innocence. The pressure to maintain this shared, unanimous belief could override any individual fan's critical thinking or doubts about the athlete's actions.
Denialism
Definition: The rejection of basic, well-supported facts in favor of a more comfortable, radical, or fabricated narrative.
Application: This describes the behavior of fans who may have actively denied the validity of the civil trial's guilty verdict, perceiving it as a conspiracy or a personal attack on their hero. Instead of accepting the new information, they double down on their original—now discredited—belief in his innocence.
Cognitive dissonance
Definition: The mental discomfort experienced by a person who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. To resolve this, people will often seek ways to regain a sense of psychological balance.
Application: Fans who deeply identify with their hero experience a major conflict between their admiration for him (their emotional investment) and the evidence suggesting he committed murder. The easiest path to resolving this discomfort is often to reject the new, uncomfortable information rather than sacrifice their cherished admiration.
How these dynamics intersect
These psychological forces can combine to create the specific type of mob mentality described:
High emotional investment: Sports fans often feel a sense of belonging by identifying with a team and its stars. This creates a strong emotional attachment and an "us vs. them" mentality.
Rejecting contrary evidence: When the civil trial produced a guilty verdict, it contradicted the fans' established beliefs, creating cognitive dissonance.
Reinforcing the group narrative: The fans used groupthink to collectively rationalize their position, reinforcing the narrative that the athlete was innocent and the civil trial was prejudiced. This collective rationalization allows them to ignore the ethical and moral consequences of the accused's actions.
Doubling down on denial: Instead of accepting a difficult truth, the mob engages in denialism to protect their image of the hero, making any nuanced consideration of the facts impossible.

query would word best describes a  mentality who still fear  the ERA Amendment  [i.e.who cling to Phyllis Schlafly false claims] would would happen to american womanhood if it ever became law?
Reactionary" is the word that best describes a mentality defined by a fear of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Reactionary thought is fundamentally opposed to social or political progress and seeks a return to traditional values and customs.
Opposition to the ERA stems from several core concerns that align with a reactionary viewpoint:
A threat to traditional gender roles: Opponents of the ERA have historically framed it as a threat to traditional relationships between men and women. This reactionary mindset sees established societal structures as preferable to the uncertainty of gender equality.
Concerns about "protective" laws: Some opponents have expressed worry that the ERA would overturn historical laws intended to "protect" women, particularly in the workplace. A reactionary viewpoint prioritizes these existing—and often paternalistic—legal differences over a new guarantee of universal equal rights.
The dismantling of family law: Critics have argued that the amendment could eliminate legal precedents like alimony and a mother's preferential custody rights in divorce cases. This demonstrates a fear that gender equality would disrupt and destabilize traditional family structures.
Fear of "unintended consequences": As the ERA debate has evolved, opponents have raised concerns that the amendment's language could be interpreted more broadly than initially intended, leading to "unintended consequences" such as legally requiring women to be drafted into the military or invalidating restrictions on abortion. A reactionary approach fears change and the potential for a new law to be reinterpreted in the future.
This mentality is rooted in specific, historical arguments against the amendment that date back to the 1970s and continue today.
Key fears and concerns
A threat to traditional gender roles: A core fear is that the ERA will upend traditional expectations for men and women in society, especially regarding family life. Many opponents believe in a God-given, divinely ordained difference between the sexes and see the amendment as threatening this distinction.
Loss of protections: Opponents have long argued that the ERA would strip women of certain legal privileges and protections. These historically included protective labor laws, but also modern concerns like alimony and a wife's legal right to spousal support.
Military conscription: A major concern raised by anti-ERA activist Phyllis Schlafly and others was the fear that the amendment would make women subject to military conscription and combat roles.
Impact on abortion rights: Religious and conservative groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, have long opposed the ERA out of concern that it would strengthen or codify abortion rights at a federal level.
The "slippery slope" of social change: Fears are often projected onto the ERA as a gateway to other changes perceived as negative. For instance, opponents have historically linked the ERA to social changes like unisex bathrooms and same-sex marriage.
Perceived ambiguity: Opponents claimed the ERA was too vague and would put too much power in the hands of activist judges. This argument was that judges would use the amendment to force controversial changes that were not the original intent.

The ERA and the concept of denialism
Denialism is the systematic rejection of established facts or a body of evidence in favor of radical, controversial, or fabricated ideas. Applied to the Equal Rights Amendment, ERA denialism is not a widely recognized term, but aspects of the phenomenon can be seen in the various arguments used to reject the ERA, often by misrepresenting its purpose and effect. This behavior persists even after the ERA has been ratified by the required number of states, with the belief that it can still be blocked.

One claim agains the ERA Amendent is fear mongering that ratifiying would would make aboration part of the US Constition. This ignores the fact the ERA is designed to remove women legal ineualty in the eyes of the law. The ERA has nothing to do with abortion...indeed the question of Aboration legality is the responibilty of Congress who makes laws and the US Supreme Court who interpets these laws.

Her claims of ERA would lead to Miltiary draft for women {the draft is dead} regarinf Homosexual rights; aboration rights and unisex restrooms are already the law of the land thanks to presidents Obuma and Biden....
THE ERA AMENDMENT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR POLICIES

why did phyllis schlafly wrap herself in the American flag so to speak? was it because she wanted appear tradational patriotic then her opponents?
Phyllis Schlafly used patriotic and traditional imagery as a key strategy to position herself and her movement as defenders of true American values. This framing was intended to make her anti-feminist and anti-ERA views appear more traditional and virtuous than her opponents, whose calls for social change could be portrayed as radical or un-American.
Patriotism and the ERA debate
Contrasting values: Schlafly's "STOP ERA" campaign tapped into a vision of patriotism based on traditional, 1950s-era "family values". Her arguments claimed that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) would damage the family, which she called "the basic unit of society... ingrained in the laws and customs of our Judeo-Christian civilization". By contrast, she framed the feminist agenda as an unpatriotic attack on this fundamental societal structure.
"Weaponized housewifery": As documented by researcher Amélie Ribieras, Schlafly created a distinct form of conservative women's activism called "weaponized housewifery". This strategy used the image of the traditional housewife, rather than the American flag directly, as a tactical weapon. Her followers, for example, brought homemade pies and bread to state legislatures to lobby against the ERA, using the slogan "Preserve us from a congressional jam; Vote against the ERA sham". This performance was a potent visual representation of their claim to be the defenders of American tradition.
Appealing to protective laws: In her arguments, Schlafly insisted that American women were a "privileged group," protected by a "Christian Age of Chivalry" that honored women as mothers and homemakers. She claimed the ERA would strip women of protective laws, such as social security benefits for widows and the husband's duty to provide for his wife. This allowed her to argue that feminists were not speaking for the average American woman, but were instead selfishly fighting for equality at the expense of traditional protections.
Military draft fears: A key part of Schlafly's "traditional patriotism" argument was her opposition to drafting women into the military. With the Vietnam War draft still fresh in the public mind, she used the fear of sending American women into combat as an effective tool against the ERA. She framed her opposition to gender-neutral drafts as a defense of a gendered tradition that prioritized men's roles in military service.
A broader strategy of conservative branding
Beyond the ERA, Schlafly's use of patriotic themes was a consistent element of her long career as a conservative activist.
National defense focus: In the years before her campaign against the ERA, Schlafly was a vocal anti-communist, advocating for a strong national defense and criticizing arms control agreements with the Soviet Union. This established her early bona fides as a cold warrior and a staunch patriot.
Conservative vs. Liberal divide: Schlafly was instrumental in shaping the idea of "family values" as a polarizing partisan issue. By linking her anti-feminist agenda to patriotic and traditional ideas, she helped forge a powerful modern conservative movement built on an identity politics that contrasted "moral" patriots with "radical" feminists.

n a manner of speaking, Phyllis Schlafly "wrapped herself in the American flag" by co-opting the symbols and language of traditional American patriotism to frame her anti-feminist and anti-ERA campaigns. This strategy allowed her to present her movement as a defense of traditional American family values rather than a rejection of women's rights.
This tactic effectively positioned her against her opponents, portraying the women's liberation movement as a dangerous, anti-family ideology.
Portraying her opponents as "un-American"
Schlafly's rhetoric equated feminism with threats to the traditional nuclear family, which she presented as the foundation of American society.
She argued the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) would harm women by removing legal protections and traditional benefits, such as a wife's claim to Social Security and child support.
She also linked the ERA to more controversial issues of the time, such as women being drafted into the military, which tapped into broader anxieties about national security.
Using the imagery of traditional homemakers
Schlafly, a highly educated and accomplished attorney, often presented herself as a simple "homemaker" and "volunteer" to connect with her grassroots base of suburban women.
Her "weaponized housewifery" involved tactics like delivering homemade bread to state legislators to emphasize the "traditional" homemaker role and contrast with what she called the "un-feminine" activists of the women's liberation movement.
The name of her organization, the Eagle Forum, invoked patriotic imagery, casting her movement as a defender of American values.
Creating a patriotic "pro-family" movement
Schlafly successfully framed the culture war over the ERA as a battle for America's soul. Her supporters were encouraged to rally under the banner of "pro-family" and "pro-life" values.
In contrast, the ERA and its feminist proponents were painted as a destructive, radical force that threatened the fundamental fabric of American life.
Schlafly's movement helped create the idea of "family values" as a political wedge issue, a tactic that continues to influence American politics today.

Phyllis Schlafly acted as a mouthpiece for those who opposed the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) by championing what she called a "privileged position" for women, which depended on traditional gender roles. Her campaign, STOP ERA (Stop Taking Our Privileges), argued that a legally mandated equality would remove special protections for women, not expand their rights.
Arguments Schlafly used against the ERA
Protection of housewives: Schlafly claimed the ERA would eliminate laws that required a husband to financially support his wife and children. She argued this would force homemakers into the workforce, taking away their "privilege" of focusing on the home.
Military draft for women: Tapping into fears over the Vietnam War, she warned that the ERA would subject women to military conscription and potential combat duty, removing their exemption from the draft.
Erosion of "family values": Schlafly portrayed feminists as radicals waging "a total assault on the family, on marriage, and on children". She claimed that gender equality would lead to a moral decline by disrupting the traditional roles of men and women.
Loss of alimony and child custody: She asserted that the ERA would overturn legal precedents that favored mothers in child custody cases and eliminate alimony payments for divorced women.
Judicial overreach: Schlafly cautioned that the ERA's loose wording would allow judges to interpret the law in ways that conservatives found objectionable, such as establishing a constitutional guarantee for abortion or legalizing same-sex marriage.
Why her message resonated
Schlafly successfully framed her arguments in a way that appealed to many conservative women who did not identify with the feminist movement.
Elevating the homemaker: She praised the role of wife and mother, positioning it as the most fulfilling and valuable for women. This gave homemakers a sense of pride and importance, framing feminist goals as a threat to their way of life.
Feminine presentation: Schlafly's movement intentionally adopted symbols of traditional femininity, such as baking pies and wearing pink, to contrast their image with their perception of feminists as aggressive and radical.
Fears of social change: She mobilized a conservative backlash against the rapid social changes of the 1960s and 1970s. Her warnings about drafting women, gay marriage, and increased abortion access successfully stoked cultural anxieties and made the ERA a polarizing issue.

Schlafly's specific arguments against the ERA
Loss of "privileges": Her "STOP" in "STOP ERA" stood for "Stop Taking Our Privileges." She argued that laws requiring men to financially support their wives and families would be negated by the ERA, threatening women's security, especially for homemakers without job skills.
Military draft: With the Vietnam War fresh in public memory, Schlafly successfully argued that the ERA would subject women to the military draft and potential combat service, a prospect many found unappealing.
Abortion and same-sex marriage: She claimed the ERA would lead to court interpretations supporting abortion on demand and same-sex marriage, which galvanized conservative Christian and traditionalist groups to join her coalition.
Protection against radical feminism: Schlafly positioned herself as a defender of traditional family values against what she called "women's libbers," whom she portrayed as radicals waging a "total assault on the family, on marriage, and on children".
Biological determinism: Schlafly asserted that fundamental, God-given biological differences between men and women dictated their roles in society. She believed the feminist movement was attempting to create an undesirable "gender neutral" world that went against this natural order.
Why she resonated with her followers
Schlafly was successful because she created a powerful collective identity for women who felt left behind or threatened by the changes of the feminist movement.
She framed herself as an ordinary homemaker fighting for other mothers, using tactics like delivering homemade bread to lawmakers to reinforce this image.
Her message resonated with a wide, grassroots coalition that included evangelical, Catholic, and Mormon women who felt that feminism devalued their traditional roles as wives and mothers.
She tapped into the fears of many white, middle-class women who worried that equality would lead to a decline in their social and financial stability.
The paradox of her success
Schlafly's effective opposition to women's equality is often viewed with irony, given her own highly successful and public career as an author, lawyer, and political activist. While she told Time magazine she canceled speeches if her husband thought she was away from home too much, her actions ultimately contradicted her strict message of female domesticity.

Phyllis Schlafly used anti-communism as a tactic to rally opposition against feminists and supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). She framed feminists as dangerous subversives whose goals were aligned with the destruction of the traditional family, which she presented as a bulwark against communism.
Schlafly's use of anti-communism in her fight against the ERA included targeting the following groups and ideas:
Feminists and the "women's libbers": Schlafly argued that feminists, who she said aimed to dismantle traditional gender roles, were undermining the nuclear family. She explicitly linked these goals to a broader communist conspiracy to weaken American society.
Advocates of the Equal Rights Amendment: Schlafly claimed that the ERA was a "sinister plot" that "smelled of communism". She warned that the amendment would invalidate laws protecting housewives and require women to be drafted for military combat, which she framed as radical and anti-family ideas.
Liberal elites: Starting with her support for Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential campaign, Schlafly routinely attacked moderate, "liberal" Republicans as weak against the Soviet threat. Her opposition to arms control agreements with the Soviets furthered this message.
Government-sponsored childcare: Schlafly and her supporters argued that government childcare was a "socialistic" idea that would shift childrearing away from the family and into state-controlled institutions.
How Schlafly integrated anti-communism into her anti-ERA messaging
Early anti-communist career: Long before her ERA activism, Schlafly was a vocal anti-communist. In the 1950s, she co-founded the Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation to warn Catholics about the communist threat. She also distributed sensational pamphlets alleging communist infiltration in the government. This background established her credentials and a network of followers that she later mobilized against the ERA.
Creating a "pro-family" identity: Schlafly helped define a "pro-family" political identity that explicitly positioned itself against what it framed as the "leftist feminist movement". For Schlafly, upholding traditional, "divinely-inspired" family structures was an extension of the anti-communist crusade.
Framing the ERA as a communist tool: The anti-ERA campaign portrayed feminism and the ERA as an existential threat to American tradition, much like the communist threat. This rhetoric allowed Schlafly to mobilize social conservatives, including a coalition of evangelical, Catholic, and Mormon women, by tapping into their fears of societal changes.

Targets of anti-communism
Feminist activists: Schlafly claimed that the Equal Rights Amendment, which aimed to guarantee legal equality for all citizens regardless of sex, was a sinister plot with "anti-family goals". She implied that feminist social activism was radical and aligned with communist ideology.
Socialistic institutions: Schlafly and other anti-feminists argued that policies like government-sponsored childcare and family leave would give the government too much power and shift the responsibility of child-rearing away from mothers and onto "socialistic institutions". This was framed as a threat to the nuclear family and capitalist individualism.
Progressive women: During the Red Scares, conservative women used anti-radicalism to attack the social justice efforts of progressive women and feminists. Schlafly continued this tradition by casting the ERA and its supporters as a threat to the traditional family structure, which she and her allies viewed as the foundation of American society.
How Schlafly linked anti-communism and anti-feminism
Defense of the family: Schlafly used the perceived threat of communism to provide a "safe platform for conservative women to engage in political activism in defense of the family". By promoting the stereotype of women as housewives and family managers, she could frame conservative political engagement as a way of fighting off "socialistic influences".
Othering the left: Her arguments presented the "leftist feminist movement" as an "other" that was a threat to the status quo. By framing her opponents as a danger, she could mobilize previously non-political actors for her cause.
Early political career: Before launching her anti-ERA campaign, Schlafly had established herself as a prominent anti-communist voice within the Republican Party. She co-founded the Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation, an organization dedicated to educating Americans about the communist threat to religion. Her early campaign for Congress in 1952 also leaned heavily on anti-communist rhetoric, questioning her opponent's voting record on the issue. This history of anti-communist activism provided the foundation for her later anti-feminist attacks

Phyllis Schlafly connected the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to communism by framing the feminist movement as a radical, anti-family ideology aligned with broader left-wing goals that she associated with communism. While she did not claim the ERA was a direct Soviet plot, her rhetoric used anti-communist fear-mongering to make the ERA seem like a dangerous step toward the erosion of American family values and capitalist individualism.
Here are specific examples of how Schlafly connected the ERA to communism:
Socialistic institutions: Schlafly and her allies warned that the ERA would lead to the transfer of childcare responsibilities from mothers to "socialistic institutions". By framing government-sponsored childcare as socialistic, she associated feminist goals with an ideology that was a primary enemy of the United States. She and other anti-feminists argued that this would give the government too much power and threaten the nuclear family.
"Brainwashing" by bureaus: Early in her career, Schlafly promoted conspiracy theories that linked New Deal liberalism to communism. For example, she once claimed that "Many government bureaus have developed extensive programs of brainwashing to push through socialized medicine and universal military training". She applied this same rhetoric to the ERA, suggesting that government programs pushed by feminists were part of a larger, insidious campaign to re-engineer society.
istorting feminist goals: In her anti-ERA campaign, Schlafly repeatedly distorted the aims of the feminist movement. She portrayed "women's libbers" as seeking to make wives and mothers unhappy with their roles by promoting free sex and denigrating marriage. By painting the feminist movement as a threat to the nuclear family, she could link it to communist ideology, which was perceived as undermining traditional social structures.
Creating a "pro-family" identity: The anti-communist sentiment provided a platform for conservative women to engage in political activism by focusing on the defense of the "traditional family." In her view, the ERA was an attack on the status quo, which she believed was the foundation of a capitalist, anti-communist society. Schlafly's group, STOP ERA, rallied married, Christian women to actively campaign against the ERA, using arguments that tapped into fears of liberal overreach and government control.
Leveraging her anti-communist reputation: Schlafly had a long history as a prominent anti-communist activist before she took on the ERA. She was a co-founder of the Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation, an organization dedicated to resisting the communist threat, particularly among Catholics. Her established reputation in this arena lent credibility to her claims that the ERA was part of a larger, leftist threat to American values, even if the connection was indirect

[curious]

The social changes that ERA opponents like Phyllis Schlafly warned against—such as same-sex marriage, expanded abortion access, and transgender rights—occurred through a different series of legal battles and political shifts. These outcomes resulted from Supreme Court decisions, legislative actions, and evolving social norms, not the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.

[curious]

schlafy lied by saying ERA was part of a larger, leftist threat to American values,
There is a strong scholarly consensus that Phyllis Schlafly's arguments against the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) were misleading and relied on exaggerations and misrepresentations. While Schlafly presented her claims as truthful warnings, historians and other critics have documented her use of politically savvy rhetoric to provoke fear and mobilize a conservative base, not to provide an accurate representation of the ERA's effects.
Schlafly's opposition was based on these central themes:
A "larger leftist threat." Schlafly painted the ERA and the feminist movement as part of a radical, anti-family agenda that would lead to the moral decline of American society. However, historical analysis shows her rhetoric was designed to polarize the public by invoking moral outrage and fear.
The dismantling of traditional "family values." Schlafly's arguments preyed on anxieties surrounding rapid social changes in the 1960s and 1970s. She claimed the ERA would eliminate traditional gender roles, forcing women out of the home and into the workforce. In reality, the ERA was meant to guarantee equal legal rights, not dictate lifestyle choices.
False claims about the ERA'sconsequences. Among her specific, and often debunked, claims were that the ERA would lead to same-sex marriage, unisex bathrooms, the invalidation of child support laws, and the end of Social Security benefits for housewives. Many of these fears proved to be unfounded or were deliberately misrepresented to sway public opinion.
Exaggerated effects of military conscription. One of Schlafly's most effective arguments was that the ERA would subject women to the military draft and compulsory combat roles. This fear-mongering resonated with many Americans, especially during the Vietnam War era, but was an emotional appeal rather than a legal certainty.
Why critics label her claims as dishonest
Manipulative tactics: Schlafly was a sophisticated and strategic political operative, not just a concerned homemaker. She used "weaponized housewifery" and a staged image of domesticity to make her political campaign more palatable.
Conspiratorial framing: Her messaging often presented a conspiratorial worldview, as seen in her earlier pro-Goldwater tract A Choice, Not an Echo, which shared tactics with the John Birch Society. She used similar methods to frame the ERA as a sinister plot.
Personal contradictions: As critics often pointed out, Schlafly's own life contradicted the image of the stay-at-home mother she promoted. She was a highly active career woman who earned multiple degrees, including a law degree while campaigning against the ERA, and frequently relied on hired help to manage her home.

Phyllis Schlafly's claim that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a larger leftist threat to American values is not a straightforward matter of truth or lies but a political framing that combined genuine social anxieties with conspiratorial rhetoric. Schlafly used alarmist claims about what the ERA would do to successfully mobilize conservative women and stall the amendment's ratification.
How Schlafly framed the ERA as a leftist threat
Schlafly's strategy was not to debate the merits of equality but to paint the ERA as a radical attack on traditional family structures and Christian values. She linked the amendment to a broader "feminist agenda" that she said would destroy the special protections and privileges women enjoyed in society.
Her most effective arguments included:
Abolishing financial support: Claiming that the ERA would force women to abandon their roles as wives and mothers by eliminating alimony and a husband's obligation to provide for his family.
The draft: Suggesting that equal rights would lead to women being subject to military conscription, a particular concern during the Vietnam War era.
Co-ed bathrooms: Using the issue of unisex public restrooms to create a sense of moral panic and discomfort.
Same-sex marriage: Later, connecting the ERA to the legalization of homosexual marriage.
The political context of Schlafly's claims
By describing the ERA as part of a larger leftist threat, Schlafly tapped into existing anti-communist sentiment and anxiety over social changes from the 1960s.
Polarizing rhetoric: Schlafly belonged to the John Birch Society and was known for using polarizing language and conspiratorial thinking to misrepresent reality.
Exploiting anxieties: She channeled the anxieties of many women who felt threatened by the rapid pace of social change. For many, especially working-class women, the idea of losing protective laws was genuinely frightening.
Religious right alliance: Schlafly successfully mobilized a new coalition of evangelicals, Mormons, and conservative Catholics by arguing the ERA threatened the family and was a violation of religious principles.
Counter-mobilization: The success of her campaign created a new conservative force that used "culture war" issues to consolidate political power, paving the way for the ascendance of figures like Ronald Reagan.
Debunking Schlafly's claims
Historians and legal experts have since refuted Schlafly's dire predictions. The ERA did not threaten homemakers, nor would it have forced women into combat or eliminated single-sex spaces. Her rhetoric was a political tool to stop the ERA by making it seem more radical than it was. Ultimately, the vagueness of the amendment created an opening for Schlafly's worst-case scenarios, and a court system would have been needed to determine its true legal effects

In reality, the ERA was meant to guarantee equal legal rights, not dictate lifestyle choices.


Without the ERA, the rights of women and other marginalized genders rely on statutory law (which can be repealed) and inconsistent judicial interpretations of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Congressional and judicial authority
The statement correctly identifies the distinct functions of Congress and the Supreme Court in the American legal system.
Congress makes laws: It creates legislation, and Section 2 of the ERA gives Congress the explicit power to enforce the amendment through "appropriate legislation".
The Supreme Court decides laws: Its power of judicial review allows it to interpret the Constitution and declare acts of the legislative or executive branches unconstitutional.

[curious]

If Kamela Harris runs for President 2028 and wins she could make the ERA Part of the US Constitutuin...by directing the head of the National Archives to write it up...after all her mentor Joe Bidden certified it publiclly  which is a matter of record; as a lawyer she would certainly know that without being written up  US women citizens are still legallly interior to men since 1923...It would certaily be a great step forward...after all after 119 years Bidden signed the first Federal Anti Lynching act...all this is a matter of public record....and it could come about if she feels that this last barrier to female ineuality is removed....but only if she chooses to do so...

Incidently
Comparing a hypocritical liar for gain with a pathological liar requires examining the motivations, awareness, and impact of their deception. While both behaviors are destructive to trust, many find the hypocritical liar worse because their deception is a conscious and strategic choice to exploit others.
Hypocritical liar for gain
A hypocritical liar preaches values they do not practice, and their lies are a calculated tool for manipulation.
Motivation: The primary goal is selfish benefit, such as power, money, or social status. They use their false virtue as a mask to gain influence and control over others.
Awareness: They are typically fully aware of their dishonesty and the disparity between their words and actions.

Intent: From a moral perspective, the hypocritical liar's actions are often viewed as more malicious. Their deceit is a deliberate, cynical choice to exploit people, whereas the pathological liar's behavior is driven by a psychological condition.
Harm: In terms of direct harm, a hypocritical liar for gain can be more destructive. They leverage their false trustworthiness to manipulate people toward a specific, selfish—and potentially harmful—goal. In contrast, the harm from a pathological liar, while damaging to relationships, is often less directed and more a byproduct of their disorder.
Impact: Their deceit can cause significant damage. By exploiting undeserved trust and preying on the moral standards of others, they can manipulate people into supporting a harmful agenda.

[curious]

Query to AI  If Kamela Harris wins in 2028 is it logical to hope that she will complete the Process for the ERA to become part of the US Constitution? After all after Virginia became last state to confirm Trump refused to certify the ERA, and frankly he shows no inclination to direct the National Archives to write the ERA Into law. Harris on the Hand would remember that it was her mentor Bidden who did certify The ERA Amendment, and that by her actions she would complete the Process of Equal Rights for Female american citizens which started over 102 years ago; lastly she show that Democratic Party was the Great Liberal party in the traditions of FDR; Harry Trumanl JFK and LBJ?

Assuming Kamala Harris is elected president in 2028, it would be logical to expect her to continue the push for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), consistent with her past actions and stated positions. However, the path to the ERA becoming part of the Constitution remains legally and politically complex, and a single presidential directive is unlikely to be the sole determining factor.
Kamala Harris's known stance and potential actions
Vocal support: As Vice President, Harris has consistently and publicly voiced her support for the ERA, stating that "the Equal Rights Amendment belongs in our Constitution". She has previously framed the ERA's passage as a priority for addressing wage and gender disparities.
Political pressure: A Harris administration could apply political pressure to Congress to pass new legislation aimed at resolving the legal ambiguity surrounding the ERA.
Directive to the Archivist: In January 2025, President Biden announced that he considered the ERA the "law of the land" following Virginia's 2020 ratification, though the National Archives has not certified it due to legal precedent. While a president has no direct authority over the constitutional amendment process, a Harris administration could pressure the National Archives to follow a different legal interpretation. However, the National Archivist, who is legally bound to follow established legal advice, is unlikely to act unless instructed by Congress or a court order.
The "liberal tradition" argument
The argument that a Harris presidency would solidify the Democratic Party's position in the liberal tradition is a political interpretation and not a legal guarantee.
FDR's legacy: While often associated with the expansion of federal power and social welfare, FDR's legacy also includes complexities. For example, he did not include African Americans in the benefits of many New Deal programs.
Political optics: Acting decisively on the ERA would align with the Democratic Party's platform and could be framed as a fulfillment of promises made to progressive voters. However, the political reality is that a successful ERA effort would also need bipartisan cooperation to resolve the existing legal hurdles.
In conclusion, while a President Harris would almost certainly be an ERA advocate, the certification of the amendment ultimately depends on legal and congressional action. A new push would require either a favorable court ruling or the passage of a new congressional resolution, both of which would depend on the broader political landscape, not just the president's position.


Former Vice President Kamala Harris has left the door open for a potential 2028 presidential campaign following her decision not to run for governor of California in 2026. Her move has fueled speculation about her future plans, though many Democrats express misgivings about another run.
Yes, after her loss in the 2024 presidential election, Kamala Harris urged her supporters not to give up hope. In her concession speech, she asked her backers to "never give up the fight for our democracy".
During her address at Howard University on November 6, 2024, the following points were made:
Perseverance was encouraged. While acknowledging that the outcome was not what supporters wanted, she stated, "the light of America's promise will always burn bright as long as we never give up and as long as we keep fighting".
The election was conceded, but not the fight. She clarified, "While I concede this election, I do not concede the fight that fueled this campaign... That is a fight I will never give up".
Sustained engagement was called for. Harris encouraged people to organize, mobilize, and stay engaged for the sake of freedom and justice. She told young supporters, "The important thing is don't ever give up".
Hope in the face of setbacks was discussed. She used an adage that "only when it is dark enough can you see the stars," urging people to fill the sky with "the light of optimism, faith, truth, and service".

[curious]

The ERA's intended purpose
You are correct that the ERA's primary goal is to establish legal equality between the sexes.
The text of the ERA states, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex".
The intent of proponents is to provide a fundamental remedy against sex-based discrimination for both men and women, covering issues like divorce, property, and employment
Some point to the fact that the amendment was proposed in 1972, before Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, as evidence that the ERA's original intent had nothing to do with abortion.

The era has one purpose bring down barriers that make women legally inferior..also it is up to the states and congress and the supreme court to decide if abortion is part of the constitution..not the ERA...
The respective roles of states, Congress, and the Supreme Court
The user's assertion that it's up to states, Congress, and the Supreme Court to decide on abortion rights is fundamentally correct, particularly since the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.
States: States now have primary authority to either protect or restrict abortion. Some state constitutions have been interpreted to protect abortion rights, while other states have banned or severely restricted it.
Congress: Congress has the power to enforce the provisions of any constitutional amendment, including the ERA, through "appropriate legislation". If the ERA were to be fully recognized, Congress could pass federal laws to protect abortion access, which would be enforced by the courts.
Supreme Court: The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation. It would likely have to rule on future challenges concerning how the ERA applies to abortion and other issues. However, for the ERA to have an impact, it must first overcome a series of legal hurdles, such as lapsed ratification deadlines.