Politics

If The ERA Is So Great For Women, Why Would It Hurt Moms The Most?

Published

on

The ERA is back. This time it’s in the form of a joint House and Senate resolution to dissolve the expiration date once and for all. On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee hosted a hearing on the Equal Rights Amendment. Individuals supporting the ERA argue it’s needed to ensure equal rights for women, but this ignores the fact that strong legislative action has achieved many of the ERA’s original aims since the 1970s. 

The ERA views all forms of legal distinction between men and women as a form of discrimination. This is bad policy. Women are best protected and supported in society when the law recognizes legitimate distinctions between men and women. An Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution would remove specific protections for mothers in the name of “sameness” between men and women. 

So why do we need a constitutional amendment today? Instead of providing necessary legal protections to women, the ERA would strip women of essential protections and privileges — especially laws that relate to pregnancy and motherhood. 

Take, for example, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act or paid maternity leave or the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program. Consider health insurance coverage specifically for pregnant women through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). 

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act protects mothers from employment-based discrimination. It ensures that employers don’t withhold benefits or limit work opportunities due to pregnancy or childbirth. It doesn’t stop there; it also provides additional benefits to mothers, like access to lactation rooms. 

To survive under

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Trending

Exit mobile version