Biden Declares Equal Rights Amendment Ratified: What It Means and What Comes Next
"President Biden's Bold Declaration Sparks Hope for Gender Equality While Setting the Stage for Legal Battles Over the Historic Amendment"
President Joe Biden has made a bold move by declaring the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) ratified, potentially marking a historic milestone in the fight for gender equality. While this announcement is generating hope among advocates, it is also expected to trigger intense legal battles, as the amendment’s path to becoming part of the U.S. Constitution remains unclear.
The ERA, first introduced in Congress in 1972, seeks to enshrine equal rights for women in the Constitution. For an amendment to become law, it requires the approval of three-fourths of U.S. states—38 in total. After decades of stagnation, Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the amendment in 2020. However, questions about the validity of this ratification persist, as some states have withdrawn their earlier approval and deadlines for ratification have passed.
Despite these hurdles, President Biden is firmly stating his belief that the amendment is ratified and now serves as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution. In a statement on Friday, he emphasized the importance of recognizing equality for all Americans.
“It is long past time to recognize the will of the American people,” Biden said. “I affirm what I believe and what three-fourths of the states have ratified: The 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law regardless of their sex.”
The Debate Over Ratification
The controversy surrounding the ERA’s status is rooted in legal and procedural questions. Critics argue that the original ratification deadline, set by Congress when the amendment was first introduced, has long since expired. Additionally, five states that initially approved the amendment have since rescinded their support. These factors, opponents say, complicate the amendment’s path forward.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the agency responsible for certifying and publishing amendments, has stated that it cannot certify the ERA due to these legal obstacles. In a December statement, NARA officials cited prior opinions from the Department of Justice affirming that ratification deadlines are enforceable.
However, Biden and his administration point to differing opinions from constitutional scholars and organizations like the American Bar Association. According to these experts, the text of the ERA does not include a time limit, and states should not be allowed to reverse their ratification once it has been given.
“The framers of the Constitution wisely avoided the chaos that would have resulted if states were able to take back their votes at any time,” a senior administration official explained.
What Happens Next?
The announcement leaves the fate of the ERA in a precarious position. Biden has not issued an executive order to enforce the amendment but has used his platform to declare his belief that it is already ratified. The next step would require Dr. Colleen Shogan, the archivist of the United States, to certify and publish the amendment. However, NARA has maintained its position that it cannot do so without further legal clarity.
The matter will likely end up in the courts, which will ultimately decide whether the ERA has been successfully ratified. Legal experts and advocacy groups on both sides of the debate are preparing for a lengthy battle.
A New Push for Equality
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York has been a vocal advocate for certifying the ERA. She argues that recognizing the amendment would provide a powerful way to advance women’s rights without relying on a deeply divided Congress.
Gillibrand has worked closely with the White House to push this issue forward, even raising it directly with President Biden and First Lady Jill Biden during a holiday party. Her efforts highlight the growing urgency among advocates to solidify protections for women, particularly in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Biden has already taken several executive actions to protect abortion rights, but many of his options are limited without congressional approval. By declaring the ERA ratified, he hopes to bolster protections for reproductive rights and gender equality.
The Broader Implications
If the ERA is ultimately recognized as part of the Constitution, it would be a significant victory for advocates of gender equality. The amendment could serve as a foundation for new legal protections, including stronger safeguards for reproductive rights, pay equity, and protection against gender-based discrimination.
For now, however, the future of the ERA is uncertain. Biden’s declaration has reignited hope among supporters, but it also sets the stage for a legal showdown that could take years to resolve.
Regardless of the outcome, Biden’s move signals a renewed commitment to advancing equality and justice for all Americans. As the fight for the ERA continues, it serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggle to ensure that the promise of equal rights becomes a reality for everyone.
About the Creator
More Than 500 Dead in Iran Protests — U.S. Considers Military Options
Iran is facing one of its most intense periods of unrest in years as widespread protests continue across multiple cities, drawing global attention and growing concern. Human rights organizations and international observers report that more than 500 people may have been killed since demonstrations began, marking a devastating toll that has intensified diplomatic pressure on Tehran. As the situation deteriorates, the United States is openly debating possible responses, including military options, raising fears of further escalation in an already volatile region. A Nation in Turmoil The protests, which began amid economic hardship and political frustration, have evolved into a broader movement challenging government authority. Demonstrators have taken to the streets demanding accountability, improved living conditions, and greater personal freedoms. While the Iranian government has described the unrest as foreign-backed destabilization, protesters and activists portray it as a grassroots expression of public anger. Reports from inside Iran remain difficult to verify due to media restrictions and internet shutdowns. However, international human rights groups estimate that hundreds of civilians have died during clashes between security forces and demonstrators. Thousands more have reportedly been detained, adding to fears of widespread repression. The rising death toll has transformed what began as domestic unrest into an international crisis. Government Response and Crackdown Iranian authorities have responded forcefully, deploying security forces to suppress protests and restore order. Officials insist their actions are necessary to maintain national stability and protect public institutions. State media emphasizes incidents of violence and vandalism, framing the protests as a security threat rather than a political movement. Critics argue that the heavy-handed response has only fueled further anger. Images and testimonies shared by activists show security forces confronting unarmed civilians, intensifying global outrage. Calls for independent investigations have grown louder, though Iranian leadership has rejected external interference. International Reaction Grows As reports of rising casualties spread, international condemnation has increased. Western governments, including the United States, have expressed deep concern over the situation. Statements from U.S. officials emphasize support for the Iranian people’s right to peaceful protest while condemning the use of lethal force against civilians. The United Nations and several human rights organizations have urged restraint and called for accountability. Diplomatic efforts have so far yielded limited results, with Tehran dismissing many criticisms as politically motivated. U.S. Considers Military Options Amid mounting pressure, discussions within the United States have taken a sharper tone. While no formal decision has been announced, U.S. officials have acknowledged that “all options remain on the table” should the situation worsen. This language has sparked intense debate over what role, if any, military force should play in responding to Iran’s internal crisis. Supporters of a tougher stance argue that continued violence against civilians demands a strong response. They believe that clear consequences could deter further abuses and demonstrate international resolve. Others caution that military intervention could escalate the conflict, potentially destabilizing the entire Middle East. Historically, U.S.–Iran relations have been marked by distrust, sanctions, and limited diplomatic engagement. Any military action, even symbolic, would likely have far-reaching consequences beyond Iran’s borders. Risks of Escalation Analysts warn that increased U.S. involvement could trigger retaliation from Iran or its regional allies. The Middle East is already navigating multiple conflicts, and further escalation could disrupt global energy markets and threaten regional security. There is also concern that military threats may strengthen hardline factions within Iran, undermining internal reform movements. Critics argue that external pressure often allows governments to shift focus away from domestic grievances by framing unrest as foreign aggression. For this reason, many experts advocate for diplomatic pressure, targeted sanctions, and international monitoring rather than direct military involvement. Voices From the Iranian Diaspora Outside Iran, members of the Iranian diaspora have organized demonstrations and advocacy campaigns, urging global leaders to take action. These voices emphasize the human cost of the crisis, sharing stories of families affected by violence and detention. While opinions differ on the best course forward, there is widespread agreement on one point: the loss of life is unacceptable, and the international community cannot ignore the situation. A Critical Moment Ahead The unfolding crisis places Iran and the United States at a dangerous crossroads. With more than 500 deaths reportedly linked to the protests, the pressure for decisive action continues to build. At the same time, the risks associated with military involvement remain high. What happens next will depend on a combination of internal developments within Iran and the choices made by global powers. Whether the situation moves toward dialogue or deeper confrontation will shape not only Iran’s future but also the stability of the broader region. Conclusion The reported death toll from Iran’s protests represents more than statistics—it reflects a nation in distress and a world struggling to respond. As the U.S. considers its options, the challenge lies in balancing accountability with restraint. In moments like these, the consequences of action—and inaction—carry profound weight.
By Saboor Brohi 4 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.