National Ratification Status

Unratified States

Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Nevada
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Utah
Virginia

Additional information about the ERA's political status can be found on the website of the ERA Campaign Network. For a list of Network coordinators in specific states, click here.

Including the word "sex" in the Equal Rights Amendment has recently been called into question because the clueless "do not know if it is being used as a noun or a verb." Should we laugh? Or cry!

Run, don’t walk, to your nearest copy of the Constitution and look at the wording of the 19th Amendment. It reads (in its entirety): "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

On Aug. [26], 1920, this amendment was added to the Constitution of the United States. The wording was used as a model for the Equal Rights Amendment, which reads: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." If Americans were clever enough in 1920 to figure out that "it is the sex you are and not the sex you do," we should in this millennium also be able to figure that out.

Some claim to be unable to do that, and would like to see the word "gender" be substituted for sex. That is a "gotcha" in the making. The Wisconsin legislature foolishly was lured by the opponents to change the wording in seeking a state Equal Rights Amendment in the '80s. "We all know that there are three genders – male, female and neuter," they said. "Are we going to let neuters (read that ‘homosexuals’) into the Constitution?" And the "divert and confuse" tactic worked again.

Many today cannot believe that once women were ridiculed for wanting to ratify the 19th Amendment. They were stoned, imprisoned in rat-infested jails and force-fed when they went on hunger strikes. Only after decades of battle did they win the right to vote.

Three years later, in 1923, the campaign began for legal, educational, social, and economic equality for women, and the Equal Rights Amendment was proposed. Since then the wording has not changed, and the goal has not changed.

Today several points of information need to be addressed:

(1) The 14th Amendment, which addresses equal protection under the law, was ratified in 1868. This amendment does not negate the need for an Equal Rights Amendment, and indeed did not even apply to women. In our Constitution the terms "citizens" and "persons" did not, and were not meant to, include women or blacks. Thus voting rights for blacks and women (amendments 15 and 19) were necessary.

(2) The ERA is decidedly not dead and buried. It is true that the ratification time limit imposed by Congress (originally a seven-year deadline, then a three-year extension) expired in June 1982, when the amendment was three states shy of approval. The time limits are not in the text of the amendment, however; they are found only in a preamble.

Historically, Congress began imposing seven-year time limits on ratification procedures in 1919, with the 18th Amendment (Prohibition). However, the restriction has not been included within the text of any amendment since 1961, including the Equal Rights Amendment.

(3) Many do not know that a new Equal Rights Amendment was introduced on the floor of the Senate by Sen. Edward Kennedy the day after the initial ratification period had expired, or that it has been introduced in every Congress since 1982. The bills in Congress currently include one which would begin the entire ratification process over again, without a time limit.

(4) Another ERA bill currently in Congress is based on a precedent set by the Madison Amendment (Amendment 27, which bars a sitting Congress from raising its own compensation). The 27th Amendment took 203 years to ratify; it was deemed "sufficiently contemporaneous" by Congress and was added to the Constitution in 1992.

This precedent gave rise to the "three state strategy," in which Congress could be asked to "take any legislative action necessary to verify the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment as part of the Constitution if three additional states vote to ratify."

What could be more contemporaneous than equality of rights for all American citizens? And yet women have tried without success for 80 years to be acknowledged as equals in our Constitution through an Equal Rights Amendment. This is far longer than the entire campaign which led to the right to vote.

Until an Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution is ratified, no woman can feel proud of this document. It is not our document. Make no mistake, our founding fathers very deliberately (and publicly) "rigged the rules" against women when they wrote the Constitution in 1787. The only right currently given to women [specifically on an equal basis with men] by our Constitution is the right to vote. The omission of women in the Constitution is a lasting insult to every woman in the United States of America.

Efforts are under way in several of the 15 states which have not yet ratified the Equal Rights Amendment. Florida is one of those states. Gov. Jeb Bush has publicly ridiculed a renewed effort at ratification. It is possible that the governor and some of the Republican legislators are not aware that the GOP was the first party to endorse the Equal Rights Amendment!

Many of us who were excluded by the NO WIMMIN ALLOWED – KEEP OUT signs posted on the door of a brother's rickety clubhouse grew up and thought it was "sort of cute" when our sons did the same. Today I cringe at the thought. Have I now lost my sense of humor, or regained my sense of outrage?

It appears that the "wimmin keep out" sign is still posted and that we may be standing on the outside looking in for another 216 years. Is it any wonder that "wimmin" have lost their sense of humor?

Kappie Spencer is Director of the National Gender Balance Project, a former national director of public policy for the American Association of University Women, and a long-time member of the Florida Women's Consortium.

TALLAHASSEE - As president of the Business and Professional Women's Clubs state chapter, Sue Banks says she was "dumbfounded" by the reception she received last month from a state senator when she asked him to support ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.

"That's silly," Banks recalled the senator telling her with a laugh, then adding, "You ladies are superior to us already."

Banks declined to identify the fellow Republican, saying she wanted to save him from embarrassment.

Days later, Banks, a Palm Beach Gardens business consultant, was appalled to read comments by Gov. Jeb Bush ridiculing the ERA's revival as a "retro" movement that he said is "like going back and wearing bell bottoms."

That, Banks said, was not the message she expected from leaders whose party is angling for women's votes next year, when President Bush is expected to need Florida's 27 electoral votes for reelection.

"The Republican Party is supposed to stand for individual rights and freedom," said Banks, 53. "To have a party that is wrong on the ERA and yet feels that the female vote is so critical and so important, that's talking out of both sides of our mouth."

As Banks and other ERA advocates push to resuscitate the decades-old debate in Florida and several other states, they are creating a political commotion that is making some Republican strategists worry about the party's increasingly aggressive efforts to court women.

Gov. Bush's remarks, strategists say, threaten to overshadow a strong record of appointing women to top jobs in his administration.

Coupled with his brother's recent decision to study the usefulness of Title IX, the federal law that requires equal opportunities in college sports for men and women, some Republicans worry that the Bush brothers' approach could hurt the president and other GOP candidates in Florida, where moderate female voters can swing elections.

One key strategist critical of Gov. Bush said that women, who make up more than half of the general-election turnout in Florida elections, are "soft GOP voters" who will "change their minds on one particular issue."

"The governor does not need to ridicule this, but should honestly and openly debate it," the strategist said.

While Bush's bluntness has made some people uncomfortable, others in his party are squirming in the face of a wedge issue that so clearly divides the party's loyal, conservative base from its growing dependence on moderate voters.

Toni Jennings, Florida's first female lieutenant governor and a former state senator who opposed the ERA in 1982, now tiptoes around the issue and refuses to take a stand.

"I'll have to do some research on it," said Jennings, who, as a likely candidate for governor in 2006, would rely in part on her appeal to female voters eager to elect a woman to high office.

Carole Jean Jordan, whose recent election over three more-conservative male rivals to be chairman of the state Republican Party was viewed as a sign that the GOP was looking to broaden its base, did not return telephone calls to discuss how the ERA debate might affect her efforts.

The Republican fault lines on the debate were clearly exposed last week, when the amendment won a surprising 6-3 victory in a GOP-led state Senate committee, with three Republicans and three Democrats voting for it.

It was the first vote in the Legislature since 1982 on the ERA, which 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."

Advocates argue that if Florida lawmakers vote to ratify the amendment, the state could push the national movement closer to achieving the 38 states required for adding the provision to the U.S. Constitution. Thirty-five states ratified the ERA when the debate raged in the 1970s and 1980s, and some legal scholars argue that those votes remain viable if three more states can deliver. Others disagree, noting that Congress placed a seven-year deadline on the ratification process.

Besides Florida, advocates are lobbying for ratification in Missouri, Arizona and several other states.

Ratifying the ERA in Florida requires a majority vote in the state House and Senate but does not need Bush's signature. Still, the governor's remarks have made him a protagonist for a vocal opposition that consists largely of the GOP's loyal, conservative base.

State House Speaker Johnnie Byrd has joined Bush in opposing the effort, all but ensuring that the ERA will die in the Legislature this year but remain very much alive on the campaign trail next year.

Some critics’ sentiments were summed up in an e-mail from Christian Coalition Deputy Director Carolyn Kunkle to state Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Alex Villalobos, a Miami Republican who backs the ERA. Kunkle declared that the amendment would legalize same-sex marriages and require taxpayer funding for many abortions.

"ERA is a fraud," Kunkle wrote.

Other opponents – including Gov. Bush – argue that they support equality for women but believe the ERA is passé at a time that women are making advancements – a stance that some Republicans believe is a mainstream view held by many women who will continue to vote for GOP candidates.

The National Federation of Republican Women, for example, is currently surveying its 100,000 members on the ERA. Preliminary results show that most respondents oppose it because they do not think it's needed, a spokeswoman said.

Still, pro-ERA Republicans say they are troubled by anyone in their party who would oppose a measure designed to ensure that women and men of equal qualifications earn equal pay and treatment. Recent studies show that women on average earn 76 cents for every dollar earned by a man with the same experience.

State Rep. Nancy Detert, a Venice Republican who is co-sponsoring the ERA in the Legislature, attributes the differences on the issue within her party to age and experience.

"I'm old enough to remember the day when my mother got a divorce and Sears Roebuck canceled her credit card," said Detert, 58. "The governor, quite frankly, is a good bit younger than I am." Bush turned 50 in February.

Villalobos said he was a changed man on the ERA.

Twenty years ago, he said, he opposed it. But now, he said, his 12-year-old daughter, Katie, would benefit from it.

Katie sat beside her father as he presided over last week's Judiciary Committee meeting in which Villalobos argued for ratification.

"Times change, and the party needs to realize that, too," Villalobos said. "If they want more people with them, they need to be responsive to their constituents. That is what Katie told me."

Despite offensive remarks from Florida Governor Jeb Bush condemning the renewed movement for an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), Florida's Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee voted 6-3 to endorse ratification of the ERA. "It’s like going back and wearing bell bottoms," Bush said of the proposed constitutional amendment that would guarantee equality under the law for women, according to the Miami Herald.

Along with Illinois, Arizona, and Missouri, Florida is one of four targeted states in a renewed drive to pass an amendment to the US Constitution that reads: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." In 1982, Florida was one of several states that narrowly rejected ratification of the ERA.

Beginning in 1923, the ERA was introduced in every session of Congress until it was approved in 1972. It was then sent to the states for ratification with a seven-year deadline and fell just three states short of the 38 needed for ratification when the 1982 deadline expired. If ratified, the ERA could become the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, was one of the leaders of the drive to ratify the ERA from 1972-1982. "We must keep introducing the ERA until women win equality," Smeal said. "As the Bush administration continues to turn back the clock on women’s rights, the ERA is needed now more than ever. Without a constitutional guarantee, the progress women have made over the past 30 years is endangered."

The renewed movement for passage of the ERA has also made headway in Illinois, where a House committee has approved a bill for ERA ratification. In addition, the Illinois Senate president has expressed support for the legislation, Jennifer Macleod, national coordinator of the ERA Campaign Network told United Press International.

While women have made considerable gains since the ERA was first introduced, women still do not have equality in the United States. Women earn just 73 cents on the man’s dollar. Women make up 14 percent of the seats in the U.S. Congress. Slightly less than 50 percent of women nationwide have more than a high school education. The proportion of women aged 16 and over in poverty is 12 percent, compared to 8.3 percent of men.

Critics of the ERA claim that it would nullify laws that ban homosexual marriages and would lead to the legal recognition of transgender people. "I think that going back and selecting slices of Americana and saying you’re entitled to special rights, that we can slice and dice it all you want," Florida House Speaker Johnnie Byrd told the Herald.

Q. What exactly does the Equal Rights Amendment say?

A. It says: "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 Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."

Q. I thought the whole debate about the ERA was over in June 1982 after the 10-year deadline set by Congress expired, and only 35 of the 38 states required had voted to ratify it. How and why is it being brought up 21 years later?

A. By 1982, we were so exhausted we went home, and we were so demoralized. We all believed the ERA was dead – until 1992, when the Madison amendment on congressional salaries, the 27th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, was ratified after gathering dust for 203 years. We thought, if it's good enough for Madison, it's good enough for the ERA.

Now that we recognize that legal opinion is on our side -- and that an independent poll shows 88 percent of citizens want the ERA in the Constitution, as opposed to only 61 percent in 1982 -- we are convinced that now is the time.

We have other substantiating arguments that seem to have credence with our constitutional lawyers. One of them is that the time limit was set in the introductory material, not the body of the ERA amendment itself. Another is that Congress extended the original seven-year time limit by three years, so it's obviously a flexible and flimsy constraint. So we've picked up on it and dusted it off and fueled our engines and got going.

Q. Doesn't the U.S. Constitution give men and women equal protection of the law now?

A. I have arguments with politicians and others who say, "Sandy, we already took care of that. We have statutes and blah-blah." Well, none of them protect us. The Supreme Court told us in 1873 that if we women wanted the vote, we'd have to amend the U.S. Constitution, and it took us until 1920 to do that. We thought full equality would follow. But in 1973, the Supreme Court again said if you want equality of treatment in perpetuity, you have to amend the U.S. Constitution again. They keep telling us that.

Why they do that is that the 14th Amendment says very cheerfully in the first few sentences that basic rights are accorded to all "persons." But then you read carefully toward the end and you find that "persons" are defined as men, because we were thought of as chattel, as possessions, when that was written. So the 14th Amendment doesn't do it for us.

Q. Doesn't Florida's Constitution have its own version of a "little ERA"?

A. Yes, Florida voters approved Revision No. 9 in November 1998. It says in part, "All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have certain inalienable rights " All it did was add the words "female and male alike" to an existing statement of equality that has been in the state constitution for years.

But that addition was effectively made null and void by a Dec. 14, 2001, U.S. appeals court ruling saying that Florida women's sex discrimination cases do not warrant the "strict scrutiny" accorded cases based on race, religion or national origin.

And that's what's happening to state constitutional ERAs. The door opens, but then it closes behind us when we're not looking. That's one of the reasons a national ERA is still needed. Because courts tell us if we want equality we must amend the U.S. Constitution. Nothing else does it, not state constitutions, not the 14th Amendment and not laws either.

Look at the efforts to dismantle Title IX and affirmative action. Unlike the Constitution, laws are more vulnerable to being ignored, eroded, overturned, diluted. Until we get the ERA, it's like President Lincoln trying to get the Emancipation Proclamation one plantation at a time.

Q. Can you give me some examples of current legalized discrimination, which an ERA could prevent or overturn?

A. As a matter of fact, both men and women are discriminated against. Men have difficulty either admitting or knowing it. Here are some vestiges of outright sex discrimination that reflect an unthinking stereotype in men's and women's roles. The worst of them come from the unreal myth that homemakers don't work and women don't deserve a full salary for doing the same work a man does. There is still that lingering thing that women are
foolish, slothful and possessions of men.

In January, the Florida Supreme Court said a man can be held responsible for child support even if it's proven he didn't father the child. In Georgia, women in a divorce stand not only to lose their children but all their assets, including the family home.

Recently, dozens of female Air Force cadets whose sex assault [cases] were mishandled learned they have nowhere to go with valid complaints. Insurance companies offer coverage for men who use Viagra for erectile dysfunction, but not for women who use birth control pills. That's pretty blatant. Also, women get lower payouts from life insurance on the supposition they live longer.

We don't have laws giving us quality paid day care – single moms are most affected – as other countries have.

Q. I understand women have a pay gap, too.

A. Women get only 71 [sic -- 77] cents for every dollar a man earns. When I was starting this whole ERA thing years ago, it was 59 cents. So, it's not like "You've come a long way, baby, now go sit down and shut up." We're not going to settle for just virtual equality. We want real equality. We're tired of pretending to be equal; we want to be equal.

Q. Who is sponsoring the bills trying to get the Legislature to ratify the ERA in Florida?

A. The prime sponsors of identical bills are Sen. Gwen Margolis, a Miami Democrat (Senate Concurrent Resolution 1166). In the House, it's sponsored by Rep. Arthenia Joyner, a Tampa Democrat (House Concurrent Resolution 615). We have cosponsors of both sexes, both major political parties and all ethnic groups.

Q. What groups are part of your Florida Equal Rights Alliance?

A. There are about 40. The Florida chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, the Florida League of Women Voters, Florida Business and Professional Women, Florida National Council of Jewish Women, the Humanists of Florida, Miami-Dade County government and several other county governments. We have seven action teams around the state. It's growing like mad. We plan to get religious groups, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and others involved.

What I'm trying to do is engage those people in dialogue who are somewhat on the fence, or opposed. I have spoken before the latter groups, and I'm very convinced that they just don't know the words.

Q. Who is opposing ratifying the ERA, and why?

A. I can't really say we've had much opposition in Florida. They haven't revved up yet, but they may rev up in time. It's not the average decent religious person or the average decent Republican or the average person who believes life starts at conception. It's the arm-twisting of those hierarchies that are against us. They are still hawking the quaint, antique, foolish ideas that the ERA would dictate unisex toilets, women in combat, abortion and same-sex marriages.

Well, first off, the language doesn't say anything like that. Usually, their rhetoric has to do with them not knowing what the words are, frankly. Besides, we've had these "dreaded" things for years before the ERA was ever introduced.

Not one state with an ERA in its constitution has noted an explosion of unisex toilets or any of the other "horrors." To the contrary, Washington state has declared that there is no relevance of the ERA and same-sex marriages.

Q. Given that conservative Republicans are controlling both the Florida House and Senate and the governorship, is it likely that Florida would ratify the ERA?

A. You know, it's up for grabs. Republicans, for some reasons like the religious influences in the party now, maybe lots of other reasons, seem at first blush to be against it. But if you ask them why, they kind of murmur and worry about same-sex marriage. The legislators I've talked to, when I tell them the language, and say equality is the bulwark of our Constitution, and ask what possible reason could you have to keep more than half the population out of the Constitution, they get uncomfortable. Maybe because they realize their reasons for opposing ERA are "running on empty." We think they, like many of us, just need to explore some of their own values that don't serve them well any more.

Q. Where is your campaign focusing its efforts?

A. We are focusing on the political party leaders and the judiciary committees of both houses, because that's where the bills are. We are trying our best to get legislators to see that ERA is simple justice, long overdue for their constituents and their families, and not some devious battle plan.

Q. What are some of the other myths about the ERA?

A. That it's not about simple equality for all and would somehow harm America. They're kind of floundering, in a very retro way, to counter us. Their arguments were without logic before, and still are.

So, we now have a pretty good engine going. Even the Republicans and some other people seem to be listening to logic that we need to be pulling Florida out of the mental swamps and chads.

Q. In the amendment, does the word "sex" mean gender or sexual orientation?

A. It just means being male or female.

Q. Why do you suppose so many people oppose the ERA?

A. It's both ignorance and fear. It's not obvious to quite a few people. It makes a lot of difference. I think it has a religious backing going back to antiquity, when women were thought of as second-class, men's property, chattel. That really framed U.S. thinking. Women were typically under their father's care and then handed off to another man in marriage. Couldn't be trusted to make reasoned decisions. In many cases, that distorted thinking persists.

That's a major reason for ERA -- to place women legally in a position of being whole persons with rights to self-determination, so they can be full participants in society, making policy as well as living under it.

Q. In summary, what would be your message?

A. We say to men: Go and listen to the women around you. Listen, really listen, to your daughters, your wives, your mothers and other women when they are not just trying to placate your macho-ness or cater to your ego, when they are not intimidated or frightened, when they are not seeking just a bit of your power because they have less of their own.

We say to women against the ERA: Search your souls and ask yourselves why is it that you do not stand up at group gatherings and voice your opinion first, before all the men have finished. Ask why girls in school classes answer seldom and in timid voices, as they get derided by boys. Ask what you'd have done with your lives if you'd been a man, and ask what stopped you.

We are tired of pretending to be equal. We really want to be equal. What reasonable person can say that equality should not be accorded to every American citizen? The U.S. Constitution provides a firewall around our equal rights; it's the only thing that does.

All of the countries formed with charters since World War II have an equal rights clause in them. We do not. Even Afghan women have an equal rights amendment, yet they are having trouble getting it implemented. And we will, too. But it's not going to be a slam-dunk.

Now is the time for the ERA. We will ratify, no doubt. May take some time, but we aren't going home without it.

Sandy J. Oestreich is founder and chair of the Florida Equal Rights Alliance, a network of about 40 organizations now urging Florida's Legislature to ratify the U.S. Equal Rights Amendment. Florida is one of only 15 states that did not ratify the amendment in the 10 years after Congress approved the amendment and before the June 30, 1982, deadline for
ratification. She has a legal opinion saying the deadline is no longer valid, and that if only three more states ratify it, the ERA can be enacted. Oestreich is also chair of the ERA task force for the League of Women Voters of Florida. A former college professor, she now works as a nurse-practitioner, living in St. Petersburg.

Photo: From left, Sandy Oestreich, former U.S. Rep. Patricia Schroeder and Rep. Arthenia Joyner, ERA bill sponsor in the House.

Go to www.4ERA.org for the latest information from Georgia ERA advocates.

by Martha Ezzard
Atlanta Journal and Constitution
May 6, 2003

Thirty years ago, conservative evangelist Jerry Falwell railed against the Equal Rights Amendment, warning that it would send women to die in combat or to be taken prisoners of war. The ERA fell three states short of ratification – but try replaying the Falwell line to Pfc. Jessica Lynch or any of the American servicewomen sent to Iraq.

At last, there is a serious campaign in Congress and around the country to revive the ERA – and the old arguments against it are fodder for late night comedy shows. Many of the so-called horrors Christian fundamentalists touted are modern-day reality, progressive gains that women have realized. They have little to do with the proposed constitutional amendment, then or now.

I remember the ridiculous co-ed restroom “specter” raised by Southern Baptists. Today, co-ed restrooms on college campuses are the norm rather than the exception; even Falwell may have stumbled upon the Southern-style “family restroom” in the Charlotte airport, where fathers can help with diaper changing and infant care when families travel.

So if women have made so much progress in the 21 years since the amendment died, why pursue it?

The answer has nothing to do with social mores, but with bread-and-butter discrepancies that still exist. Sure, a patchwork of new state and federal laws prohibit sex discrimination – but until women can rely on uniform constitutional protection, they face hurdles men don’t in seeking equal pay, pensions, unemployment benefits or workplace advancement.

Victory could be just three states away, some legal authorities say.

The three-state strategy is based on the theory that there is no constitutional time limit for ratification unless it is written into the amendment itself. When the ERA was proposed, the seven-year limit was not part of the amendment text that state legislators voted on (nor was the five-year extension). It was part of the wording of the resolution proposing the amendment.

The precedent for bridging the time limit is the 1992 certification of the 203-year-old Madison Amendment, which bars Congress from voting itself a pay raise that could take effect prior to the next election. Justice Department lawyers, relying on language in a U.S. Supreme Court case, advised approval after the 38th state ratified it because no time limit had been specified. While the court has not directly ruled on an ERA-ratification time limit, respected legal scholars such as Harvard’s Lawrence Tribe say the three-state interpretation could be valid.

Meanwhile, bipartisan resolutions in both the House and Senate propose to start the ratification process anew for what would be the 28th amendment.

Given today’s economic climate, the timing couldn’t be better. Women, some freshly off welfare, are holders of the largest number of low-wage jobs. They often don’t qualify for unemployment benefits. And because they take time off to have children, women have earnings records that relegate them to only minimal Social Security benefits. Jobs predominantly held by women are still undervalued in the marketplace, according to a recent report by the American Association of University Women. Female child-care workers, for example, are paid less than mostly male truck drivers, despite educational qualifications and social worth. Without federal constitutional protection, that’s the way it will stay in most states.

As the presidential election draws closer, the political climate for women’s rights could improve even among conservatives. While Florida Gov. Jeb Bush recently poked fun at an ERA resolution in his state Legislature, calling it “retro,” a CNN poll last weekend showed President Bush losing support among female voters. Only 44 percent of women say they will vote for him again.

Working women have little time to ponder the legalities of a new ERA campaign. But as they face health insurance, child care and job cuts in a faltering economy, politicians best avoid labeling women’s rights “retro” -- lest the label fall to them in 2004.

Go to www.eraillinois.org for the latest information from ERA advocates.