Primary Sources: Civil Rights in America - Events: ERA: Equal Rights Amendment

"The Donna Novak Coles Georgia Women’s Movement Archives is dedicated to documenting the second wave of the women’s movement in Georgia, and in particular, efforts in the state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.

Collections include the personal papers and artifacts of individuals active in the 50+ organizations affiliated with the ERA Georgia Coalition; records of the ERA Georgia Coalition member organizations; personal papers and artifacts from other organizations and supporters of the ERA in Georgia; oral history interviews with ERA and women’s movement activists."

A Guide provided by Georgia State University Libraries to help in locating the oral histories and photos found in the Special Collections and Archives: Georgia Women's Movement Oral History Project.

"The ERA Oral History Project focuses on the views of women who worked both for and against the passage of the amendment in Washington State or who were members of organizations that were involved in these campaigns. The project incorporates the perspectives of members of pro-ERA groups including the National Organization for Women, the American Association of University Women, the League of Women Voters, and the Washington ERA Coalition as well as anti-ERA supporters of STOP ERA and Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum."

"From 1972 to 1982, Florida lawmakers addressed the question of whether to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). The amendment proposed 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.” Floridians’ response to the ERA mirrored the national divide over the amendment’s message on gender equality."

Pamphlet advertising a parade for the ERA on April 14, 1975, in Tallahassee. The pamphlet is signed by Betty Friedan.

October 3, 1972
Bob Potter - Reporter and Phyllis Schlafly - Speaker

Contains articles written by Schlafly, including things from the 1970s about the ERA.

"In the 1970s, Florida lawmakers voted against ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). The amendment proposed that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex.” Floridians’ response to the ERA mirrored the sharp national divide over the Amendment’s message on gender equality."

Archival materials on the Equal Rights Amendment movement in Washington State from the Washington State Archives.

A conservative caucus voter's guide to the Florida senate.

Debating the Equal Pay Act of 1963

"In the years following the 1920 ratification of the 19th Amendment extending voting rights to women, the National Woman’s Party, the radical wing of the suffrage movement, advocated passage of a constitutional amendment to make discrimination based on gender illegal. The first Congressional hearing on the equal rights amendment (ERA) was held in 1923. Many female reformers opposed the amendment in fear that it would end protective labor and health legislation designed to aid female workers and poverty-stricken mothers. A major divide, often class-based, emerged among women’s groups. While the National Woman’s Party and groups representing business and professional women continued to push for an ERA, passage was unlikely until the 1960s, when the revived women’s movement, especially the National Organization for Women (NOW), made the ERA priority. The 1960s and 1970s saw important legislation enacted to address sex discrimination in employment and education—most prominently, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title IX of the 1972 Higher Education Act—and on March 22, 1972, Congress passed the ERA. The proposed amendment expired in 1982, however, with support from only 35 states—three short of the required 38 necessary for ratification. Strong grassroots opposition emerged in the southern and western sections of the country, led by anti-feminist activist Phyllis Schafly. Schlafly charged that the amendment would create a “unisex society” while weakening the family, maligning the homemaker, legitimizing homosexuality, and exposing girls to the military draft. In the following 1970 Senate hearing, author and editor Gloria Steinem argued that opposition to the ERA was supported by deep-seated societal myths about gender that exaggerated difference, ignored factual evidence of inequitable treatment, denied the importance of the women’s movement, and promoted male domination." GMU History Matters

"In the years following the 1920 ratification of the 19th Amendment extending voting rights to women, the National Woman’s Party, the radical wing of the suffrage movement, advocated passage of a constitutional amendment to make discrimination based on gender illegal. The first Congressional hearing on the equal rights amendment (ERA) was held in 1923. Many female reformers opposed the amendment in fear that it would end protective labor and health legislation designed to aid female workers and poverty-stricken mothers. A major divide, often class-based, emerged among women’s groups. While the National Woman’s Party and groups representing business and professional women continued to push for an ERA, passage was unlikely until the 1960s, when the revived women’s movement, especially the National Organization for Women (NOW), made the ERA priority. The 1960s and 1970s saw important legislation enacted to address sex discrimination in employment and education—most prominently, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title IX of the 1972 Higher Education Act—and on March 22, 1972, Congress passed the ERA. The proposed amendment expired in 1982, however, with support from only 35 states—three short of the required 38 necessary for ratification. Strong grassroots opposition emerged in the southern and western sections of the country, led by anti-feminist activist Phyllis Schafly. Schlafly charged that the amendment would create a “unisex society” while weakening the family, maligning the homemaker, legitimizing homosexuality, and exposing girls to the military draft. In the following document submitted in 1984 to a House committee considering a new bill to enact the ERA, a male rights advocate assessed potential legal benefits men might receive due to its passage."

"In the years following the 1920 ratification of the 19th Amendment extending voting rights to women, the National Woman’s Party, the radical wing of the suffrage movement, advocated passage of a constitutional amendment to make discrimination based on gender illegal. The first Congressional hearing on the equal rights amendment (ERA) was held in 1923. Many female reformers opposed the amendment in fear that it would end protective labor and health legislation designed to aid female workers and poverty-stricken mothers. A major divide, often class-based, emerged among women’s groups. While the National Woman’s Party and groups representing business and professional women continued to push for an ERA, passage was unlikely until the 1960s, when the revived women’s movement, especially the National Organization for Women (NOW), made the ERA priority. The 1960s and 1970s saw important legislation enacted to address sex discrimination in employment and education—most prominently, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title IX of the 1972 Higher Education Act—and on March 22, 1972, Congress passed the ERA. The proposed amendment expired in 1982, however, with support from only 35 states—three short of the required 38 necessary for ratification. Strong grassroots opposition emerged in the southern and western sections of the country, led by anti-feminist activist Phyllis Schafly. Schlafly charged that the amendment would create a “unisex society” while weakening the family, maligning the homemaker, legitimizing homosexuality, and exposing girls to the military draft. In the following 1970 Senate hearing, two representatives of labor unions voiced opposition to the ERA, arguing that it would threaten protective legislation based on gender difference." GMU History Matters

ERA Advocates Oppose Protective Legislation for Women

Representative Margaret M. Heckler Argues for the ERA

Mary Frances Berry Argues for the ERA