Congressman Blake Moore Statement on Equal Rights Amendment Vote
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Congressman Blake Moore issued the following statement on today's vote to remove the deadline for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.
"This week, I voted against unconstitutionally removing the deadline for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Article V of the Constitution articulates a clear process for amendments, and this legislation violates that process. Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972 with a two-thirds vote and determined that it must be ratified by three-fourths of the states within seven years. A sufficient number of states never ratified the amendment, and it expired. The Constitution clearly states that additional states can thus no longer ratify the amendment. In addition, five states rescinded their ratifications. The nonpartisan House Office of Legal Counsel stated that the ERA must be reintroduced and the ratification process restarted. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the ERA process must begin again. Even former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed, requesting that Congress restart the ratification process.
"But instead of restarting the process as required, Democrats have introduced H.J. Res. 17 to circumvent the Constitution by retroactively removing the ratification deadline through a simple majority vote. Democrats are attempting to override both the Constitution and the Supreme Court because they know that the ERA, if reintroduced, would no longer earn a two-thirds majority in Congress or be passed by three-fourths of the states.
"From a policy perspective, the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade drastically altered the ERA’s potential impact on pro-life laws, changing the amendment’s legal analysis and public opinion. The New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that its state-level ERA requires taxpayer funding of abortion; NARAL insists that the ERA would “reinforce the constitutional right to abortion”; the National Women’s Law Center argues that the ERA would allow courts to overturn any limits on abortion; and more. I would gladly support a new vote on an amended version of the ERA that could not be interpreted by the courts to support taxpayer-funded abortions, strike down pro-life protections, or erode conscience protections. But Democrats have refused to adopt that amended language presumably because they are seeking to use the ERA to overturn pro-life protections.
"But let me be clear. As a husband, son, brother, and friend, I have been continually humbled by the strong women in my life, and I vehemently believe in equal rights for women and men. From the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act to paid parental leave, the POWER Act to the Debbie Smith Act, the Violence Against Women Extension Act to CHIP and maternal health benefits, I proudly support legislation that upholds the rights of women. Women’s rights are human rights, and I will work with Utah stakeholders to ensure that women across our country and around the world have equal opportunities, are fairly represented in leadership positions, and are treated with dignity and respect. However, H.J. Res. 17 is not a vote on women’s rights or even the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment; it is a vote that would overturn Article V and remove the right of Americans to participate in the amendment of our Constitution."
###