The victory of Lia Thomas, a male swimmer who identifies as a woman, over his female counterparts in the NCAA championship, puts another nail in the coffin of the achievements of the 20th century women’s movement, such as the existence of competitive women’s athletics. While many have cried foul over his victory, the so-called Minnesota Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) could enshrine unfair competition as a legal right. The bill has already passed out of at least one Minnesota House committee, and may be voted on by the whole House soon. It’s crucial that Minnesotans know what the real cost of the so-called “Equal Rights Amendment” would be.
To understand this issue, let’s look at the history surrounding the ERA. It is important to understand the difference between the Minnesota ERA and the United States ERA. In its earliest stages, the United States ERA began as a bill that sought to give women equal protection under the law, saying “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 bill, which was introduced in 1972, was never ratified at the federal level, although federal laws already prohibit sex-based discrimination in various areas such as employment.
The Minnesota ERA is a successor to the federal bill, but with a twist. The important distinction between the Minnesota ERA and the ERA of our parents’ generation is the subtle change of language. Equal protection on account of “sex” (male or female) has been changed to “gender,” opening the doors wide open to the chaotic world of gender theory.
The problems that this bill presents are obvious. First, while it may seem like an inconsequential semantic change, the inclusion of the purposefully vague “gender” allows for men like Lia Thomas to participate in women’s sports without any legal repercussions. Not only will athletes like Thomas be free to participate in women’s sports at any level, but any action to stop him will be viewed as discriminatory under the law. This was made clear in a statement from United States Rep. Maloney (D-New York), who argued that “[w]ith the ERA, we secure equality under the law for women and all marginalized genders.”
Second, the passage of the Minnesota ERA will strengthen abortion rights in our state. According to Thomas Jipping from the Heritage Foundation, a court case in Connecticut argued that because of the ERA, Medicaid funds must also be used for women seeking an abortion, because to do otherwise would be discriminatory against women. This means that if the ERA is passed, state funding of abortion will be protected in our Constitution. For this reason, many different pro-abortion organizations have publicly proclaimed their support for the ERA, saying “the ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion…[and] require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws.”
In a world that cannot distinguish a man from a woman, we cannot allow the ERA to become enshrined in our state constitution. The rights of women that have already been guaranteed in state and federal law would be pushed aside in favor the legal protection of men who think they are women and abortion providers—74% of whom are men. If you stand against this, please send a message to your Representative in the Minnesota House to tell him or her that the ERA is wrong for Minnesota. Ultimately, the ERA is a shell game, claiming to offer equal rights to women (which is already the law) while really opening the door to constitutionally-mandated unfairness in sports and abortion on demand.
