Hindsight is 20/22: Why the Equal Rights Amendment Would Not Have Saved Roe v. Wade

Presenter

Nola Marie Minogue

Campus

UMass Amherst

Sponsor

Rebecca Hamlin, Department of Legal Studies, UMass Amherst

Schedule

Session 3, 1:30 PM - 2:15 PM [Schedule by Time][Poster Grid for Time/Location]

Location

Poster Board A20, Campus Center Auditorium, Row 1 (A1-A20) [Poster Location Map]

Abstract

The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision of 2022, which overruled Roe v. Wade,  left many legal and reproductive rights scholars wondering ‘what happened’? Did the Dobbs majority incorrectly interpret the Constitution, or does the Constitution lack the appropriate text for protecting reproductive rights? Many have pointed to the Equal Rights Amendment, which, despite overwhelming political and social momentum in the sixties and seventies, missed its 1982 deadline for ratification. Had the Equal Rights Amendment been ratified, would it have protected Roe and the right to an abortion? Is it what is needed now in order to protect reproductive rights everywhere? This paper will argue that the Equal Rights Amendment would not have kept the Supreme Court from overruling Roe, and that it is instead the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that needs to be correctly interpreted to protect reproductive rights. It will dive into why and how the Equal Rights Amendment failed, how the Dobbs decision came to be, show an alternative view that Justice Alito could have chosen of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and take a glance into the future of different paths reproductive rights activists may take to protect abortion and contraception in the state courts and legislators. 

Keywords

reproductive rights, abortion , constitutional law , law and society , gender equality

Research Area

Law and Legal Studies

SIMILAR ABSTRACTS (BY KEYWORD)