Final answer:
The Equal Rights Amendment aimed to officially prohibit gender discrimination. It faced opposition from those concerned about potential negative outcomes such as the loss of protective laws for women. The amendment's support declined due to conservative resistance and failing to get enough state ratifications.
Step-by-step explanation:
Pros and Cons of the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was proposed in an attempt to cement the prohibition against gender discrimination into the U.S. Constitution. Its passage was seen as an assurance of consistent enforcement across all states. Proponents of the ERA believed it was necessary to address systemic gender biases and to ensure equal treatment in the workplace, in education, and under other areas of law.
However, the ERA also had its critics. Opponents like Phyllis Schlafly argued that it would eliminate laws designed to protect women, potentially leading to negative consequences like making women eligible for the draft and losing certain legal advantages in custody and divorce proceedings. Concerns regarding the ERA's impact on traditional family roles and protective laws sparked a countermovement that ultimately contributed to the amendment failing to reach the required number of state ratifications.
Rise and Fall of the ERA Movement
The movement to pass the ERA experienced a surge in support during the 60s and early 70s, including endorsements from Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy. However, divisions among women themselves, regional trends, and conservative opposition eventually led to the amendment's failure to be ratified before the 1982 deadline set by Congress.
Phyllis Schlafly's Concerns
Schlafly's criticisms of the ERA focused on the potential for eroding what she saw as the privileged status of women under existing laws. While some view these criticisms as promoting gender inequality, others see them as valid concerns over unintended consequences of sweeping legal changes.