Lila June 
The Biden administration debuted its radical gender agenda last week but the national strategy deemed a step towards “equity and equality” by the White House actually starts with eliminating protections for women.
The White House touts proposals and legislation such as the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) as a win for women but its language about “gender equality” masks a much deeper goal of implementing leftist policies that endorse baby-killing, socialized health care, kangaroo courts that inherently oppose due process for all, and the elimination of spaces created specifically for women.
Independent Women’s Voice Senior Policy Analyst Inez Stepman noted this in her testimony on the ERA in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform last week.
“In hundreds, perhaps thousands of instances, big and small, our current law recognizes that men and women are, in fact, different, and that acknowledging those differences sometimes makes all the difference for women and girls and allows them to take advantage of opportunities, compete, and feel safe,” Stepman explained. “The recognition of this fact has been a necessary and indispensable prerequisite for the enormous freedom, prosperity, and success American women have enjoyed for the past several decades. The reality of our differences, legal recognition of which the ERA intends to sweep away in favor of gauzy and symbolic promises, has created opportunities for women, maintained our privacy, and even protected our safety in situations where those differences become relevant, and come with serious consequences.”
In addition to prohibiting the government from offering female-only spaces, Stepman said “any organization that takes municipal, state, or federal dollars could potentially find itself caught up in the ERA’s requirements and prohibitions.”
She also noted that the amendment’s provisions could rein in opportunities designed to give women a boost just because of its codifying language that intentionally ignores biological reality.
“Recognition of biological reality is not bigotry or discrimination. And when we fail to recognize reality, and treat men and women as though there are no differences in size, strength, and otherwise between them, we create female victims. ‘Equal’ doesn’t mean ‘the same.’ Treating males and females exactly the same — regardless of biology, privacy, or circumstances — hurts women and girls,” Stepman continued.
The ERA, she said, “has no upside.”
“The language might sound nice, but it will not improve women’s lives. To the contrary, by prohibiting public policy from ever taking into account biology and common sense, the ERA would have significant negative consequences on women and girls, and I urge you to vote against its much-belated resuscitation,” Stepman concluded. Jordan Davidson is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.
Since the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives men more rights than women. This new Amendment is nothing but a rehashing of existing laws. Women and men are not completely equal in all ways, as any doctor, scientist, or rational human being can attest, but they are equal under the law, theoretically. However, we have all seen instances where men have had their careers destroyed because of an alleged offense against a woman that may have taken place years or decades before, even though there is no physical evidence of the offense. I have yet to see that happen to a woman, so in the eyes of society, men and women are not equal.