The Word 'Women' Not in Constitution, Just Like 'Men'

Actresses Patricia Arquette and Alyssa Milano testified Tuesday before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, promoting their push to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).

"The ERA will build a wall -- a wall that will actually do something against the never-ending assault on our rights from the current or future presidents," Milano, who’s also a political activist said.

Arquette told the members that “Women have waited 232 years to be enshrined as full and equal citizens. Why? Because in 1787 women were left out of the Constitution intentionally."

Toni Van Pelt, president of the National Organization for Women, picked up on that theme.

"We are equal, but we need to be put in the Constitution," she said. "We need to be recognized. And we need men to stand with us."

And Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., answered Van Pelt’s call to stand with her and offered his support of the ERA on social media.

“Do you know how many times the word ‘Woman’ is mentioned in the Constitution?” he asked. “Zero. That is unacceptable. Women must be equally represented and equally protected. #ERANow”

In addition to serving on the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Swalwell announced his campaign seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

However, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, considered one of the 1960s civil rights movement’s crowning achievements, ended segregation in public places and specifically banned employment discrimination on the basis of, among other things, sex.

That was followed up by the Civil Rights Acts of 1966 and 1968. The former affirmed that all citizens are equally protected under the law; the latter prohibited housing discrimination on the bases of sex and other criteria.

However, the proponents of the Equal Rights Amendment take issue with the fact that the civil rights acts are legislative and therefore not elevated to a constitutional level.

Yet they ignore Amendment XIV, which provides that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The ERA’s supporters also complain that neither the word “woman” nor “women” appears anywhere within the body of the Constitution.

A 20-second word search would reveal that the same exclusion applies to males: Neither the word “man” nor “men” appears anywhere within the Constitution or its amendments.

On the other hand, the Constitution and its amendments mentions “person” or “persons” 28 times, and it refers to “citizen” or “citizens” 11 times.

Incidentally, the text of the Equal Rights Amendment doesn’t include the word “woman” or “women” either. It simply states in pertinent part that, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

Finally, although “women” can be found nowhere within the text of the Constitution, Amendment XIX is generally headed, “Women’s Suffrage Rights.” There’s no correlating provision granting men’s suffrage within the Constitution. Only women are elevated to that stature.

If liberals want to continue arguing semantics rather than attend to the country’s genuine ills — like the escalating crisis at the southern border — so be it. But they should be forewarned: Just like nearly everything else, conservatives are a lot better at it than they are.

Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and has been a frequent contributor to BizPac Review and Liberty Unyielding. He’s also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and an enthusiastic Second Amendment supporter, who can often be found honing his skills at the range. To read more of his reports - Click Here.