‘Who Could Be Opposed to This?’: Why the ERA Is Kathy Spillar’s ‘North Star’ in the Fight for Gender Equality 

The executive editor of Ms. became involved in feminist organizing when the supposed ratification deadline for the Equal Rights Amendment expired in 1982. In the final episode of Looking Back, Moving Forward, she explains why, 40 years later, she’s still calling for constitutional equality. 

Katherine Spillar, the executive director and one of the founders of the Feminist Majority Foundation and Feminist Majority, was named executive editor of Ms. in 2005, after FMF became the sole publisher of the magazine. Under her oversight, Ms. has become one of the largest feminist news platforms in the world—and remained the longest-running feminist magazine continuously in print. Before her leadership at FMF and Ms., Spillar served four terms as president of the Los Angeles Chapter of the National Organization for Women, the largest chapter of NOW at the time. 

Spillar was motivated to become involved in the feminist movement after the Equal Rights Amendment ratification push of the 1970s and ‘80s. Today, she continues to be a leading voice calling for constitutional gender equality—and she’s shaping strategies to advance the amendment’s enshrinement in the U.S. Constitution.

As part of the fifth and final episode of the Ms. Studios podcast Looking Back, Moving Forward, I talked to Spillar about why the ERA is her “north star” when it comes to shaping the feminist agenda—and what she believes will change for women when the ERA is finally added to the U.S. Constitution.

Spillar is joined in this episode by former Nevada state Senator and ERA champion Pat Spearman, Feminist Majority Foundation president and ERA movement leader Ellie Smeal, trailblazing politician and diplomat Carol Moseley Braun, and ERA Project director Ting Ting Cheng.

Together, we reflected on more than 50 years of activism to ratify the ERA—and the power that would come from women’s constitutional equality to redefine our democracy, protect our fundamental rights and change the stories of women’s lives.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Carmen Rios: Let’s start with your ERA story. What your lifetime of activism around the ERA looked like?

Kathy Spillar: My ERA activism began seriously in 1982. I had been following the debates around the Equal Rights Amendment, and I could even recite it. This is long before I joined any feminist organization of any kind. I just was aware. II’d recently moved to California, and I thought, ‘This thing is going to pass. Who could be opposed to this? This is such a simple statement.’ 

I never got involved in the campaigns. California, by then, had long ratified. so there was no active campaign here. The Los Angeles Chapter of the National Organization for Women was very active, because a lot of people who lived here were traveling to Illinois and Florida and Oklahoma, the unratified states, and were going on what was called missions—literally, massive numbers of people, but I didn’t know any of that was going on. I just thought ‘This is going to pass.’ 

I somehow got a hold of a flyer for a big rally in Downtown Los Angeles on June 30, 1982, marking the end of that ratification period that everybody was operating on. I went to it because I was so outraged at the thought that this had not been ratified, and there was a big crowd there, and heard the speeches. In fact, I heard—who, ultimately, I became very close to—Toni Carabillo, who is a leader in Los Angeles NOW, read a statement from Eleanor Smeal, President of NOW. I heard the speeches, and I thought, ‘Oh my god,’ and I went to the table and picked up the materials on Los Angeles NOW and how to join NOW and I joined right there. 

I made a decision that I would get involved, because I couldn’t bear the thought that we could go more years without an Equal Rights Amendment—and, of course, then found out what really had happened. Obviously, I just wasn’t tuned into the opposition that this movement was facing and how it would work in the state legislatures. I learned all of that in very quick order. 

I have just loved being part of this fight, and part of this movement, ever since. It truly is my North Star in terms of what needs to happen here in the United States if we’re going to get real equality, among other things. If we’re going to get real equality, we have to have a constitutional guarantee of equality.

Social behavior, relationships between women and men, power dynamics within the workplace and within families—without those legal changes, frequently, those power relationships don’t budge.

Kathy Spillar

Rios: What do you see as the ERA’s promise? What do you think changes when the ERA is eventually enshrined in the Constitution?

Spillar: A significant amount will change. Not everything will change, but a significant amount will—for two reasons. 

Section 1 says that neither the United States nor any state can discriminate on the basis of sex—so it’s not just federal law and federal policies and practices and regulations, but it’s also every state that cannot discriminate on the basis of sex.

Section 2 is also critically important because it empowers Congress to pass laws to implement the Equal Rights Amendment. It specifically says to Congress: ‘You must act to affirmatively pass laws to prohibit sex discrimination, and where you find it, you’ve got to root it out.’ It’s not like it just goes in the Constitution and then is ignored—and clearly, we’re in a period of this country’s history when, frequently, the Constitution is being ignored—but this specifically directs Congress to take action, and that’s very important. 

To come back to why it’s important that Section 1 covers both the federal government and state government, is that a lot of sex discrimination occurs at the state government level. The most obvious example, in many ways right now, is access to abortion. If states cannot discriminate on the basis of sex in their laws, they should be prohibited from cutting off Medicaid funding for abortion—even worse, from banning abortion in any way, because that is sex discriminatory. That will be the argument, ultimately, before the Supreme Court when we get an Equal Rights Amendment. A state like Texas cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, which is what it’s doing when it cuts off access to abortion, when it bans abortion. 

We’ve had a great couple of cases that have this thesis. Pennsylvania has a state Equal Rights Amendment, and under the state Equal Rights Amendment, feminists there have sued to strike down the Pennsylvania law that prohibits the use of state Medicaid funds for abortions. They won that case. It goes one more time to the state Supreme Court, but the preliminary decision was that, on its face, banning the use of Medicaid funds for abortion is sex discriminatory and, therefore, illegal under the state Equal Rights Amendment—which is identical to the federal Equal Rights Amendment. We’ve had a similar decision out of New Mexico. 

There’s great hope. Great legal minds believe that, if we can get an Equal Rights Amendment, we can get rid of these terrible abortion bans. I think that’s the only way, because these states are so gerrymandered, and their Supreme Courts are so compromised because of the way the members of those courts are elected or appointed. We have to have a federal law. Also, your rights should not depend on which state you live in. 

Those are the two things that all change will be based on going forward. Now, that isn’t going to take care of the changes we need in society—but it will go a long way towards establishing a baseline to root out sex discriminatory practices and laws that are so damaging to our lives.

[The ERA] truly is my North Star in terms of what needs to happen here in the United States… If we’re going to get real equality, we have to have a constitutional guarantee of equality.

Spillar

Rios: It’s been 50-plus years of ERA activism, and our understanding of sex discrimination and gender discrimination has changed since then. The issues that we talk about have evolved. How has the movement transformed, and how has the conversation shifted, as we enter this new part of the fight?

Spillar: Probably the most significant change in terms of what rights will be impacted by the Equal Rights Amendment is that LGBTQ people will be covered, because this Supreme Court—this Supreme Court, believe it or not—has issued a decision, written by [Justice Neil] Gorsuch, that Title VII, which prohibits race discrimination and discrimination on the basis of sex in employment, also protects LGBTQ people from discrimination. You can’t get fired because you’ve come out as gay or as a lesbian or transgender by those employers that are covered by Title VII. Not all employers are—depends on the size of the employer. 

That is very significant, because the language in Title VII is very similar to the language in the Equal Rights Amendment. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. That is what the ERA will do. So, that’s very promising, and it has broadened the interest in the movement. 

This movement has always been quite massive. It has always been massive, certainly in terms of the activism in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s. There were hundreds of thousands of people involved in getting those last states to ratify. But more than that, it enjoys such massive public support, public opinion support, that has continued to grow even as our opponents have cracked down and done everything they can to stop the forward movement towards equality in this country. We have gained massive public support.

In the early ‘80s, before the big campaigns for the Equal Rights Amendment, support for women’s equality was under 50 percent. The support for constitutional equality for women now, depending on what poll you look at, is anywhere from 80 percent to 90 percent plus, and it’s particularly strong among people under 30—which, of course, is the up-and-coming generations for running corporations and being elected to public office, so that’s good. 

The ERA has done something else: The push to pass the Equal Rights Amendment has, itself, had massive impact on the laws in this country. When the ERA came out of Congress in 1972, it was still legal to discriminate, by banks and credit card companies, against women. The fight for the ERA, those campaigns, got the Equal Credit Act passed in the later ‘70s. It was the Women’s Educational Equity Act that was passed in the ‘70s and ‘80s that further opened up opportunities for women in education. It clarified some of the provisions of Title IX that were being ignored. 

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act—the big case that went before the Supreme Court was decided that to discriminate on the basis of pregnancy was not sex discrimination. I mean, really? This movement had to go back in and get the Pregnancy Discrimination Act passed, and it’s all because we don’t have our rights spelled out in the Constitution. The court can always say that was not the intention of the founders, and that’s what Alito said in the Dobbs decision: ‘There’s no protection in the Constitution. Therefore, we can strike down this fundamental right.’ 

There would be no Violence Against Women Act, there would be no Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances law without a very mobilized movement around these very key issues, and that is the result of the fight for the ERA. It woke up the country in so many ways to what was happening and how women were suffering because of these laws.

It’s already had massive impact, and it continues to have impact as we move forward.

Rios: Ms. in the 1970’s and ‘80s was sharing information from activist bulletins and organizations and amplifying the work that was happening for the ERA. To this day, Ms. is reporting on the legal and grassroots right for enshrinement and ratification. Why is the ERA so central to that story of Ms., to the conversations that happen in Ms., to this larger idea of feminist activism, feminist life?

Spillar: Without Ms., there would be very little reporting about the Equal Rights Amendment right now—and in fact, over the last probably 10 years. When Nevada ratified it, Illinois, and then Virginia, that made news in mainstream media for about a day, but all of the struggle leading up to it was never in mainstream media. It was like it just happened.

Ms. has hung in there because it is so fundamental to equality. Ms.’ role throughout has not only been to keep activists engaged and involved, but to make sure that the opponents are unveiled—so that we know that we’re not fighting public opinion, we’re fighting real economic interests and religious interests that are opposed to the Equal Rights Amendment, and who our elected representatives in these state legislatures and in Congress are in hock to—and why they are doing everything they can to stop the final enshrinement of the Equal Rights Amendment in the Constitution. 

The role of Ms. in this is very, very important—because we’re part of this movement. Ms. magazine is at the tables where movement organizations are discussing strategy, are discussing these issues. We know who to go to when we want an opinion about what is happening on the Equal Rights Amendment, and we’re connected to members of Congress, and we report on their activity.

Ms. is very vital about keeping people informed about what the real fight is to get the Equal Rights Amendment. Again, we’re not tilting at windmills. It’s not public opinion that’s keeping us from getting over this final hurdle. It is economic and religious entrenched interests and their control over members of Congress and state legislatures. That’s the roadblock, and that’s what has to be focused on in this next phase of pushing forward.

There would be no Violence Against Women Act, there would be no Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances law, without a very mobilized movement around these very key issues—and that is the result of the fight for the ERA.

Spillar

Rios: What has been the impact? Why does it matter that feminist media is telling that story in that specific way with more perspective and more activist information and more solutions? What happens when Ms. is sharing this information out with the broader feminist community?

Spillar: It keeps activists informed, and it also helps shape the conversation going forward so that we don’t get sidetracked on some issue that the right wing throws up as the reason why we can’t get the Equal Rights Amendment in the Constitution. 

The right wing has got a drumbeat going that the ratification period ended in July of 1982, or June 30, 1982. In fact, some of them want to push it back to 1979, which was the original deadline that was extended by Congress with a simple majority vote in both the House and the Senate. They keep wanting to say it’s dead. ‘You have to start over. You have to start over.’ That’s disinformation, and they know it, but they keep that out there because that gives Republican members of Congress a cover on their failure to support the resolutions that have come before Congress to eliminate the timeline—to say that, notwithstanding the deadline, the Equal Rights Amendment has met the requirements laid out in the Constitution to be the 28th Amendment.

There’s only two requirements to amend the Constitution. Congress has to pass the original bill out of Congress by a two-thirds supermajority. That happened in 1972. Then three-quarters of the state legislatures have to vote to ratify the amendment for it to be added to the Constitution. That happened when the 38th state, Virginia, voted to ratify in early 2020—but it was blocked by the Trump Justice Department at that time from being added to the Constitution, from being certified as having been ratified, based on this argument that the time limit had expired.

On good legal authority, from many legal scholars, Congress has the authority—just as it extended the timeline in 1979 to 1982, it can also lift the timeline in its entirety. That is the last remaining hurdle, getting Congress to vote on the resolutions that are entered into the hopper right now, notwithstanding the time limit, that the Equal Rights Amendment has been ratified and must be added as the 28th  Amendment. That is the fight. 

It will, of course, face scrutiny in the courts when we eventually get that passed, and when the 28th Amendment is added to the Constitution, our opponents will sue to block it, but here’s the thing: The courts have no role in this. 

Previous Supreme Courts have even said that the court has no role in determining when an amendment has been ratified. There were fights over not only the 14th  Amendment, but later amendments as well, on whether or not they had actually been ratified and had met the requirements of the Constitution. The court has no jurisdiction. It is a political decision to amend the Constitution. It is up to Congress and the state legislatures. 

When Congress decides it’s going to recognize that the Equal Rights Amendment has been ratified, that should be the end of it. Of course, it will be challenged—but we have a very strong precedent to say the courts can’t determine anything in this fight. This is between Congress and the states. 

One other thing: Five states have voted to rescind their ratification. The good news for us and the bad news for them, is the Constitution does not allow rescissions. It’s a one-way street. You either vote to ratify or you don’t. Thirty-eight states have voted to ratify. It’s done. Now we need Congress to step up and settle this debate over the time limit and get it in the Constitution.

We’re not fighting public opinion, we’re fighting real economic interests and religious interests that are opposed to the Equal Rights Amendment, and who our elected representatives in these state legislatures and in Congress are in hock to.

Spillar

Rios: What are the strategies to get that through Congress—and, in the meantime, what is the work that could be happening? 

A lot of people I’ve talked to in every episode of this podcast have said the fight is now in the states, the fight is now protecting ourselves at that state level. What do you think about the power of state ERAs?

Spillar: The strategy going forward to secure the federal ERA in the Constitution is all about elections. Right now, we have a majority in both the Senate and the House who oppose the resolution to recognize that the ERA has been ratified. The 2026 elections are pivotal, because that could change the balance of power in the House. It might even change the balance of power in the Senate—it’s a longer shot, because the states that have Senate elections this next time around are very safe Republican states, in many cases, but the Republicans have made some very bad decisions about what they’re doing, and their agenda is very unpopular on many different fronts. It could be enough of a wave election that it also changes the balance of power in the Senate.

And then, we have to make sure that supporters for the Equal Rights Amendment—and it does include a couple of Republican members of the Senate and potentially the House—step up and do the courageous thing, and that is to push it over the finish line. If that means suspending the filibuster as it applies to these fundamental constitutional rights, like the Equal Rights Amendment, like voting rights, they will have to do that. They must do that, and this movement must continue to press for that. 

In the meantime, we do have some wonderful opportunities at the state level, including new state ERAs. New York passed a state ERA in the last election. Many states have state ERAs. Now we’ve got to focus on what states can do to implement those ERAs and how activists can challenge discriminatory laws in those states and take it to their state Supreme Court. All of that is evolving law. 

It’s an exciting time for the legal aspect of this fight, but it’s also a time we’ve got to keep our eye on the political fight to get the ERA in the Constitution federally. There’s all kinds of possibilities. 

We also look to what’s happened globally. In many other countries that have an equal rights provision for sex in their constitutions, they’re light years ahead in terms of the kinds of laws that are getting passed and women’s rights as they are protected, including not only, obviously, around reproductive rights and access, but marriage laws and employment laws, things like equal representation. In some countries, it has been used as a way to open those doors and challenge the rules and laws that govern elections as sex discriminatory. Without equal representation to ensure that the laws are going to be structured properly and enforced, we’re always going to be fighting our opponents.

Rios: Based on the recent polling that you all have done with Celinda Lake, the ERA is an election issue. It can drive results and outcomes in elections and drive candidate choice, so that’s good news for us.

Spillar: It is good news—as long as the candidates are saying ‘Equal Rights Amendment.’ It’s the same on abortion being a driving issue: Candidates have to campaign on them. 

It can’t just be nonprofits and other political groups that are out there saying, ‘Who’s good on abortion? Who’s bad? Who’s good on the Equal Rights Amendment? Who’s bad?’ It’s got to be the candidates. Part of the struggle has been constantly to fight this drumbeat that impacts candidate decisions on how they’re going to campaign. ‘Abortion is a very controversial issue. Be careful what you say.’ No. Say that you’re for abortion rights. Get rid of these restrictions that are killing women, endangering women’s lives. That’s the popular way to go—but all too often, they’re listening to some pollster who’s being very conservative. 

Same thing on the Equal Rights Amendment: It is very popular, and if more candidates were campaigning on that, they would see their numbers go up, and we’d be in a stronger position. Part of our job as a movement, too, is to make sure they know what the polling says. That’s why we’ve done polling, to try and encourage candidates who are running for office, who believe in equality, that they use those issues to their advantage.

Before the big campaigns for the Equal Rights Amendment, support for women’s equality was under 50 percent. The support for constitutional equality for women now… is anywhere from 80 percent to 90 percent plus.

Spillar

Rios: As this podcast looks back on 50-plus years of Ms., of feminist activism, of ERA activism, what do you hope is different by the time we hit the next 50 when it comes to equality and this fight?

Spillar: Not only do I hope that the Equal Rights Amendment has been added as the 28th Amendment—but also, that it has been vigorously enforced by Congress and the states, and that we’re seeing successful litigation where there are sex-discriminatory laws and practices, and that we see major reforms. 

In addition to that, I do believe that laws can drive changes in behavior, as well. Social behavior, relationships between women and men, power dynamics within the workplace and within families—without those legal changes, frequently, those power relationships don’t budge. A good example of that is coverture laws. Used to be everywhere in this country where, if a woman gets married to a man, her identity, under the law, disappears, and it’s his identity that matters. There are religious interests, to this day, that are literally preaching a return to those laws and relationships. 

The Equal Rights Amendment not only can strike down those laws, which are sex discriminatory, but it gives a whole framework for how even these kinds of social relations can change and shift. I do believe that one helps drive the other, and it’s a circular influence. The changes in the law drive social changes. Social changes drive changes in the law.

I do hope that we have equal representation long before 50 years, so that women can be driving the change that we need from very powerful positions in Congress, in the courts, in state legislatures, city councils, and in the White House—so that there’s a strong push behind getting the Equal Rights Amendment truly enforced and realized in terms of its ultimate impact.