us.cnn.com
Biden Declares Equal Rights Amendment Ratified, Defying Legal Obstacles
President Biden declared the Equal Rights Amendment ratified on Friday, despite legal challenges and the Archivist's refusal to certify it; this action, intended to enshrine women's equal rights, will face legal battles and could impact reproductive rights.
- What are the differing legal interpretations of the ERA's ratification process, and how do these interpretations influence the current dispute?
- Biden's declaration is based on the American Bar Association's view that ratification deadlines are unenforceable and that states cannot rescind their votes. However, the Archivist and the Department of Justice maintain that ratification deadlines are valid, creating a direct conflict that will be resolved by the courts.
- What is the immediate impact of President Biden's declaration on the Equal Rights Amendment, and what are the most significant legal and political ramifications?
- President Biden declared the Equal Rights Amendment ratified, despite pending legal challenges and the Archivist's refusal to certify it. This action, taken in his final days in office, aims to enshrine equal rights for women in the Constitution and may strengthen reproductive rights advocacy, although its legality is highly contested.
- What are the long-term implications of Biden's action on future constitutional amendments, and how might this precedent affect the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches?
- This controversial move will significantly impact the legal and political landscape surrounding women's rights. It could lead to protracted legal battles and potentially influence future legislative efforts regarding reproductive rights. The outcome will set a precedent for future constitutional amendments and the role of the president in such matters.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction emphasize the last-minute nature of the announcement and the potential legal challenges, framing the action as controversial and possibly illegitimate. The article's structure prioritizes arguments against the President's decision, giving more space and prominence to criticisms than supportive views. The inclusion of Senator Gillibrand's perspective without counterpoints from opponents further biases the narrative.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language such as "last-minute move," "swift legal challenges," and "extremely unclear." These phrases carry negative connotations and could influence reader perception. More neutral alternatives would be "recent announcement," "anticipated legal review," and "uncertain next steps.
Bias by Omission
The article omits discussion of potential legal arguments supporting the archivist's position. It focuses heavily on arguments against the President's action and the opinions of those who oppose it, potentially giving a skewed perspective. The lack of counterarguments to the Brennan Center's claims about rescinded ratifications also creates an imbalance.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy between the President's action being legally sound or completely invalid, ignoring the possibility of a complex legal battle with various outcomes. The framing suggests only two options: immediate success or utter failure.
Gender Bias
While the article focuses on the Equal Rights Amendment, there is no explicit gender bias in its language or sourcing. However, the lack of diverse perspectives regarding the amendment's implications for women from various backgrounds could be seen as a form of omission.
Sustainable Development Goals
The announcement regarding the Equal Rights Amendment aims to enshrine equal rights for women into the Constitution. While facing legal challenges, its potential success would significantly advance gender equality and potentially bolster reproductive rights, aligning with SDG 5 (Gender Equality) targets focused on ensuring equal rights and opportunities for all women and girls.