cnn.com
Gillibrand Urges Biden to Certify ERA to Protect Reproductive Rights
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is urging President Biden to certify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to protect reproductive rights, despite legal challenges surrounding ratification deadlines and rescissions; the White House says the move is still under consideration.
- What are the immediate implications of President Biden certifying the ERA for reproductive rights and women's equality?
- In a last-ditch effort to bolster reproductive rights, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand urged President Biden to certify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), bypassing Congress. This action, she argues, would constitutionally protect women's equality without congressional approval. However, legal experts question the president's authority, citing lapsed ratification deadlines and rescissions by some states.
- How might the legal challenges surrounding the ERA's ratification deadlines and state rescissions affect its potential implementation?
- Senator Gillibrand's push highlights the limitations of executive action in addressing the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade. While President Biden has taken executive actions, codifying Roe's protections remains unlikely without Congressional cooperation. The ERA, ratified by 38 states in 2020, offers a potential alternative pathway but faces legal challenges due to procedural complexities.
- What are the long-term consequences of success or failure in certifying the ERA on future efforts to protect reproductive rights and advance women's equality?
- The ERA's certification faces significant legal hurdles, including the question of rescissions by five states and the timing of ratification. A successful certification could substantially advance women's reproductive rights and constitutional equality, impacting future legislation. If unsuccessful, it underscores the limitations of executive power in the absence of legislative support.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames Senator Gillibrand's efforts as a potentially significant solution to the post-Roe v. Wade landscape, highlighting her proactive approach and the White House's open consideration of the matter. The headline (if any) and opening paragraph would likely emphasize Gillibrand's initiative and the possibility of the ERA's certification, potentially influencing readers to see this as a primary solution rather than one of several options. The inclusion of quotes from Gillibrand and the White House spokesperson further reinforces this framing.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral, but certain phrases such as "all-out push" and "bitterly divided and broken Congress" could be perceived as carrying some negative connotations. Using more neutral phrasing like "determined effort" and "highly partisan Congress" would provide more objective language. Also, describing the ERA as enshrining "women's freedom and equality" is a positive framing; while accurate in the ERA's aim, the article could benefit from additional context around how this intersects with the broader reproductive rights debate.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on Senator Gillibrand's push for the ERA and the potential legal challenges, but it omits discussion of alternative approaches the Biden administration could take to protect reproductive rights. It also doesn't delve into the broader political landscape and potential consequences of certifying the ERA, beyond the immediate legal ramifications. While acknowledging the Brennan Center's stance, it doesn't present counterarguments or other legal perspectives in as much depth. This omission might limit the reader's ability to form a complete understanding of the issue's complexity.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the situation as either certifying the ERA or doing nothing to protect reproductive rights. It doesn't fully explore other legislative or executive actions the administration could pursue. This simplification could mislead readers into believing that these are the only two options available.
Gender Bias
The article focuses primarily on a female Senator's efforts to advance women's rights, which is appropriate given the topic. However, it would benefit from including more diverse voices, particularly from men who support reproductive rights or those with differing perspectives on the ERA's legal standing or broader political implications. The article should strive to reflect a broader spectrum of viewpoints.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses Senator Gillibrand's push to certify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which would enshrine gender equality in the US Constitution. If successful, this would significantly advance gender equality by providing constitutional protection against sex-based discrimination, including in access to reproductive healthcare. This directly relates to SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and its targets aimed at ending all forms of discrimination and violence against women and girls.