Setback for ERA

LAST WEEK'S ELECTORAL defeat in both New Jersey and New York of an equal rights amendment (ERA) to the constitutions of the two states is disheartening and should serve as a warning that the opponents of equal rights for women and men must be strongly combatted.

Supporters of ERA must take some responsibility for the amendment's defeat because they did not direct enough of their campaign efforts toward the large majority of voters who are working class. But last week's defeat can be largely attributed to the effective spread of misinformation by anti-ERA groups about the changes an equal rights amendment would bring about.

The proposed amendments on the New York and New Jersey ballots simply said "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex." Yet by election time the belief was widespread that ERA would force women to serve in the army, provide 50 per cent of a family's income, eliminate alimony and child support payments and would lead to the adoption of unisex toilets in all public places.

The seriousness of ERA's defeat lies in its repercussions at the national level. The federal version of the ERA that Congress passed in 1972 needs to be ratified by only four more states in order to become the 27th amendment to the Constitution. But the resounding defeat of ERA in New Jersey and New York has given anti-ERA groups new impetus to renew their efforts to prevent the passage of a federal equal rights amendment.

The possibility that equal rights for men and women will not be recognized by law is no longer so remote. But that possibility can be fought. The experience of New York and New Jersey shows that the most effective way to do that is through a comprehensive campaign to inform all people at the state and local level about the absolute necessity of an equal rights amendment.