Neither “women” nor “sex” are words that appear in the Constitution and show the limits of the narrow understanding of the founding fathers of women as equal citizens. The Constitution was drafted by and for white men by means that reserved their principle of equal justice before the law for the sole benefit of authors and their privileged colleagues. This meant that women and people of color, among others, were openly seen as full citizens and therefore excluded from many legal protections on the basis of their gender, race, and/or ethnicity. In Nepal, an exception for marital rape was declared invalid because it violated the country`s constitutional provision on gender equality. The German Constitutional Court relied on the country`s equality provision to remove laws that were insufficient to protect pregnant women from dismissal. One hundred years after women gained the right to vote2 and with an increasing number of women in the labour market holding elected positions and running for president, the time is long overdue for a constitutional amendment that explicitly guarantees equal rights regardless of gender.3 The Proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), adopted in 1923 by legendary activist Alice Paul, Crystal Eastman and others, who were later revised, prescribe the following: “Equal rights under the law may not be denied or shortened by the United States or any other state on the basis of sex. 4 The nascent efforts to adopt the ERA stem from the recognition that the commitment to equality enshrined in the U.S. Constitution without a meaningful commitment to equality, regardless of gender, could not be fully realized. Now that women and people of all genders are increasingly facing increasing attacks on their rights and autonomy, the current campaign for the ERA is a persistent reminder that the empty rhetoric and timid measures claiming to support and strengthen them are totally inadequate. In addition to depriving American women and girls of full constitutional protection, the fact that the United States does not adopt the ERA or a similar provision violates the country`s international treaty obligations. In 1992, the United States ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), making the IPbpR the “supreme law of the land.” This guidance note examines the legal and political obstacles that Iraqi women will face when trying to exercise their rights set out in the 2005 Constitution. For the avoidance of doubt, women`s rights refer to the rights codified in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which Iraq ratified in August 1986.1 It is important to note that Iraq has ratified the Convention to the extent that its provisions would not violate Islamic law. (See box.) Another area where women have traditionally been disenfranchised is education.

Here, the authors discuss Title IX and its application to equality in education and its link to sexual harassment, retaliation and gender identity. 18. According to Dr. Choman Hardi of Kurdish Women`s Rights Watch, Iraqi family law in autonomous Kurdistan has been amended to legally restrict polygamy. A husband can only take a second wife if the first woman agrees, is sick or infertile. De facto, however, polygamy is still practiced because women do not have safe channels to assert these rights and, in many cases, are too dependent on their husbands to protest. “Report on London open forum talking honour-crime”, 5 May 2007, www.kwrw.org/index.asp?id=100. The 19th Amendment legally guarantees American women the right to vote. Reaching this milestone required a long and difficult struggle – victory required decades of unrest and protest. Beginning in the mid-19th century, several generations of women`s suffrage advocates taught, wrote, marched, lobbied, and practiced civil disobedience to achieve what many Americans saw as a radical change to the Constitution. Only a few early supporters experienced the final victory in 1920. Ultimately, the decision on the timeliness of the ERA rests with Congress.

According to the precedent, Congress can set a deadline for ratification within a time frame that is “reasonable” and “timely enough” to “reflect the will of the people.” 32 The interpretation of punctuality is a “political issue” with ultimate authority in Congress.33 These decisions make it clear that a delay should not be the only decisive factor for ratification. Notably, the 27th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified by the first Congress nearly 203 years after its introduction. In a moment of unprecedented attacks by the Trump administration and others on women and the programs and policies on which they depend – and the majority of American adults who support the ERA – the amendment seems more ripe than ever for ratification.34 Paul`s Equal Rights Amendment states: “Men and women across the United States and everywhere, which is subject to their jurisdiction, equal rights”. With the amendment, Paul intended to eliminate all gender discrimination and inequality in the law in a bold move. In article 29.b, the Constitution “protects” motherhood and explicitly mentions women as mothers. This article uses the term “protect” for the first time, which implies a legal obligation.