To the editor: It's worth remembering just how straightforward the Equal Rights Amendment is. The entire text has three sentences. ("Unbelievably, women still don't have equal rights in the Constitution," Opinion, Jan. 5)
The first reads, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." The second sentence says that Congress can enforce the law, and the third defines when the amendment takes effect.
In 2017, it is impossible to argue that the amendment is inappropriate, since one who does so implies that women should be legally subjugated. It's equally impossible to claim that the amendment is unnecessary, given the continuing inequality we see.
So the remaining argument against the ERA boils down to coded variations of "it would upset the balance of power" — in other words, it would give women a fair chance.
Geoff Kuenning, Claremont
To the editor: Please restate that in 2000 the Supreme Court held that there is no basis in the U.S. Constitution for it to uphold important parts of the Violence Against Women Act.
Currently, the 14th Amendment is a lie. It uses the word "person," but it means "men." The Equal Rights Amendment will give every daughter equal protection under the law and restore the integrity of the Constitution.
Erika Sukstorf, Pasadena