Phyllis Schlafly: How She Mobilized Conservative Women to Defeat the ERA

The language was simple, and proponents claimed it was to make it easy to interpret with no ambiguity in the meaning. The early 1970s were an opportune time to introduce the ERA as it came on the heels of the Civil Rights Legislation and America was embracing equality and change as it recovered from the tumultuous 1960s. The ERA had support of both sides of the political aisle and passed by overwhelming majorities in both the House and the Senate on March 22, 1972. Very few federal legislators opposed the amendment and one of the strongest opponents was Senator Sam J. Ervin Jr., (D-NC). Ervin warned that the ERA would destroy America’s social fabric, quoting the Bible and constitutional law, to no avail.

Both President Ford and President Carter and the respective First Ladies, supported the amendment and in 1975, $ 5 million tax dollars was dedicated for events for women to come to a consensus as to what the amendment would mean to women at the National Women’s Conference in 1976. There were Republican and Democrat women, Catholic and Protestant, all with different views of why federal tax funds should be allocated for unique needs of women from programs such as federally funded daycare, enforcing child support, and equal treatment of the sexes under the law.

These were the very topics that concerned conservative women who felt these laws were either unnecessary based on state laws or did not want federal tax dollars collected and allocated to federally governed programs. To garner support from all sides, the ERA advocates claimed that the amendment is as much for men as it is for women by demanding equality of the sexes. Supporters claimed the amendment would not add new laws to the U.S. Constitution, merely require the enforcement of the Constitution as written. Opponents countered if the ERA was to merely enforce existing law, then the ERA was unnecessary. Furthermore, opponents of the ERA voiced concerns about abortion, same-sex marriage, the draft to military service, unisex bathrooms and requiring same-sex educational institutions to be forced to become co- educational. The proponents claimed this would not become a part of the law with the passage of the ERA but were separate issues.

Within hours of passage, Hawaii became the first state to ratify and within twelve months 30 of the required 38 states ratified. However, as the opposition grew, the process of ratification slowed and began to be defeated in the states where STOP ERA forces educated state legislators on the impact the passage could have on society. Only thirty-five states ratified from 1973-1982 (the deadline extension) and five states rescinded ratification. During the first year of ratification, Phyllis Schlafly became the face of the anti-ERA movement, quickly gaining media attention with her willingness to debate supporters of the ERA, such as Betty Friedan and Alice Scott. Schlafly would also be challenged by female guests on popular talk shows, such as the Michael Douglas Show, where popular women of the day such as Dr. Joyce Brothers and Karen Grassle (who played the mother on Little House on the Prairie). There were other groups and organizations opposed to the ERA, such as the Church of Latter-Day Saints, Concerned Women of America, and AFL-CIO. Yet, it was Schlafly who became the dominant face of the opposition.

When Schlafly would appear on television, she was prepared, sitting calmly and frequently holding her notes, rarely interrupting the interviewer or opponent, listening to the viewpoint of the challenger who would frequently become agitated as the exchanges became more heated. Depending upon which side of the argument the viewer was supporting, Schlafly could seem condescending and smug or serenely confident. Regardless of one’s feelings, Schlafly was an articulate champion of her cause. She realized the importance of being a good debater to defend her position and returned to college while raising her youngest three children who were still home and traveling the country to rally women at their statehouses or appear on radio or television.

Prior to forming the STOP ERA movement in September 1972, Schlafly had not been interested in the feminist movement. Only when she was invited to a debate by a conservative group in Connecticut who wished to address the Equal Rights Amendment, did Schlafly study the material and decide to become involved. She learned that the ERA placed women, to a certain extent, into a victim type status when it came to opportunities for advancement and education. In a debate with Betty Friedan on Good Morning America, Schlafly pointed out that she did not need the ERA to get into Harvard to obtain her degree. Women were already breaking barriers and forging their own path when choosing to do so. One such well known example, Sandra Day O’Connor prior to becoming the first female Supreme Court Justice, was an Arizona State Senator and had co-chaired the presidential campaign in Arizona for Barry Goldwater. Even Alice Paul obtained not one, but three law degrees to help her champion the ERA which would seem to bely the need for such an amendment. Schlafly’s appearances on television illustrated that not only were women able to find a way into the work force but the women she debated were also in themselves proof that the ERA was unnecessary.

Schlafly was the consistent face of the anti-Era movement. The proponents would change and Schlafly needed to be prepared for the argument that was of the greatest importance to whomever the proponent would be scheduled for the program. A consistent conclusion Schlafly would state repeatedly over her many debates was that one only need to demand enforcement of the Constitution. If a state’s laws were not supportive of women, Schlafly argued it should not be the federal government, but the state that should be forced to change the laws.

Another frequent topic was the draft, which could devolve into anti-war rhetoric that everyone could agree upon. Whether there would be another war after Vietnam seemed inevitable to the conservative and Catholic Schlafly as she would point out that while Americans may abhor war, humans seemed destined to fight. This conversation would play out in one form or another during her interview and debate circuit.

Phyllis Schlafly appeared with a panel of women on Meet the Press, when the topic of money spent on the Women’s Conference held in Texas in 1976 was raised by Carol Simpson. Simpson asks Phyllis about $5 million of taxpayers’ money being spent on the Women’s Conference claiming the event was bipartisan, to include both sides, and it seemed all the attendees were very much dedicated to ratification of the ERA. Schlafly pointed out that her organization with other opponents raised $20k to hold an anti-ERA rally at the same time. The tax funded event attendees were women who might not support all aspects of the ERA but was rather, to be a show of force to the states that had yet to ratify. Schlafly’s response to Simpson when asked how Schlafly would use the funds was that American’s tax dollars should not be spent at all on any amendment that is being debated.

Firing Line was a program that addressed many issues of the time and dedicated a substantial portion of its programming to the women’s movement. On one broadcast, Phyllis Schlafly debates Anne Scott. After dedicating some time to the topic of the draft, the host William F. Buckley Jr. moves on to a concern held by many opponents. Schlafly states unequivocally that the family will be destroyed, that the ERA will damage the domicile of the family. Further, Schlafly believes the goal of the advancement of feminism would take away the women’s right to choose whether to work versus stay home and raise her children. Scott vehemently denies this as a goal of ERA, but Buckley points out that Scott’s sister says equal right will not happen until we do away with the idea of the nuclear family. The rapid shifting of topics turns to a frequent debate topic, education, and the need to eliminate same-sex education. Scott states that federal tax funds should not support all-girl or all-boy schools. She furthers the desire for federal involvement that if a university does not have as many female engineering students as male students, it is breaking the law and the school would be required to recruit more female students. The question of why the ERA should dictate what “choice” means and why does the ERA determine what choices schools, as well as businesses, are allowed to make and which choices they are not allowed to make is discussed. When pressed by the host and panelist as to how students and parents might feel about this, Scott points out that there was an overwhelming majority of support for the ERA, even over the objections of the Constitutional Scholar in congress. Buckley retorts ”just because it is a majority of support, it could be a majority of ignorance.”

The debate clashes Schlafly had with her opponents began in 1973 with a woman whose childhood was similar to Schlafly’s own upbringing. Betty Friedan had been a Midwest-born daughter of a strong mother, just as Schlafly. Friedan however, aligned herself with the Left of the Democratic Party and became a staunch advocate of the Women’s Liberation Movement. Friedan had grown up in a Jewish household, Schlafly a Roman Catholic. It was Schlafly’s staunch religious stance that helped her attract conservative women with strong religious beliefs to the cause of stopping the ERA. These women came from a variety of faiths including Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and Mormon. Both Friedan and Schlafly believed that women could and should become anything a woman chooses. The difference is that Schlafly didn’t believe the ERA was necessary to accomplish that goal and that the ERA would destroy choices for women while advancing progressive ideals that she believed would also destroy the nuclear family.

Schlafly attended Radcliffe College but her immersion in conservative organizations after WWII ended led her to understand what conservatives desired with regards to their government. She worked with the American Enterprise Association in Washington DC, and it was there she learned fiscal conservatism and an ability to communicate difficult and complex topics for an average reader. This ability and a confidence in her ability, led her to contact Claude Bakewell, a St. Louis lawyer running for Congress. As he was looking for a campaign manager, he agreed to interview her and hired her on the spot as she had a grasp on the politics of the area. The speeches she wrote for Bakewell captured the voters’ attention as they tapped into the concerns of the citizens and Bakewell credits her with his victory. She went on to work for Towner Phelan at the St. Louis Union Trust Company and the First National Bank, a job where she was recommended by a phone call from the American Enterprise Association. She was able to hone her writing skills and her ability to create a newsletter while working dual roles for these two institutions while also being unapologetic for being a conservative and successful big business. Schlafly (néene Phyllis Stewart up to this time) was twenty-four, unmarried and independently supporting herself, dating often but not finding a partner who would meet her high standards. Then she met Fred Schlafly, thought to be a confirmed bachelor at thirty-nine. Their courtship was of an intellectual nature and led to a happy marriage that allowed Phyllis Schlafly to fulfill her role as wife and mother while remaining intellectually engaged and a volunteer of many organizations and fund-raising events, including the YWCA as well as the Illinois Federation of Republican Women and the Daughters of the American Revolution.

Phyllis and Fred Schlafly were involved in politics, taking their six children with them to Republican Presidential Conventions. Phyllis Schlafly became a person that Republican candidates wanted to have endorse them and campaign on their behalf. All these positions were foundational training for Schlafly for political activism that sparked the movement to defeat the ERA. When Schlafly and many conservatives struggled with President Nixon and his capitulation to more liberal ideas, her concerns turned from national defense on a military level, to defense of the nation against a growing feminist movement.

The feminist movement, followed on the heels of removing prayer from schools in the 1960s. Betty Friedan wrote her book The Feminine Mystique claiming that a male dominated society brainwashed women into believing they had to be at home to raise children or be shamed for it, instead of going into the workplace for fulfillment. Yet, Christian women already agitated by the attack on prayer in schools, now felt attacked in their own homes. Schlafly, already a successful self-published author of “A Choice, Not an Echo” which propelled Barry Goldwater to successfully grab the Republican nomination for presidential candidate, wrote “What’s Wrong with “Equal Rights” for Women?” in her Schlafly Report newsletter. Unbeknownst to Schlafly, copies of her report had been distributed to Oklahoma legislators. Ann Patterson, a subscriber to the Phyllis Schlafly report contacted Schlafly and let her know of the defeat of the ERA in Oklahoma based on the distribution of her report to legislators.

After a small initial meeting of Illinois women, it was agreed to form STOP ERA and on September 26, 1972, the first national meeting was held in St. Louis and approximately 100 women gathered from around the country. There was discussion of joining forces with other anti-ERA organizations, yet Schlafly felt it would be best to stay singularly focused to defeat the movement. Conservative wives of elected Senators and Congressmen joined the movement and by 1973, there were twenty-six states where STOP ERA was organized, with particularly strong support in critical states. The success grew to the point where other women’s organizations joined with STOP ERA.

As Schlafly rallied women in person to the state legislators the opposition to ERA grew. A topic of the debates would often be opportunity for women was not there and that ERA would fix the problem of access to education and jobs. Schlafly disagreed with those claims. Statistics showed that within the National Organization for Women (NOW), the group leading the charge for the ERA, that of the 220,000 members, 50 percent were over the age of thirty with 66 percent holding a bachelor’s degree and half of that group attaining an advanced degree. Surveys would show that ERA supporters were young, unmarried, employed and did not regularly attend church. This stood in contrast to the anti-ERA group where 98 percent attended church as opposed to the pro-ERA group claimed only 31 to 48 percent attended church.

Schlafly tapped into a segment of the population and was able to unify them in a way that the pro-ERA groups could not comprehend. Her monthly report for the STOP ERA movement expanded her reach and continued to attract support. Her organization had women of all ages, from differing political backgrounds, many of whom did not have any political experience but were coachable. Schlafly prepared them, point by point, on what to say, but also on how to dress and groom themselves to make the best impression. Schlafly also made sure that the women who wrote or visited the state’s legislators were local women that the legislators would know well from their own neighborhood, church, or around town and would not want to alienate them.

The STOP ERA movement drew articulate women who were unified in their message, where the pro-ERA group was disjointed, often with opposing messages and battling priorities. When the organization fully embraced gay rights as lesbians were, in their opinion, doubly discriminated against, and government funded on demand abortion, not all the ERA supporters were on board and the tide turned for the anti-ERA movement. American citizens at that time were not comfortable with the thought of gay rights, nor could they accept such easy access to abortion. Democrat and Republican elected legislators found these topics went against their values and the values of their constituents. When it came time to vote on the Equal Rights Amendment, the supporters fought hard, resorting to dirty tactics in a desperate attempt to bully states into passing the amendment. In Illinois, a hard-fought state, these supporters staged hunger strikes, chained themselves to the building and some brought in pigs’ blood and wrote on the marble floors of the state capital.

These tactics turned out to be a mistake as they turned off legislators who might have been more open to supporting the ERA if not for the radical messages and tactics. The ERA movement was well funded, with membership in groups far outnumbering those opposing the amendment. Pro-ERA groups had stars, such as Alan Alda and the VanBuren sisters who were the popular Dear Ann and Dear Abby columnists, coming out publicly to speak on behalf of passage of the amendment. The supporters were divided on the messaging and could not articulate precisely what passage of the ERA would do for America’s women or to society and what could be stated with certainty, such as abortion, divided not only their supporters but also legislators. Schlafly was the one consistent face, with messaging that resonated with women and men as well the elected officials. Her numbers were small, but her message was united and went to the heart of what Americans held in high regard. The personal attacks on Schlafly only strengthened the anti-Era movement as it appeared that the feminists had nothing of substance to offer.

Had it not been for Phyllis Schlafly, the ratification seemed destined to pass. Phyllis Schlafly’s willingness to go on television and radio, take the jabs and respond with a smile and statistics exposed the cracks in the messaging of her opponents. She would travel to these public appearances while simultaneously growing her grassroots ground force of women willing to make the calls, drive all night to rallies and to their state capitals to speak out about their opposition to the ERA. These women spoke passionately about concerns of their way of life and were provided with consistent statistics and talking points allowing them to remain calm, credible and unified in messaging. Phyllis Schlafly’s leadership to stop the ERA passage was recognized by those in her organization, her opponents, and politicians. To this day, she is revered or reviled as the woman who defeated the Equal Rights Amendment.