| Senate Democrats learned on Thursday what it will take to give the Equal Rights Amendment a shot at ratification: Seven more votes. If Democrats ever get them — besides the additional senators, they'll also probably need control of the House and the presidency — the ERA's ratification would have health care implications. ERA backers believe that having the amendment in the Constitution would provide a new legal argument for people to bring gender-based discrimination cases in court. "It also bolsters the argument that judicial review of cases alleging sex discrimination should utilize a higher level of scrutiny," Sabrina Talukder, director of the Women’s Initiative at the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank, told Erin. Right now, it's hard for people to bring claims of pregnancy discrimination or domestic violence in court. "They're easy to throw out," Talukder said. That's because protections vary from state to state in the absence of a national standard. What the ERA could mean for reproductive health: Even prior to Roe's fall last year, conservatives worried that the ERA could be used as a tool against abortion restrictions, since such restrictions might be considered discriminatory if they only applied to women. Test case: In New Mexico, which has ERA-like language in its constitution, the state Supreme Court found that denying Medicaid coverage for medically necessary abortions violated its constitution. Since medically necessary treatments for men were covered by Medicaid without restriction, medically necessary care for women must also be covered, the court found. "It's a great way to look at what might happen on a federal level,” Talukder said. Why it failed in the Senate: Fifty-one senators voted Thursday to end debate on a resolution that would remove Congress' long-past deadline to ratify the ERA and allow it to proceed now that 38 states have backed it. But the Senate standard for ending debate is 60 votes. What's next: Democrats are actually only seven short, since Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) changed his vote — a technical move that allows him to try to pass the resolution at a later date — and California Democrat Dianne Feinstein was absent due to illness. The House would also have to pass the resolution removing the ratification deadline and the president would have to sign it for the amendment to have a chance to advance, though Republicans have already signaled they’d protest in court any move to alter the original congressional deadline for ratification, which passed in 1982.
| 
