January 13, 2025

Dear Friends and Family,

Today our petition calling our Senator Murkowski to step up and protect women, the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments today in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and the related Little v. Hecox—cases challenging state laws barring transgender girls from girls’ and women’s school sports—the urgency to protect biological women’s equality has never been greater. These cases spotlight a dangerous erosion: biological females are increasingly displaced in competitions designed to remedy decades of sex-based discrimination against them. Without the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) firmly embedded in the Constitution, Title IX’s promise to women risks being diluted by interpretations that prioritize gender identity over biological sex.

The ERA’s clear text—“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex”—was written to guarantee that biological women could no longer be disadvantaged by law in education, employment, pay, or athletics. In the 1970s context of its drafting, the focus was squarely on ending sex discrimination against women based on their biology. Today, in cases like West Virginia v. B.P.J., we see the consequences of leaving protections statutory rather than constitutional. Becky Pepper-Jackson’s participation on girls’ teams has reportedly displaced 423 cisgender girls across 1,100 occasions, costing them podium finishes, medals, scholarships, and the very opportunities Title IX was enacted to secure for biological females.

West Virginia Attorney General John B. McCuskey framed the core issue perfectly: States must be permitted to distinguish between biological males and females in sports where size, speed, and strength create inherent advantages. Yet lower courts, such as the 4th Circuit, have ruled that excluding transgender girls violates Title IX by denying them equal access—effectively forcing biological girls to compete against athletes who may retain male-puberty advantages despite hormone therapy. Without the ERA’s constitutional weight, these rulings can continue to undermine the sex-based equity women fought for, turning Title IX into a tool that inadvertently disadvantages the very group it was meant to protect.
The Idaho case tells a similar story, and with 27 states enacting fairness laws, the trend is clear: Biological women need ironclad constitutional safeguards. Executive orders like President Trump’s “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” offer temporary reinforcement of biological-sex distinctions under Title IX, but they can be reversed. Only the ERA provides permanent, unassailable protection—subjecting any sex-based policy to strict scrutiny and ensuring that spaces created to advance women’s equality cannot be overridden by evolving statutory interpretations.

Critics may argue the ERA could expand transgender protections, but its original intent and text focus on sex discrimination as understood at ratification: biological sex. Enshrining it now would strengthen defenses for sex-segregated sports, preventing biological women from losing fair competition, safety, and opportunity.

In light of today’s Supreme Court arguments, the time is now. Let’s go get our rights and let’s pass the ERA, protect women’s rights, and secure equality for generations to come.

Love and Light in Christ,

Helene de Boissiere-Swanson