The New York Times buried the lead in its strangely titled editorial, “A Rebuke to Trump, a Century in the Making.” 
A tome in support of the Equal Rights Amendment, the editorial waited until far into the missive to explain that its entire argument — adoption of the ERA through state ratification will happen soon, in rebuke to President Trump — is highly unlikely “given that it would miss the deadline Congress set by at least 36 years, and five states have even voted to rescind their ratifications.”
Like so many other issues, the failed passage of the ERA for nearly a century is somehow Trump’s fault, even though it was written before The Donald was even born. It’s also highly unlikely right now given that Democrats, whose leaders are pushing the pro-ERA charge, lost nearly 1,000 state legislative seats during President Barack Obama’s presidency.
With an unrelated introduction that hits American religious voters and puts foreign norms on abortion ahead of Americans’, the Times eventually posits that somehow female voters will imminently push the ERA to its successful ratification. The article admits that part of why the liberal editorial board wants to see the ERA passed is for “emotional” reasons, hardly a sound foundation to build a civilization’s trajectory.
Yet even the Times admits: “An entire generation of feminists has come of age largely knowing the E.R.A. as their mothers’ and grandmothers’ fight. That’s if they know about the amendment at all — a 2016 poll  conducted by E.R.A. supporters found that 80 percent of respondents thought the Constitution already explicitly guaranteed equal rights for women and men.”
By pushing its ERA agenda, the Times discounts what most Americans know: we currently have robust Constitutional prohibition against gender (or any other type) of discrimination—the 14th Amendment.