There is a long-running debate about whether the Court’s sex discrimination cases killed the ERA. The argument, in a nutshell, is that the ERA’s urgency was diminished by the cases striking down sex distinctions under 14th Amendment.
Senator Bayh commented on this in a December 1971 letter to a voter:
“I am sorry to say that the recent Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Reed might well have a negative effect on the Amendment’s chances of success if too many Senators read it too broadly. I have said repeatedly that while I welcomed the Reed decision–which was long overdue –I did not think it went nearly for enough. For the burden is still on each individual plaintiff to show that discrimination on account of sex as it applies to her is unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional. I plan to do my best to show that a truly meaningful Supreme Court decision would have been much more far-reaching, employing [the] “strict scrutiny” test which I advocated in the amicus brief I filed in the Supreme Court. We will all have to do our best to convince every member of the Senate that this Supreme Court decision does not by any stretch of the imagination solve all the problems.”