"Specific bills for specific ills" is a catchy phrase that was often used to argue against an Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Those who called for "specific bills for specific ills" wanted the government to alleviate discrimination against women one problem at a time. They rejected the proposed ERA and any attempt to provide a broad Constitutional protection of equal rights for women.
Why Specific Bills for Specific Ills?
The proposed Equal Rights Amendment was debated intensely during the 1970s after being sent to the states for ratification. However, arguments about women's rights and equality legislation had been going on for decades. Those who opposed an amendment guaranteeing women's equality often argued that discrimination was already illegal in the United States, without ERA.
If an institution or entity discriminated against women, they said, the problem should be remedied with a specific solution to that problem. In other words, a specific law (starting as a bill) should be the remedy for a specific ill.
ERA Opponents
In addition to prominent anti-feminists such as Phyllis Schlafly, some women in labor unions had opposed the ERA for decades. Although they advocated workplace rights for women, these ERA opponents wanted to take the "specific bills for specific ills" approach.
Some labor leaders and working women did not want the ERA to remove protective legislation for women workers, such as limits on the hours they could be forced to work and regulations of women's working conditions. Some ERA opponents also opposed equal pay legislation, while others supported the 1963 Equal Pay Act instead of the ERA. Feminist activists said that labor leaders were just trying to protect male union workers who benefited from having access to better jobs and higher pay scales than women had.
The Women's Bureau
One of the women who called for "specific bills for specific ills" was Esther Peterson, who was appointed by President John F. Kennedy as director of the Department of Labor Women's Bureau.