Could this be the Equal Rights Amendment’s moment?

In many respects, Phyllis Schlafly was the most modern of women.

She was a constitutional lawyer, CEO of a nationwide organization, best-selling author and a candidate for Congress, twice.

Schlafly didn’t single-handedly stop the Equal Rights Amendment in its tracks as it appeared headed for adoption in the 1970s, but it sure seemed like it. Though she had six children, she was hardly one of the traditional homemakers she said she was representing.

When the conservative activist died in 2016, there was little momentum in the ERA movement. That has changed.

In what feels like a time-warp, the ERA suddenly appears destined to be ratified by a 38th state, the number needed to become part of the U.S. Constitution. (Approval of three-fourths of the states — 38 of 50 — is necessary for ratification.)

There are caveats galore, however, surrounding a disputed decades-old deadline for approval, among other things. Litigation is all but certain.

Democrats this month gained majorities in both houses of the Virginia Legislature, and, with a Democrat also in the governor’s office, have gained control of the statehouse for the first time in decades. Party leaders in Richmond immediately pledged to pass the ERA.

That virtually guarantees a national debate during a presidential election year about whether gender equality should be codified in the Constitution. On the one hand, that could boost Democrats by putting Republican congressional candidates on the spot in swing districts. Given the religious right generally remains opposed to the ERA as it did decades ago, it’s hard to imagine the GOP or President Donald Trump remaining neutral. But then an ERA battle could energize those same religious and anti-abortion groups.

Through 1977, the amendment received approval in 35 of the necessary 38 states. It had bipartisan support in both houses of Congress and the backing of Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Then Schlafly, who already had become a well-known conservative voice, stepped into the fray. She established STOP ERA, an organization opposed to the amendment (STOP was an acronym for “Stop Taking Our Privileges”).

Congress, which approved the amendment in 1972, had set a deadline of March 22, 1979, for the state legislatures to ratify. Carter and Congress extended the deadline to June 30, 1982. That didn’t seem to matter much given the odds of the ERA passing were getting longer. But now it does. Currently, there’s a debate about whether that deadline is even enforceable, or, conversely, whether Congress should extend it again.

Schlafly insisted the amendment would take away the right of women to stay at home and care for their children. Many stay-at-home mothers were attracted to her cause. She argued that it could harm women by threatening alimony, change child custody in divorce cases and require women to be drafted into the military.

Schlafly infuriated critics who called her a hypocrite, noting she traveled extensively, had a housekeeper and personal assistant. Perhaps reflecting on her own experience, Schlafly suggested women didn’t need the ERA.

“The claim that American women are downtrodden and unfairly treated is the fraud of the century,” Schlafly wrote in her 1977 book “The Power of the Positive Woman.”

For all of the emotions and political machinations triggered by the ERA, its main clause is pretty simple: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

Given all the changes that have occurred over the decades, there’s debate about whether the ERA is relevant today. Some of the benefits backers said the amendment would help bring about have happened through legislation at the federal and state levels, such as anti-discrimination laws, workplace protections, educational opportunities and child-support laws.

The ERA may seem like a fight from the 1970s, but the battle goes much further back. The first version of the amendment was introduced in Congress nearly a century ago.

Along with changing political dynamics, renewed interest in the ERA has coincided with the #MeToo movement against assault and harassment. Over the past two years, Nevada and Illinois have ratified the amendment. The National Organization for Women argues that the amendment remains important in the quest to gain equal pay, protect reproductive rights and gay rights, combat pregnancy discrimination and further open up the military to advancement for women, among other things.

“The unfortunate truth is that despite a series of important legislative gains and court rulings over the last half century prohibiting discrimination and improving economic opportunity, women remain second-class citizens,” according to an essay on NOW’s website. “Our status has been only modestly improved by such gains which are subject to revision or repeal at any point by a simple majority vote.”

The coming campaign over the ERA raises the question of whether Schlafly’s arguments are relevant today.

Some of her past arguments may be repeated. But others — such as warnings that the ERA would lead to women serving in combat, gender-neutral restrooms and same-sex marriage — are from a bygone era.