To Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the 14th Ammendment does not serve to protect women's rights. You see he's one of those inlightened people who interpret the Constitution based on what he believes the author's meant. So he can basically look over pesky things such as "protection against discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation." Here's what he had to say in an interview with California Lawyer. I've added the bold underlines for your reading pleasure.
" In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?"
"Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. ... But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society."Ok folks, let's all interpret the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause together shall we?
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."Hmmm, personally, I think that women would fall under "citizens of the United States" and/or "any person" but that's just me. What do I know anyway? I'm just a woman.