The SCOTUS, as do all courts interprets, applies and reviews laws. It does not make law and it does not grant rights. The problem we have is that the Constitution, which outlines a framework for a governmental corporation has only two interests, the promotion and protection of property and commerce.

While the natural person, who governs, is recognized, the Consritution goes on to specify that persons who are owned by someone else are to count for 3/5 of a person for purposes of representation in the legislature. The ownership of persons is a given and, indeed, to this day juveniles are owned by their parents until their emancipation at age eighteen.
So, the question arises as to the point when a person comes into existence and parents have a property claim. The state of Texas has decided that a person can assert an interest (not curiosity, but ownership) over the disposition or disposal of a fetus. That is, the state has washed its hands and will not stake a claim. Other states have asserted an interest and declared that the disposal of fetal tissue is a homicide.
Obviously, rights extended and protected by the state can be removed. We are all familiar with eminent domaine and the half million parents whose children have been placed in foster situations via secret court hearings know about the taking of unsupervised chattel. The problem is not a failure to extend equal right, but the extension or recognition of no human rights at all. Moreover, men are even worse off than women because, according to laws still on the books, men can be requisitioned for involuntary service in the military where they are quite likely to be killed (without any kind of judicial hearing).
Obviously, the commitment to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration was forgotten ten years later when the Constitution was drawn up. Was it just to support the continued ownership of slaves? Perhaps, but it is just as likely that the framers did not want to be bothered with anything but property and revenue generating commerce. Indeed, although there are duties and obligations listed in the interest of “providing for the general welfare,” the only real obligation was/is to respond to demand. Those who asked got; those who didn’t were forgot.
We do not need an equal rights amendment; we need a commitment to respect natural human rights, without enumeration. Once we star numbering, the unmentioned are left out.
That the Constitutional schema is consistent with authoritarianism is sort of beside the point. Authoritarianism is a constant threat to liberty, regardless of what laws are or are not in effect. Liberty, like democracy, takes vigilance and work.