Image CreditFDRLST/Canva
Democrats and activists who sought to enshrine abortion in the New York Constitution with the ratification of a deceptively worded amendment face a new obstacle after State Supreme Court Justice Daniel Doyle ruled that the state legislature failed to adequately satisfy the constitutionally outlined procedure for passing a ballot measure.
“The constitution is the supreme will of the people,” he wrote. “Its amendment should be undertaken by strict adherence to the will of the people.”
New York requires the state attorney general’s office to issue a formal opinion about the amendment before the legislature fulfills its mandated two-time passage. State Assembly Member Marjorie Byrnes, a Republican, filed a lawsuit noting that New York Attorney General Letitia James’ formal opinion on the ballot measure did not come until after the rushed first vote.
“‘Substantial compliance’ is not compliance, and this court cannot condone actions taken by the Legislature in derogation of the expressed will of the people,” Doyle agreed, waving off Democrats’ excuses for the procedural flop.
Doyle’s smackdown is one of the first actions a court has taken against the several abortion-themed ballot measures facing voters in various states this fall. Corporate media readily admit that the ruling throws a wrench in New York Democrats’ expensive 2024 election strategy to increase turnout in the battleground race for control of the state’s lower legislative chamber.
New York already ensures unlimited, on-demand abortion through the subjective judgment of a medical professional who only needs to deem the mother’s life or physical or mental health at risk to greenlight abortion at any point in gestation. The ill-named Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), however, sought to effectively prevent the government from enacting limits on baby-killing in the future.
The proposed amendment also included a barrage of sweeping language and terms such as “discrimination” that would equip the New York Constitution with a “civil right” allowing men to play women’s sports. Proponents of the ballot measure even bragged that the amendment could stop the state from banning things like transgender mutilation and chemical castration for children.
“The ERA … would prohibit discrimination by the government based on a person’s ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex — including their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes,” the ACLU of New York wrote. “It would also protect against any government actions that would curtail a person’s reproductive autonomy or their access to reproductive health care.”
As conservative groups around the state have repeatedly noted, those “outrageous and unconstitutional” provisions infringe on parents’ rights.
James said she plans to appeal the ruling.
“The Equal Rights Amendment was advanced to protect people’s fundamental rights like reproductive freedom and access to abortion care. The decision to strike the ERA from the ballot in November is disappointing, and we’re appealing to defend New Yorkers’ rights,” James said in a statement.
Other Democrats expressed confidence that the ballot measure would be reinstated in time for voters to cast their ballots.
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.
Comments are closed.