In November, voters in New York will be asked to approve Prop. 1, an Equal Rights Amendment to the state’s constitution that progressive Democrat politicians claim will provide ironclad protections for abortion rights, reproductive freedom, and equal rights for everyone. It is a lie and a deceitful trap.
If approved, Prop. 1 will add nothing to the state’s existing statutory rights to abortion on demand, a right that was enacted more than half a century ago in 1970. Prop. 1, or, more formally, an Amendment to Protect against Unequal Treatment, creates over a dozen new special categories of protected individuals, beyond the traditional legal categories of race, color, creed, religion, and sex. Prop. 1 would codify new constitutional protections for age, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy outcomes, national origin, and autonomy. There is no mention of abortion. Other special protected categories such as LGBTQ and disabilities have long enjoyed constitutional protection in New York. There are no new “rights” for women.
The title of the constitutional proposal betrays its real intent: the unequal treatment of individuals.
The underhanded purpose of Prop. 1 is to memorialize a laundry list of left-wing policies that had zero chance of passing through normal legislative order and public comment. These include the progressive doctrine of Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (DIE, or DEI); the usurpation of parental control over minor children in favor of state control; and opening the door to special legal status for the estimated 835,000 illegal aliens now in New York.
Prop. 1 is possibly is most disingenuous and destructive ballot initiative that the extreme progressive Albany Legislature has ever foisted upon New Yorkers. Both houses of the Legislature are supermajority ruled by Democrats, which are dominated within their respective caucuses by their most radical members from New York City. Even so, bills to allow minor children to make medical and surgical decisions without parental consent have died in committee because the progressives know that their constituents would rise up in revolt.
Instead, institutionalizing DIE and negating parental authority have been implemented by unelected bureaucrats, notably the New York Board of Regents, which recently issued guidelines that schools should withhold gender identification issues from parents.
Parents across the state, even in liberal strongholds, are angry about the encroachment of DIE on their parental prerogatives and the increasingly graphic and age-inappropriate sexual information being given to primary school students. Parents of high school girls are opposed to the inclusion of boys in girls’ sports on the basis of safety, privacy, and lost opportunities.
State Senate candidate Tricia Lindsay, a former Yonkers schoolteacher and now lawyer, says, “Obliterating parental rights will leave children without their first line of defense. No wonder why parents are scared of Prop. 1.”
The national origin addition to the proposed amendment would open the door to a crippling tax burden to subsidize illegal aliens. National origin is already covered by existing state and federal human rights laws applying to U.S. citizens. Do Americans want to put people who came here illegally first in line for taxpayer-funded benefits? The question is hardly moot, given FEMA’s recent revelation that it has no funds to assist Americans who have lost homes and livelihoods due to hurricane Helene because the money was diverted to illegal aliens.
In the second and final paragraph of the proposed amendment is the harsh truth. It contains a statement that will sentence New Yorkers to servitude by modern discrimination:
Nothing in this section shall invalidate or prevent the adoption of any law, regulation, program, or practice that is designed to prevent or dismantle discrimination on the basis of a characteristic listed in this section, nor shall any characteristic listed in this section be interpreted to interfere with, limit, or deny the civil rights of any person based upon any other characteristic identified in this section.
The concept of legalizing future discrimination as an antidote to real or imagined past discrimination is anathema to most Americans. Creating a DIE exception to the existing New York and federal anti-discrimination is divisive and would erupt into massive litigation. The concept of anti-racism may sell books, but it has no place in a state constitution.
The Equal Protection Project initiative of Legal Insurrection’s founder William Jacobson agrees. Prop. 1 “would embed reverse-discrimination and tenets of Critical Race Theory and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion into the NY State Constitution, damaging preexisting antidiscrimination efforts by creating a legal loophole based on the motivation for discrimination.”
The Democrat majority in the state’s Legislature designed the timing of the ERA to leverage the abortion issue during the presidential election by an emotion appeal to women. It may be backfiring.
Republican challengers to progressive elected officials in the suburban counties of Westchester and Putnam counties are optimistic that fears about Prop. 1 will turn out voters who realize that the sales pitch of saving abortion rights was nothing more than a sordid bait-and-switch.
In contrast, Democrat legislators running for re-election are now flogging the mantra of “Protecting Reproductive Freedom” with such chestnuts as “New York will always be a safe haven for reproductive care.”
The claim of reproductive care is risible. New York attorney general Letitia James has a history of harassing crisis pregnancy centers focused on helping women who initially chose abortion and then decided to give birth. In August, the U.S. District Court in Western N.Y. issued an injunction against the N.Y. A.G. to prevent her from taking action against eleven National Institute of Family and Life Advocates centers that discuss progesterone, a drug to reverse the effects of the abortion pill. The definition of reproductive freedom is limited to abortion.
The New York League of Women Voters, which has devolved into a Democrat party PAC, changed its pitch to voters. No longer are they emphasizing abortion rights; the new selling point is, “We need a constitutional amendment so our rights and freedoms are protected — no matter who is in office.” Is the League anticipating a voter revolt against rampant progressivism?
Initiatives relating to abortion or the ERA are on the ballot in ten states this November. Only New York’s deceptive ERA memorializes the despicable policy of future “anti-racism” as an antidote to past real or perceived discrimination, eviscerates parental rights, wipes out the established benefits of girls’ sports, and elevates illegals to special status at the expense of a dwindling pool of legal New York taxpayers. Nowhere is there a single, demonstrable benefit to women. Prop 1. and its ilk have no place in New York or anywhere else in America.
Linda R. Killian is a retired financial analyst and a Republican chairman in Westchester County.
Pexels.
Comments are closed.