This week's column is a joint column by Senator O'Mara, Senator George Borrello, Senator Pam Helming, Assemblyman Phil Palmesano, Assemblywoman Marjorie Byrnes, Assemblyman Chris Friend, and Assemblyman Joseph Giglio.
"Vote NO on Proposition 1"
There is a dangerous Constitutional Amendment on the ballot this coming Election Day that, in our opinion, is cause for significant concern. The amendment, commonly known as Proposal One, Prop 1, or Proposition One, will appear on the backside of your ballot. We have serious concerns about it and urge a vote of NO.
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board opined on this Proposal on October 5th: “When the government gets in the business of making new rights, it pays to look out for the ones you already have. New York Democrats are pushing a November ballot measure, known as Prop. 1, to create new protected classes in the state constitution. The amendment is an attempt to drive Democratic turnout, and it’s a threat to other freedoms.”
Prop 1 has been described as both a “Trojan Horse” and a “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing.”
We believe that the inclusion of Gender Expression and Gender Identity as protected classes in Prop 1 will, first and foremost, constitutionally protect biological boys/males who identify or express themselves as female to participate in girls/women’s sports. We wholeheartedly oppose this as it will be the end of girls/women’s sports as we know it today. Separate women’s sports were hard fought for and have been protected by federal law for more than 50 years through Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Biological boys could take limited spots on girls’ teams and even potential college scholarships.
The Amendment replaces “his or her” with “their.” If approved, Prop 1 will provide biological males “expressing” or “identifying” as female a constitutional right to use women’s safe spaces such as bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers. As well, it may erode parental rights by possibly removing parental consent from health care decisions impacting their children. Specifically, Prop 1 adds “gender identity”, “gender expression” and “age” covering all persons including minors. These new constitutional rights will grant minor children the right to medical procedures such as puberty blockers to change gender – all without parental notification or consent. Under current law a student can’t get Tylenol from the school nurse or go to a tanning salon without parental consent and can’t get a tattoo even with parental consent.
Further, by establishing “national origin” as a protected class it will allow illegal immigrants to claim the same rights as all legal New York citizens, including the right for non-citizens to vote. It will implement a constitutional basis for state tax dollars to be used to provide direct cash benefits and other support for non-citizens and illegal migrants. Recall that just a couple of years ago New York City passed a law allowing non-citizens to vote. The courts have thus far struck that down, but would they do so under this Proposal? Even if they could, would they do so given the increasingly uber-liberal tenor of our state’s highest courts today, which would be bolstered by this Proposal. Remember that the state Legislature’s radical, New York City-dominated Democrat majorities conjured up this Proposal.
The Amendment, in its entirety, as it was approved by the Albany Democrats, follows, however keep in mind that this is not how it is summarized on your ballot (see further below for the exact language as it will appear on your ballot):
Ҥ 11. a. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, creed [or], religion, or sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy, be subjected to any discrimination in [his or her] their civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state, pursuant to law.
“b. 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. “(emphasis above added)
We have emphasized Gender Expression, the change from [his or her] to their and laws to Dismantle Discrimination as neither of these appear in the summary of the Amendment as written on the ballot. It is the officially adopted language above that will be added to our state constitution, not the misleading summary, as presented to you on this year’s ballot.
We are further concerned with the specific language that allows for the adoption of laws that “dismantle discrimination.” This clause will open the door to and constitutionally protect reverse discrimination and reparations.
The misleading “summary,” which leaves out a lot of the actual amendment’s specific language, reads as follows on the back of this year’s ballot:
“Amendment to Protect Against Unequal Treatment
“This proposal would protect against unequal treatment based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity and pregnancy. It also protects against unequal treatment based on reproductive healthcare and autonomy.
“A ‘YES’ vote puts these protections in the New York State Constitution.
“A ‘NO’ vote leaves these protections out of the State Constitution.”
The Democrat state legislative majorities and Governor Hochul have touted the Proposal as an “Equal Rights Amendment” designed solely to protect abortion rights in New York State. They are desperate to keep abortion as a campaign issue because they have absolutely nothing else to campaign on and they know that two-thirds of New Yorkers support access to abortion. However, neither the full text of the Prop 1 Amendment, nor the summary of the Proposal, mentions abortion specifically. Why not, if that is their stated main objective?
Nicole Gelinas of the Manhattan Institute, in a recent commentary published in the
New York Post, wrote the following on Prop 1 being touted as a straight-up abortion rights amendment, “Hochul and state lawmakers could have asked voters to agree to a similar ‘free exercise of access to abortion’ amendment. And it would pass: Two-thirds of New York’s voters support abortion access. Instead, Hochul allowed lawmakers to cynically use the abortion issue to sneak all sorts of other stuff into the amendment — which doesn’t even mention abortion.”
Beware that this Trojan Horse of a so-called Equal Rights Amendment is truly a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing. Remember to TURN YOUR BALLOT OVER and join us in voting NO on Proposal One.
###
Comments