close
close

Proposal One Has Unintended Consequences | News, Sports, Vacancies

Proposal One Has Unintended Consequences | News, Sports, Vacancies

By SEP. GEORGE BORRELLO and THE JOE GIGLIO ASSEMBLY

There is a dangerous constitutional amendment on the ballot this upcoming Election Day that we believe is cause for serious concern. The amendment, commonly known as Proposition One, Proposition No. 1, or Proposition One, will appear on the back of your ballot. We have serious concerns about this and urge you to vote against it.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board weighed in on the proposal on October 5: “When the government is creating new rights, it’s worth looking at the ones you already have. New York Democrats are pushing a November ballot measure known as Proposition 1 to create new protected classes in the state constitution. The amendment is an attempt to increase Democratic turnout and a threat to other freedoms.”

Proposition 1 was described as “Trojan Horse” And “A wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

We believe that including gender expression and gender identity as protected classes in Proposition 1 will primarily constitutionally protect biological boys/men who identify or express themselves as women to participate in girls’/women’s sports.

We wholeheartedly oppose this as it will be the end of women’s/girls’ sports as we know it today. Separate women’s sports have been fiercely fought over and protected by federal law for more than 50 years through Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Biological boys could fill a limited number of spots on girls’ teams and even receive potential college scholarships.

The amendment replaces “his or her” With “their.” If approved, Proposition 1 would provide biological males. “expressing” or “identification” as a woman has a constitutional right to use women’s safe spaces such as bathrooms, locker rooms and showers. In addition, it may undermine parental rights, possibly depriving parents of consent to health care decisions affecting their children. Specifically, Proposition 1 adds “gender identity”, “gender expression” And “age” applies to all persons, including minors. These new constitutional rights would give minor children the right to medical procedures, such as puberty blockers, to change their gender—all without parental knowledge or consent. Under current law, a student cannot get Tylenol from the school nurse or go to a tanning salon without parental consent, and cannot get a tattoo even with parental consent.

Next, by installing “national origin” as a protected class, it would allow illegal immigrants to claim the same rights as all legal citizens of New York, including the right of noncitizens to vote. It would create a constitutional framework for using state tax revenue to provide direct cash transfers and other support to noncitizens and undocumented immigrants. Let us remember that just a couple of years ago, New York passed a law allowing non-citizens to vote. The courts have now reversed this decision, but will they do so under this Proposal? Even if they could, would they do so given the increasingly liberal tone of our state’s highest courts today, which will be reinforced by this Proposal. Remember that the Radical Majority in the Democratic-dominated State Legislature in New York put forward this proposal.

The full amendment approved by Albany Democrats follows, but keep in mind that is not how it is summarized on the ballot.

We emphasized gender expression, transition from (his or her) to theirs, and anti-discrimination laws since none of these appear in the amendment summary as written on the ballot. The officially adopted language above will be added to our state constitution, rather than the misleading summary presented to you on this year’s ballot.

We are also concerned about the specific language that allows laws to be passed that “eliminate discrimination.” This clause would open the door to constitutionally protect reverse discrimination and redress.

Misleading “summary” missing much of the specific language of the amendment itself, the back of this year’s ballot reads:

“Unequal Treatment Amendment”

“This proposal would protect against unequal treatment based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability and gender, including sexual orientation, gender identity and pregnancy. It also protects against unequal treatment based on reproductive healthcare and autonomy.

A “yes” vote inserts these protections into the New York State Constitution.

“A ‘no’ vote removes these protections from the State Constitution.”

The state’s Democratic legislative majority and Gov. Hochul touted the proposal as “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 nothing else to campaign for and they know that two-thirds of New Yorkers support access to abortion. However, neither the full text of Amendment 1 nor the summary of the Proposal specifically mentions abortion. Why not, if this is their stated main goal?

Nicole Gelinas of the Manhattan Institute, in a recent commentary published in the New York Post, wrote the following about Proposition 1, which is touted as a direct abortion rights amendment: “Hochul and state legislators could ask voters to agree to a similar ‘free access to abortion’ amendment.” And this will pass: Two-thirds of New York voters support abortion access. “Instead, Hochul allowed legislators to cynically use the abortion issue to add all sorts of things into the amendment that don’t even mention abortion.”

Remember that this Trojan horse of the so-called Equal Rights Amendment is actually a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Don’t forget to turn over your ballot and join us in voting. “No” according to proposal number one.

This letter is additionally signed by State Senator Tom O’Mara, Pam Helming and Assembly Members Phil Palmesano, Marjorie Byrnes and Chris Friend.