OPINION: New Yorkers Will Be Introduced To Proposition 1 Next Week – Deceptively Labeled Bill Seeks To Eviscerate Women’s Opportunity, Safety, Gut Parental Rights

With early voting underway, New Yorkers should know the consequences of “Prop 1,” a ballot measure deceptively labeled as an anti-discrimination measure. Proposal 1 would eviscerate women’s opportunity and safety in single-sex spaces, and guts parents’ rights to boot, all in the name of unnecessary promises about abortion and vague notions of “equality” not borne out by its language. Activists are hoping voters don’t read Proposal 1 very closely. New York voters should read the language and consequences of Proposal 1 carefully for themselves and prove them wrong.

Editor’s note: Staten Islander has covered this issue in the recommendations from the Conservative Party Of Richmond.  You can also read the article by The City that discusses the bill in detail.  In addition, here is the full text of the bill (without the ballot instructions and ratification requirements which have already occurred since you are seeing this amendment on the ballot):

“§ 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.”

New York Voters Should Know the Consequences of Proposal 1

By Inez Stepman

If New Yorkers have heard anything about the proposed amendment to the state constitution, Proposal 1, it’s that it would protect abortion rights, in a state that already firmly enshrines them and has no plans to reverse course.

Suspiciously absent from public debate is the long list of other extreme consequences should the proposal be ratified. Among the “rights” granted by Prop 1 are for men to invade women’s spaces and sports competitions, and schools to hide critical medical information from parents about their children with regard to gender ideology and minor transition.

It’s no surprise that Prop 1 advocates are trying to keep this under wraps. Just a quarter of Americans today believe it’s appropriate for males to force themselves into female sports, down from close to a third two years ago. Similarly, a growing majority of voters is “following the science” on the rampant dangers of irreversible medical procedures offered to minors with the false promise of changing their biological sex.

Brave women, some of them ambassadors with Independent Women’s Voice, have come forward to share their experiences with inappropriate behavior from males allowed into swim meet locker rooms and prisons. For instance, current New York resident and former NCAA swimmer Paula Scanlan was forced to share a locker room 18 times a week alongside Lia Thomas, trans-identifying male swimmer, when they swam together on the women’s team at the University of Pennsylvania. As a survivor of sexual assault, Paula was traumatized by this experience.

In each of these situations, the universities, athletic associations, or government leaders decided to prioritize respecting the feelings of men who claim to self-identify as women over the rights of women in these spaces. The reality is that important differences between the sexes not only exist, but must be recognized and respected in order for women and girls to enjoy the privacy, opportunity, and even basic safety to which they are entitled. Prop 1 will make acting on this simple truth—that men and women are equal, but not the same or interchangeable—unconstitutional in the state of New York. In practice, this will erase women’s rights.

Prop 1 would also permanently erode parental rights in the state by allowing minors to demand gender “transition” through life-altering drugs and surgeries without parental consent. By doing so, the proposed constitutional amendment effectively removes parents from crucial decision-making processes regarding their children’s health and well-being. Numerous stories of those who have detransitioned reveal the irreversible damage “gender transitioning” has had on the bodies and minds of minors. One such woman is Cristina Hineman from Hudson, New York. After detransitioning, Cristina is still left with a host of difficult side effects stemming from her prolonged use of testosterone and irreversible surgery. This includes, but is not limited to, unwanted hair growth, chest pain, nerve pain, permanent changes to her voice, and a potentially compromised reproductive system.

If that weren’t enough, in some readings of its broad language, the proposal gives politicians and judges a blank check to discriminate in ways most Americans find unacceptable, including on the basis of race and sex, as long as they claim to be discriminating in order to fight discrimination.

Proponents of Prop 1 are trying to slip one past the voters on its real effects. According to them, Prop 1 is about everything but what its language mandates; bloviating in generalizations about protections for abortion and LGBTQ “rights” that are in no way under any threat in liberal New York state. That’s because when voters are confronted with the specific consequences of this proposal, they’re deeply unpopular.

Activists are hoping voters don’t read Proposal 1 very closely and fall for a misleading bait-and-switch that eviscerates women’s opportunity and safety in single-sex spaces, and guts parents’ rights to boot, all in the name of unnecessary promises about abortion and vague notions of “equality” not borne out by its language. Not to mention, the word “abortion” does not even appear in the language, and Prop 1 has nothing to do with equality.

New York voters should read the language and consequences of Proposal 1 carefully for themselves and prove them wrong.

Inez Stepman is a senior policy and legal analyst at Independent Women’s Law Center (iwlc.org). She is a resident of New York.

Banner Image: Gay rights protest. Image Credit – Christian Lue 

Advertisement

Inez Stepman

Inez Feltscher Stepman is a senior contributor at The Federalist. She is also a senior policy analyst at Independent Women's Forum and the Thursday editor of BRIGHT, a women's newsletter. Find her on Twitter @inezfeltscher.