Title: New York’s Proposition One: A Deceptive Amendment with Far-Reaching Consequences
Section 1: Misleading Intentions and the Abortion Debate
New York’s “Equal Protection of Law Amendment,” known as Proposition One, is set to appear on the November ballot after a lengthy legal battle. While Democrats present it as a crucial protection for abortion rights, it is clear that the amendment’s true purpose goes beyond this issue. The proposition originated as a strategic move by the Democratic Party to drive voter turnout, particularly among affluent white female liberals. However, the fear-mongering surrounding the recent Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which did not ban abortion but emphasized states’ autonomy in deciding their own laws, has been exploited to market Proposition One.
Section 2: Abortion Laws in New York and the Superfluous Nature of Proposition One
New York has long been a stronghold for legal abortion, enshrining it in state law with bipartisan support in 1970, three years before Roe v. Wade. These existing laws remain unaffected by the Dobbs decision. If Proposition One genuinely aimed to protect abortion rights, a simple statement reiterating the fundamental right to choose would suffice. However, the amendment’s language goes beyond abortion and introduces sweeping changes to state anti-discrimination statutes. It adds 11 new categories to existing protections, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and age, which expand transgender minor “rights” and have nothing to do with abortion itself.
Section 3: Implications for Parental Rights and Free Speech
Proposition One’s broader implications extend beyond abortion and anti-discrimination measures. By enshrining transgender minor “rights” in the state Constitution, it effectively prevents parents from objecting to controversial school policies or expressing concerns about their children’s well-being. Parents in New York will have no recourse and may even face criminal liability for hate speech if they voice their objections. This amendment undermines parental rights and infringes upon free speech, silencing dissenting voices and fostering an environment where objections and concerns are suppressed.
Section 4: The Knock-Out Punch: Reverse Discrimination
The most concerning aspect of Proposition One lies in Section B of the amendment. It states that any form of discrimination banned in Section A is permitted if it aims to “prevent or dismantle” another discrimination. This effectively legalizes reverse discrimination and echoes the sentiments of Ibram X. Kendi’s controversial quote: “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” The language is incredibly broad, allowing almost anyone in government to engage in unchecked and unopposable reverse discrimination through various programs and practices.
Section 5: Disturbing Examples of Reverse Discrimination
Section B of Proposition One opens the door to a multitude of disturbing possibilities. For instance, a tax commissioner could exempt certain racial groups from paying income taxes, as suggested by Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas. A district attorney could decide a case based not on its merits but to rectify alleged past racial “over-prosecution.” Even race-blind, meritocratic specialized high schools in New York City could be eliminated under the guise of correcting past discrimination. The amendment’s language allows for the fabrication of past grievances to justify present discrimination.
Conclusion:
Proposition One started as a manipulative election tactic centered around abortion but has evolved into a dangerous and deceptive amendment with far-reaching consequences. It seeks to erode parental rights and free speech while legalizing reverse discrimination. Voters should recognize the true nature of this amendment and reject it in November. Proposition One belongs in the realm of ill-conceived legislation, and its defeat will protect the principles of equality, individual rights, and the well-being of all New Yorkers.
