An amendment to the New York Constitution will be on the November ballot after the state’s high court rejected a challenge to the state legislature’s approval procedure.
The amendment adds language to Article 1, Section 11 of the New York Constitution. Its current language protects people from discrimination based on their “race, color, creed, or religion.”
Proposition 1 would expand the equal protection laws to “sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.”
He said the amendment would make gender identity a constitutional right that would open the door for males to compete in female sports.
“The amendment applies to all persons and would give minors the right to puberty blockers and transgender surgeries without parental consent,” Mr. Cox said.
“Now the voters will decide in November on the so-called ‘Equal Rights Amendment,’” he said. “This amendment is a Trojan Horse that would grant illegal immigrants access to benefits paid for by taxpayers, as well as open the door to noncitizen voting.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which sided with the state on July 11.
The constitutional amendment passed in the state legislature in 2023 and was supported by Democrats and progressive organizations such as Planned Parenthood of Greater New York.
“It is imperative that New York adds an extra layer of protections to the state constitution that will prohibit discrimination based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex—including sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression,” she said.
Republican Assemblywoman Marjorie Byrnes filed a lawsuit in 2023 challenging the legislature’s procedure in adopting the amendment which led to the lower court’s ruling that the ERA should be removed from the ballot.
Organizations formed in support and in opposition to the ERA, such as the New Yorkers for Equal Rights (NYER) and the Coalition to Protect Kids-NY (CPK), respectively.
The NYER said that the amendment would increase legal protection for those in danger of losing it.
The CPK labeled the amendment the “Parent Replacement Act” and argued that the amendment would take give the state authority over children.
“If these poorly written one-size-fits-all additions to the amendment pass, each of these common sense guard rails that protect kids could be deemed unconstitutional under the New York State Constitution,” the CPK said. “The proposed amendment opens the floodgates for the New York State Government to wield more authority than parents regarding important decisions for their minor children.”