If passed, the proposal will amend Section 11 of the New York Constitution, which currently prohibits treating people unequally based on race, skin color, religion, or creed.
Categories that will come to enjoy the same protected status include ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, pregnancy and the outcomes of pregnancy, and reproductive health care.
Under the expanded version of Section 11, employers found to have engaged in discrimination or retaliation against people based on these protected categories will face legal action.
“No person shall ... be subjected to any discrimination in 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,” the text of the proposal states.
It stipulates that no one may take any of its provisions to interfere with any other laws, regulations, or practices that forbid discrimination in employment.
Supporters and opponents disagree as to what these terms would mean in practice.
The former argue the proposal would make it harder to discriminate against vulnerable segments of the population, while the latter see it as denying parents any say in decisions their children may not yet fully understand.
Also known as the Equal Rights Amendment, the bill has passed the state Senate.
The sponsor of the ballot measure is New York state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal, a Democrat representing the state’s 47th District, which covers the west side of Manhattan in New York City.
In an email to The Epoch Times, Hoylman-Sigal criticized the Supreme Court. He said that the justices “have made it abundantly clear that they plan to criminalize abortion and strip LGBT Americans of their civil rights, guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, if they are given the chance.”
“It is imperative that we all turn out this November and pass the New York Equal Rights Amendment,” he said.
In a debate on Oct. 23, incumbent Democrat Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand engaged in a lively exchange with her challenger, Republican Mike Sapraicone, over the proposition.
Gillibrand urged voters to support the proposition, saying it is necessary to ensure the rights of pregnant women in the workforce as well as those who have recently given birth.
The Effects on Parents’ Rights
Kelly Eustis is director of member engagement for Do No Harm, a nonprofit based in Glen Allen, Virginia, that opposes the politicization of clinical practice. He said he was unaware of other states with similar amendments on their books.The passage of Proposition 1 in New York state might lead to wider adoption, he said.
In an email to The Epoch Times, Eustis disagreed with the characterization of the bill as one designed fundamentally to ensure abortion access, and described the dangers to parental rights that he believes the proposition poses.
Of particular concern to Eustis is the language in one clause of the bill about liability for discrimination against gender identity.
As written, the bill could penalize parents for seeking to have any input into decisions that their young children make about sexuality and gender identity, he warned.
“The provision states ‘any other person’ in the lead-up to ‘any other firm, corporation, or institution’ as liable for discrimination,” Eustis said, “so it could most certainly pertain to parents and their rights.
“With age and gender identity being added, it may lead to courts taking rights away from parents who want to protect their children from making irreversible medical decisions.”
In an email to The Epoch Times, David Carlucci, a former New York state senator who now works as a political consultant, alluded to a longstanding tradition within the state of upholding individual and human rights. He said that work has grown all the more urgent since the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Many of the arguments against the legislation rely on mischaracterization, he said.
“Nothing in this amendment suggests these things,” Carlucci said. “It protects fundamental human rights.”
According to Eustis, the language of the proposition is so vague that it could lend itself to myriad forms of litigation against parents and guardians on almost any number of pretexts.
“The language is broad and can be interpreted in different ways, which is why this proposed amendment is so concerning,” he said. “The name itself, ‘Equal Rights Amendment,’ is deceiving.
“It is primarily being deemed an abortion amendment, but goes way beyond that.”
The consequences for parental rights—and the potential for future litigation over supposed age-related discrimination—are hard to calculate, he said.
