(Image
via
Getty)
If
you
live
in
the
Empire
State,
you’ve
likely
seen
some
electioneering
materials
about
Prop
1.
…And
the
related
misinformation
about
it.
Prop
1
is
a
proposed
amendment
to
section
11
of
article
1
of
the
state
constitution,
to
provide
equal
rights
—
basically
a
New
York
ERA.
And
as
much
as
you
might
hope
that
something
as
basic
as
equal
rights
would
be
uncontroversial,
particularly
in
a
reliably
blue
state
like
NY,
of
course,
you’d
be
wrong.
First,
the
text
of
the
proposal:
Section
1.
Resolved
(if
the
Assembly
concur),
That
section
11
of
article
1
of
the
constitution
be
amended
to
read
as
follows:§
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.§
2. Resolved
(if
the
Assembly
concur),
That
the
foregoing
amendment
be
submitted
to
the
people
for
approval
at
the
general
election
to
be
held
in
the
year
2024
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
the
election
law.Explanation
–
Matter
in
underscored
is
new;
matter
in
brackets
[
]
is
old
law
to
be
omitted.
So,
what’s
the
complaint
with
that?
Well,
Dems
in
the
state
are
promoting
the
measure
as
protecting
abortion
rights.
And
one
of
the
most
common
refrains
from
conservatives
is
“it
DoEsN’T
EvEn
MeNtIoN
aB0RtIoN.”
Kudos
for
staying
on
messaging,
but
you
have
a
synonym
problem.
As
you
can
read
above,
the
prop
protects
reproductive
healthcare.
Which,
admittedly,
is
more
expansive
than
just
abortion
care.
But
with
the
GOP
coming
for
IVF
and
contraception,
that
just
seems
like
good
planning.
Another
claim
seen
on
lawn
signs
around
the
state,
“Protect
Parental
Rights,
Vote
No
Prop
1,”
is
that
parental
rights
will
be
impacted
by
the
ERA.
Initially
that
confused
me,
because
why
would
you
think
that
based
on
an
equal
rights
amendment?
But
what’s
behind
it
is
a
bunch
of
trans
fear-mongering
that
children
might
be
able
to
seek
gender
affirming
care
without
parental
consent.
Which
is
all
bullshit.
The
NYC
Bar
makes
it
clear
that
the
proposal
“does
not
address parental
rights,
which
are
governed
by
other
developed
areas
of
State
and
federal
law.
Prop
1 does
not
change
existing
law
with
respect
to
parental
consent.”
(There’s
other
trans-panic
baiting
in
opposition
to
the
prop,
none
of
which
hold
water
to
actual
interrogation.)
And
Columbia
Law
School’s
ERA
Project
goes
on
to
clarify:
The
New
York
ERA
will
not
change
the
existing
fundamental
rights
that
parents
have
to
make
decisions
about
the
care
and
upbringing
of
children.
Rather,
the
New
York
ERA
could
bolster
existing
parental
rights
by
prohibiting
discriminatory
interference
with
families
and
parental
decision-making.
The
potential
of
the
New
York
ERA
to
address
intersectional
forms
of
discrimination
is
particularly
significant
for
parents
whose
rights
are
threatened
on
the
basis
of
one
or
more
protected
characteristics,
including
race,
disability,
and
sex.
Finally,
the
New
York
ERA’s
comprehensive
protection
of
abortion
and
reproductive
rights
can
and
should
be
understood
to
include
the
rights
to
decide
if,
when,
and
how
to
parent.
The
NY
Libertarian
Party
fears
(yes,
the
Libertarian
Party
wants
fewer
protections
from
government
interference
in
fundamental
freedoms
because
we
are
truly
through
the
looking
glass)
that
the
amendment’s
inclusion
of
national
origin
opens
up
the
door
to
noncitizen
voting.
One
teeny,
tiny
problem
with
that
—
as
NYC
Bar
notes,
NY
wouldn’t
be
the
only
state
(and
the
federal
government
already
provides
that
protection)
that
protects
national
origin
(“Other
states
that
already
have
“national
origin”
in
the
equal
protection
clauses
of
their
respective
constitutions
include
Alaska,
California,
Connecticut,
Delaware,
Florida,
Massachusetts,
Nebraska,
Nevada,
New
Hampshire,
Texas
and
Virginia.”),
all
without
sparking
a
craze
of
a
noncitizen
voting.
There’s
a
bunch
more,
and
you
can
take
a
look
at
the
nonpartisan
fact
sheet
from
the
bar
association
for
yourself
below.
20221367-Prop1ERAEducationalDocument
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].
Olga
