what you should know about the controversial constitutional amendment – Telemundo New York (47)

NEW YORK – An amendment to New York’s constitution that would ban discrimination based on things like “gender identity” and “pregnancy results” comes up for a final vote Tuesday amid debate over its potential impact. on the future of contraception and abortion. rights of transgender people.

Supporters and opponents widely disagree about the potential legal impact of the Equal Rights Amendment, also known as Proposition 1.

Currently, New York’s constitution prohibits discrimination based on race, religion or belief. The amendment would add language saying that someone cannot be denied civil rights because of their national origin, age, disability, sexuality, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, or “reproductive health care and self- management.”

Democratic leaders placed the amendment on the ballot in part in the hope of boosting turnout among voters passionate about protecting access to abortion, in an election year that includes House elections. SA in New York They could help decide which party controls Congress.

Several other states also have abortion-related constitutional amendments on their ballots on Tuesday. Most of these ballot questions deal directly with when it should be legal to terminate a pregnancy. But in New York, state lawmakers took the indirect approach of drafting the amendment as an anti-discrimination measure.

Democrats who support the change have argued that the new language would create a legal framework where any restrictions on abortion would be a form of unconstitutional discrimination in health care. The New York City Bar Association agreed with that assessment, as did other legal experts.

However, the fact that the amendment itself does not use the word injury has caused a headache for supporters. He also opened the door for his opponents to say that his alternative language would have several unintended consequences.

Republicans have mounted a strong messaging campaign against the amendment, choosing not to focus on the protections it could provide for abortions but instead to focus on other parts of the proposal. Their main attack is to argue that the amendment would give transgender athletes the constitutional right to play on women’s sports teams.

They have also argued that its national origin language could lead to allowing non-citizens to vote, that banning age discrimination could eliminate premium discounts for seniors, and that it could also prevent parents to have a say in their decisions. medical care of children.

Previous state court decisions have found that existing language in the state constitution prohibits non-citizens from voting. And the New York City Bar Association says the amendment would not preempt existing state laws that require parental consent for a child’s health care.

Legal battles are already underway in New York over whether state and federal laws give transgender people the right to play on sports teams that match their gender identity.

Democrats in the state legislature voted to put the amendment on the 2024 ballot after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade to reverse. Voters elsewhere have shown support for abortion access in previous elections. An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that 7 in 10 Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

However, the uncertainty surrounding the effect of New York’s amendment on abortion was expressed enough that even the state Board of Elections threw up its hands. The Board is responsible for writing simple explanations of the proposed changes that voters will see on their ballots. But instead of explaining the measure or including the word abortion in their description, the board decided to repeat the text of the amendment word for word.

Supporters of the change objected and sued, but the judge in the case, David A. Weinstein, refused to compel the board to rewrite its description, in part because he could not say with certainty how which courts would interpret the language of the amendment.

Currently, abortion is legal in New York up to 24 weeks from the start of pregnancy. After that, it is only legal if the life, physical health or mental health of a pregnant woman is in danger, or if a doctor determines that the fetus is not viable. Although there is no specific date, possibility This is a term used by health care professionals to indicate whether a pregnancy is expected to continue to develop normally or whether the fetus may survive outside the womb.

Democrats are firmly in control of the New York state government, so new restrictions on abortion are unlikely to be enacted in the near future.

Supporters of the proposal argue that if the amendment passes, it would create a strong layer of abortion protection in New York that would be difficult for future legislatures to repeal. That’s because New York requires the legislature to approve an amendment to the constitution twice before it goes to voters for final approval.

What is the New York 1 proposal?

This is the language of Proposition 1, which would represent an amendment to Article 1, Section 11 of the State Constitution, according to the State Board of Elections (BOE) website:

to. No person shall be denied equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No person, based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, creed [o]religion or gender, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes and reproductive health care and self-determination, to be subject to any discrimination in your civil rights by anyone other or by any company, corporation or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state, in accordance with the law.
b. Nothing in this section shall invalidate or prevent the adoption of any law, regulation, program or practice designed to prevent or eliminate discrimination on the basis of a characteristic listed in the section this, and any feature listed in this section shall not be construed to mean. prevent, limit or deny the civil rights of any person based on any other factor specified in this section.

So how does that differ from what is being said now?

In fact, the constitution protects against “unequal treatment based on race, color, creed and religion,” the BOE website says. Under the new proposal, the BOE says the constitution would also protect against unequal treatment based on “ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes, as well as reproductive health care. . and autonomy.”