New Yorkers may change constitution to ban discrimination based on ‘pregnancy results’

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) – Year amendment New York’s constitution, which would ban discrimination based on things including “gender identity” and “pregnancy outcomes,” will be voted on Tuesday amid debate over how much it could affect abortion and transgender rights in the future.

Supporters and opponents I don’t agree sharp about the potential legal impact of the Equal Rights Amendment, also known as Proposition 1.

The New York Constitution currently prohibits discrimination based on race, creed, or religion. The amendment would add language that says someone cannot be denied civil rights because of national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, the results of pregnancy, or ” reproductive health care and autonomy”.

Democratic leaders tabled the amendment on the ballot partly in hopes of boosting voter turnout among voters passionate about protecting access to abortion in an election year in which races for the U.S. House in New York could help decide which party controls Congress.

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

Democrats supporting the amendment argued that the new language would create a legal framework in which any restrictions on abortion would amount to an unconstitutional form of discrimination in health care. The New York Bar Association agreed with that assessment, as did other legal experts.

However, the fact that the amendment itself does not use the word abortion has caused headaches for its supporters. It also opened the door for opponents to claim that the other language would lead to a raft of unintended consequences.

Republicans ran a strong messaging campaign against the amendment, choosing not to focus on the protections it could provide for abortion, but to target other parts of the proposal. Their main line of attack was to argue that the amendment would provide a constitutional right for transgender athletes to play on girls’ sports teams.

They also argued that its national origin language could lead to non-citizens being allowed to vote, that a ban on age discrimination could eliminate discounts for senior citizens, and that it could also it prevents parents from having a say in their affairs. medical care of the child.

Previous state court decisions have found that existing language in the state constitution prohibits citizens from voting. And the New York Bar Association says the amendment will not block existing state laws that require parental consent for a child’s medical care.

Legal battles are already underway in New York over whether existing state and federal laws give transgender people the right to play on gender-identifying sports teams.

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

Uncertainty about the New York amendment’s impact on abortion, however, was pronounced enough to prompt even the state Board of Elections to throw up its hands. The board is responsible for writing simple explanations of the proposed amendments that voters will see on their ballots. But instead of interpreting the measure or including the word abortion in its description, the council decided to restate the language of the text amendment.

Proponents of the amendment objected and filed a lawsuit, but the judge in the case, David A. Weinstein, ultimately refused to compel the commission to rewrite its description, in part because he could not say with certainty how they would interpret the courts the language of the amendment.

Abortion is currently legal in New York up to 24 weeks into pregnancy. After that, it is legal only if the life, physical or mental health of the pregnant woman is in danger, or if a medical provider determines that the fetus is not viable. Although there is no definite time frame, viability is a term used by healthcare providers to describe whether a pregnancy is expected to develop normally or whether a fetus could survive outside the womb.

Democrats hold firm control of New York state government, making any new abortion restrictions unlikely in the near future.

Proponents of the proposal say the amendment, if passed, would create a strong layer of abortion protections in New York that would be difficult for a future legislature to repeal. That’s because New York requires the legislature to pass a constitutional amendment twice before it goes to voters for final approval.