XPost: alt.society.liberalism, nyc.general, or.politics
XPost: sac.politics

On 30 Jul 2024, Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov> posted some news:v8ah7d$ohj$3@reader1.panix.com:

NY’s faux ‘abortion amendment’ is a sneak attack on parents’
rights and free speech
By Social Links forWai Wah Chin
Published July 28, 2024, 6:59 p.m. ET

54 Comments

New Yorkers are set to vote on the controversial “Equal Protection
of Law Amendment” in November.
New Yorkers are set to vote on the controversial "Equal Protection of
Law Amendment" in November.
Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images
New York’s so-called “Equal Protection of Law Amendment” is
headed for November’s ballot after a tortuous journey through the
courts.

On Friday, public comments on what will be listed as Proposition One
closed, and the state Board of Elections moved to finalize its
language.

But as we can expect from Democrats — remember the deceptively named federal “Inflation Reduction Act”? — this “Equal Protection”
law is anything but.

The left is marketing Proposition One as critically necessary to
protect abortion rights in New York after the Supreme Court’s 2022
Dobbs decision.

But contrary to the fear-mongering, Dobbs did not ban abortion: It
merely reminded the nation that the Constitution says nothing about abortion’s legality — leaving states free to decide their own
laws.

And New York state needs more abortion protection like the Sahara
Desert needs more sand.

Explore More
JOE BIDEN
Biden’s illegitimate ‘reforms’ are a nakedly political bid to
tilt the Supreme Court on his way out
A new study found that universal basic income actually left recipients
with less money.
Free money, less income: study finds no-strings cash leaves the poor
worse off
Biden
The left’s painting Biden as a monster for not dropping out — but
Joe’s just being Joe
New York enshrined legal abortion statewide with bipartisan support in
1970 — three years before Roe v. Wade — and reinforced it more
recently.

Those state laws are not affected by Dobbs one smidgen.

The truth is that Prop. One originated as Democratic Party red meat
for the November election.

Democrats learned that Dobbs alarmism really works to drive their
voter turnout, especially with affluent white female liberals.

It paid off beautifully for Gov. Hochul in New York’s surprisingly competitive 2022 gubernatorial race.

see also
Hundreds protest a Trump administration announcement this week that
rescinds an Obama-era order allowing transgender students to use
school bathrooms matching their gender identities, at the Stonewall
Inn on February 23, 2017 in New York City
Critics blast NY’s proposed ‘Equal Rights Amendment’ they say
strips parents of their rights over kids’ transgender surgery
So for 2024, Democrats splattered proposals and referenda purporting
to “protect abortion” on election ballots in more than half a
dozen states nationwide, including New York.

Here, though, Democrats took the opportunity to range far beyond
abortion paranoia.

If Prop. One were really about protecting abortion, one simple
sentence would suffice: “Every individual who becomes pregnant has
the fundamental right to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, to
give birth to a child, or to have an abortion.”

That’s verbatim from the state public-health law already on the
books in New York.

But this “abortion” amendment reads nothing like that
straightforward sentence.

Instead, it aims to add superfluous abortion protections — while
making breathtakingly sweeping changes to state anti-discrimination
statutes that have nothing to do with abortion.

Prop. One’s Section A adds a whopping 11 new categories to the
existing protections against discrimination on the basis of race,
color, creed and religion.

Only two of them touch abortion.

But four of the new categories — sexual orientation, gender
identity, gender expression and age — expand existing law to
enshrine transgender minor “rights” in the state Constitution.

Alert parents instantly recognize these code words for what they mean
in our schools right now: The left is coming after our children.

Get opinions and commentary from our columnists
Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter!

Enter your email address
By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

So while parents in other states can still fight on school boards and
in courtrooms against boys in girls’ bathrooms, against weak boys
stealing sports medals from strong girls, against manipulative
in-school “acceptance and belonging” lessons and more, New York
parents will be powerless if Proposition One passes.

Here, parents will have no recourse — and may actually be criminally
liable for hate speech if they voice their objections.

Meanwhile, Section B is the proposition’s knock-out punch.

It says any and all of the discriminations banned in Section A are
permitted if such discrimination is done to “prevent or dismantle” another discrimination.

It basically adds to the state Constitution that much-ridiculed quote
from racism trafficker Ibram X. Kendi: “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

The section would institute reverse discrimination in any imaginable
category — just fabricate some past discriminatory grievance, and
voila, discrimination to “undo it” becomes legal.

And the language is exceedingly broad, covering “any law,
regulation, program, or practice” — so almost anyone in government
can reverse-discriminate, unchecked and unopposable, via a “program
or practice.”

Examples? The sky’s the limit.

A tax commissioner could exempt black New Yorkers from paying income
taxes, as Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) has suggested.

A district attorney could decide a case based not on its merits, but
to correct for alleged past racial “over-prosecution” of others,
along the lines of California Penal Code 745.

A schools chancellor could eliminate the city’s race-blind,
meritocratic specialized high schools, which have been falsely accused
of past discrimination.

Prop. One started out as a sordid electioneering ploy on abortion,
then became a sleazy bait-and-switch — not about abortion, not about
equal protection, but about destroying parental rights and free
speech.

And to top it all, it legalizes a cornucopia of reverse
discrimination.

Prop. One belongs in the trash heap of bad legislation — and in
November, voters should toss it there for good.

Wai Wah Chin is the founding president of the Chinese American
Citizens Alliance Greater New York and an adjunct fellow of the
Manhattan Institute.

Who voted for Hochul?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)