Post by flushingjet on Nov 5, 2024 10:33:19 GMT -5
Fact Sheet: Proposal #1 (Prop 1)
Proponents Falsely Claim Prop 1 Is Needed to Protect Abortion. New York legalized abortion in 1970 and is not under any threat of repeal. Further, the word abortion does not appear in the amendment language as it does in other U.S. state proposals protecting abortion rights. Instead, it uses broad terms (‘pregnancy outcomes” and “reproductive autonomy”) leaving much to judicial interpretation.
Prop 1: The Truth: Prop 1 creates new constitutional protections for new categories of people even though all these categories are protected against discrimination under existing state law. However, these constitutional protections will have greater legal status than mere statutes and will create conflict with other long-standing rights.
Parental Rights: Prop 1’s irresponsibly drafted language creates “new” constitutional rights likely resulting in removal of parental consent from health decisions impacting their children. Prop 1 adds “gender identity” and “gender expression” and covers all persons including minors. These new constitutional “rights” will grant minor children the right to transgender and other types of medical interventions – all without parental notification/consent. Parents will remain financially and legally responsible for managing emotional and physical results impacting their minor children. Governor Hochul and the legislature enacted a law to protect minors from abuse on social media. Yet, she ignores the genuine threat to minors under Prop 1.
The 2023 NYS Department of Education guidance states that schools cannot inform parents of a child’s decision to transgender unless and until a minor child agrees to involve his or her parents. European regulatory authorities reversed initial policy recommendations, supporting a more cautious approach to transgender treatments. New York Democrats ignore these developments.
Boys in Girls’ Sports: Prop 1 will force schools to include biological males on female sports teams, jeopardizing the fairness of athletic competitions. It will compel shared locker rooms and bathrooms and make it nearly impossible to reverse 2024 NYS Department of Education regulations allowing boys on girls’ sports teams based on their chosen gender. These regs also allow boys -- regardless of chosen gender -- to play on girls’ teams if the school does not offer a boys’ team in a selected sport.
Taxpayer Benefits for Migrants: In creating “national origin” as a new protected class, Prop 1 creates a constitutional basis for taxpayer benefits to support non-citizens and illegal migrants. New York City authorized voting rights for non-citizens and Prop 1 would provide more legal support for this effort. (The NYC law is currently before the New York State Court of Appeals).
Reverse Discrimination: Prop 1 contains language which will legalize “reverse discrimination” programs in the governmental and private sectors if intended to remedy past discrimination. This provision provides a state constitutional framework to utilize racial and ethnic quotas in hiring, education admissions, and a range of other areas.
Why Prop 1? New York’s Democrats rushed to propose a constitutional amendment and disregarded key process steps required by New York’s Constitution. The legislature never even held a single hearing on the proposal or consulted legal and constitutional scholars as to its impact. They completed the process in 2023 but cynically placed the amendment on the ballot to coincide with the 2024 presidential election.
Fact Sheet: Prop 1: A Basis for Tax-Payer Benefits to Migrants
Prop 1 states you cannot discriminate based on national origin, but national origin is already covered in existing state and federal Human Rights laws and typically applied to U.S. citizens.
If passed, Prop 1 will provide a constitutional basis to Hochul’s grant of substantial benefits to illegal migrants at taxpayers’ expense.
New York City’s 1979 ‘Right to Shelter’ consent decree for homeless New Yorkers will be construed as a migrant’s legal right to shelter -- with a constitutional guarantee that courts will be hard pressed to deny.
Hochul’s current generous benefits to migrants -- public assistance such as cash payments in lieu of welfare, credit cards to purchase food, and housing options – would all have a constitutional basis of protection.
With respect to housing migrants, a federal court recently dismissed an NYCLU lawsuit challenging an Orange County executive order prohibiting hotels from becoming shelters. Additionally, Rockland County has beaten a NYCLU federal lawsuit asserting that the County could not constitutionally bar migrants from traveling to or residing in the County. Should Prop 1 be ratified into law, courts would have to find that executive orders such as these intentionally discriminate against the migrants and violate their constitutional rights to travel freely within New York State.
Hochul believes work authorization is the way out of the migrant crisis and is fast-tracking migrant work permits and employment processes for government jobs – jobs that tax-payers fund. She seeks to work around the current requirement to first apply for asylum and then wait 6 months to apply for a work permit . One problem with her approach: the Biden-Harris White House cannot and will not control the border.
Will the ERA allow migrants the right to vote? A 2022 NYC law granting non-citizens/green card holders/those with federal work authorizations the right to vote has not gone into effect because of legal challenges. This would have applied to 800,000 newly eligible voters in the city alone. The trial court and 2nd Department Appellate Division struck down the law as unconstitutional. New York City has appealed to the Court of Appeals and a hearing is scheduled in the Fall.
Will the ERA grant the right for migrants to apply for public service jobs such as law enforcement, firefighters, emergency medical workers etc.? Non-citizens can become police officers in California, Colorado, and Illinois; Virginia and Wisconsin are considering bills to allow this as well. And taking it even further, in Illinois, a U.S. District Court ruled that migrants are not prohibited from legally possessing weapons.
If Prop 1 is approved in November, all bets are off on how far this can go.
Proponents Falsely Claim Prop 1 Is Needed to Protect Abortion. New York legalized abortion in 1970 and is not under any threat of repeal. Further, the word abortion does not appear in the amendment language as it does in other U.S. state proposals protecting abortion rights. Instead, it uses broad terms (‘pregnancy outcomes” and “reproductive autonomy”) leaving much to judicial interpretation.
Prop 1: The Truth: Prop 1 creates new constitutional protections for new categories of people even though all these categories are protected against discrimination under existing state law. However, these constitutional protections will have greater legal status than mere statutes and will create conflict with other long-standing rights.
Parental Rights: Prop 1’s irresponsibly drafted language creates “new” constitutional rights likely resulting in removal of parental consent from health decisions impacting their children. Prop 1 adds “gender identity” and “gender expression” and covers all persons including minors. These new constitutional “rights” will grant minor children the right to transgender and other types of medical interventions – all without parental notification/consent. Parents will remain financially and legally responsible for managing emotional and physical results impacting their minor children. Governor Hochul and the legislature enacted a law to protect minors from abuse on social media. Yet, she ignores the genuine threat to minors under Prop 1.
The 2023 NYS Department of Education guidance states that schools cannot inform parents of a child’s decision to transgender unless and until a minor child agrees to involve his or her parents. European regulatory authorities reversed initial policy recommendations, supporting a more cautious approach to transgender treatments. New York Democrats ignore these developments.
Boys in Girls’ Sports: Prop 1 will force schools to include biological males on female sports teams, jeopardizing the fairness of athletic competitions. It will compel shared locker rooms and bathrooms and make it nearly impossible to reverse 2024 NYS Department of Education regulations allowing boys on girls’ sports teams based on their chosen gender. These regs also allow boys -- regardless of chosen gender -- to play on girls’ teams if the school does not offer a boys’ team in a selected sport.
Taxpayer Benefits for Migrants: In creating “national origin” as a new protected class, Prop 1 creates a constitutional basis for taxpayer benefits to support non-citizens and illegal migrants. New York City authorized voting rights for non-citizens and Prop 1 would provide more legal support for this effort. (The NYC law is currently before the New York State Court of Appeals).
Reverse Discrimination: Prop 1 contains language which will legalize “reverse discrimination” programs in the governmental and private sectors if intended to remedy past discrimination. This provision provides a state constitutional framework to utilize racial and ethnic quotas in hiring, education admissions, and a range of other areas.
Why Prop 1? New York’s Democrats rushed to propose a constitutional amendment and disregarded key process steps required by New York’s Constitution. The legislature never even held a single hearing on the proposal or consulted legal and constitutional scholars as to its impact. They completed the process in 2023 but cynically placed the amendment on the ballot to coincide with the 2024 presidential election.
Fact Sheet: Prop 1: A Basis for Tax-Payer Benefits to Migrants
Prop 1 states you cannot discriminate based on national origin, but national origin is already covered in existing state and federal Human Rights laws and typically applied to U.S. citizens.
If passed, Prop 1 will provide a constitutional basis to Hochul’s grant of substantial benefits to illegal migrants at taxpayers’ expense.
New York City’s 1979 ‘Right to Shelter’ consent decree for homeless New Yorkers will be construed as a migrant’s legal right to shelter -- with a constitutional guarantee that courts will be hard pressed to deny.
Hochul’s current generous benefits to migrants -- public assistance such as cash payments in lieu of welfare, credit cards to purchase food, and housing options – would all have a constitutional basis of protection.
With respect to housing migrants, a federal court recently dismissed an NYCLU lawsuit challenging an Orange County executive order prohibiting hotels from becoming shelters. Additionally, Rockland County has beaten a NYCLU federal lawsuit asserting that the County could not constitutionally bar migrants from traveling to or residing in the County. Should Prop 1 be ratified into law, courts would have to find that executive orders such as these intentionally discriminate against the migrants and violate their constitutional rights to travel freely within New York State.
Hochul believes work authorization is the way out of the migrant crisis and is fast-tracking migrant work permits and employment processes for government jobs – jobs that tax-payers fund. She seeks to work around the current requirement to first apply for asylum and then wait 6 months to apply for a work permit . One problem with her approach: the Biden-Harris White House cannot and will not control the border.
Will the ERA allow migrants the right to vote? A 2022 NYC law granting non-citizens/green card holders/those with federal work authorizations the right to vote has not gone into effect because of legal challenges. This would have applied to 800,000 newly eligible voters in the city alone. The trial court and 2nd Department Appellate Division struck down the law as unconstitutional. New York City has appealed to the Court of Appeals and a hearing is scheduled in the Fall.
Will the ERA grant the right for migrants to apply for public service jobs such as law enforcement, firefighters, emergency medical workers etc.? Non-citizens can become police officers in California, Colorado, and Illinois; Virginia and Wisconsin are considering bills to allow this as well. And taking it even further, in Illinois, a U.S. District Court ruled that migrants are not prohibited from legally possessing weapons.
If Prop 1 is approved in November, all bets are off on how far this can go.
