NEW YORK (BP) — With Proposal 1, New York enshrined abortion rights in the state’s constitution without even mentioning the word.
The proposal, widely dubbed the Equal Rights Amendment and approved by 62 percent of voters, was among 10 state ballot initiatives Nov. 5 that asked voters to expand or restrict “abortion rights” in nine states.
Proposal 1 expanded the Equal Protection Clause of the state’s constitution to protect personal rights based on ethnicity, national origin, age and disability, as well as “sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.” Previously, the law only provided protection based on “race, color, creed, or religion.”
The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission tagged the law as an anti-life measure on its abortion ballot initiative tracker, stating, “These changes would further impede the government from enacting laws that protect life and may infringe upon existing religious liberty protections.”
The New York Legislature first approved the measure in July 2022 and again in January 2023, waiting until Nov. 5 to place it before voters.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul is among those who heavily promoted the measure, including an editorial promoting it Oct. 16 in The Daily News after years of promotion at the legislative level.
“The battle for reproductive rights and access to abortion is not just about policy and politics, it’s about giving millions of women the dignity, autonomy, and freedom they deserve,” Hochul wrote. “It’s about ensuring future generations inherit the rights that my generation took for granted.
“Voting Yes on Prop 1 secures the rights that so many before us fought for and sends a clear message that in New York we will always stand for the rights of women and for reproductive freedom.”
But the proposal’s vague language and lack of the word “abortion” caused speculation among those opposed to the measure, many of whom called it far-reaching.
John Ketcham and Paul Dreyer of the conservative think tank The Manhattan Institute questioned the omission of the word abortion in Proposal 1’s language in an Oct. 18 editorial in The City Journal, speculating that the exact meaning of the language would have to be defined in court.
“Enacting vague language and hoping judges interpret it favorably offends the rule of law by delegating the legislature’s essential job to courts. Lawmakers should be held accountable for the laws they write – not judges, who aren’t supposed to weigh political and policy considerations,” the two wrote. “Laws should be written in clear, accessible language so that citizens of ordinary intelligence understand their rights and duties. Proposal 1 fails this principle, as its broad language prevents voters from knowing what specific issues it would exempt from the political process.”
Men playing on women’s sports teams and using female bathrooms, noncitizens gaining the right to vote, and parents losing a say in their children’s health decisions and among other outcomes the new law could impose, many opposed to it have said, News 12 New York reported.
Planned Parenthood and New York Attorney General Letitia James are among those in favor of the law.
“The ERA was advanced to protect access to abortion care, enshrine this basic right in our constitution, and protect people from discrimination,” James has said. “We will continue to do everything in our power to protect these rights and ensure everyone can live safely and freely in the great State of New York.”
