In two weeks, New York voters will go to the polls to cast votes for president, congressional representative, and other elective offices. They also will be faced with this ballot question: whether to vote for or against Proposal Number One, also known as the New York Equal Rights Amendment.
The New York State Constitution requires that an amendment to the constitution must first be approved by the state Legislature, then approved again in the next regular legislative session after a general election. Following second passage, the proposed amendment is submitted to the voters in a referendum.
An amendment to Article I, Section 11, was approved by the Legislature on July 1, 2022, then again on Jan. 24, 2023. This section currently prohibits any person from being denied equal protection of the laws. It also prohibits discrimination based on “race, color, creed or religion.” The proposed amendment would expand the discrimination prohibition to include discrimination based on “sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.”
While supporters assert that the amendment is narrowly focused on preserving a right to abortion, critics argue that the language is vague and overbroad, will lead to unintended consequences, and spur lengthy legal battles over interpretation.
In this Up for Debate, we present two opposing views on the proposed amendment.

By Geoff Rosenberger
We can all get behind the amendment’s expressed goal of equal rights for all New Yorkers. But its flawed language will trigger a myriad of unintended consequences.
Vote ‘Yes’ to safeguard our fundamental rights
By Barbara Grosh

Despite what the opposition claims, Prop 1 is about abortion and protecting our rights and freedoms from changing political tides.
It would have been helpful if the individuals for and against provided more specific information. Imagine if this had been a live debate. It would have been the shortest in history. As is, each individual stated a position and they can be credited with being succinct, but may we have some supporting arguments?
Thnks, Frank! I agree.
If one intent of Prop 1 is to enshrine the right to abortion in the State Constitution, why doesn’t the amendment say so? As I read it, all it does is add pregnant women to the list of protected classes of persons who cannot be discriminated against. This does absolutely nothing to prevent the State from passing legislation prohibiting – in whole or part – with the right to have an abortion. Would it be too much to add language saying that impeding with a women’s right to carry out any procedure agreed to by her and her doctor shall not be interfered with by the State?
I don’t want to seem too controversial, but as we know, most elected officials come from legal backgrounds. They know how to use language, or their staff writing laws do. Legislation is frequently written with “squishy” words or ideas, but the concept behind the legislation is clear when taken as a whole. Legislation is, more often than not, the result of negotiation and compromise.
We have two factors with the New York legislative process. First, there is always the give-and-take between the seven downstate counties, which often are not wholly in agreement; the four boroughs, except Staten Island and part of Westchester County, tend to be more Progressive. The larger cities mostly vote for Democrats. In total, they have the most left-leaning population. Then there is euphemistically called “upstate,” with rural communities that tend to vote primarily Republican or Conservative. New York has a long history of being more progressive than most other states. Thus, when legislation is finally put up for the voters to decide, laws are written to allow as much flexibility as possible so that future legislators can parse and litigate the meaning to suit their contemporary needs.
You’d think that short, well-written laws would be universally agreed to. Still, one example, the Second Amendment, has been litigated almost continually since the Industrial Revolution, the growth of urban centers, and the creation of repeating firearms. In the end, language is always imprecise and open to court interpretation. But deliberately convoluting the intended meaning to promote a secondary agenda is dishonest at best. One question is, had the corrupt Supreme Court not overturned the law of fifty years to appease the influential people in the Pro-Life movement, would the more progressive states have written laws like Proposition One in the first place?
We can reject the first two thoughts as they are very biased and juvenile and cynical. The third thought is better, at least from an educated and intellectual basis. However, Prop 1 is not just about abortion – BTW, how can it be a constitutional right to tear an unborn baby limb-from-limb in utero? To think otherwise would be to judge our legislators as unintelligent and well, stupid. Nay, not so. The language as written by our intelligent legislators, is such that much can be interpreted, especially with respect to gender identity/transgender issues. Do not be deceived, the language of this Proposal is intentionally vague and might be good for some New Yorkers but bad for many others. Change the wording and it is a Yes vote. As it is, it is a definite No.
It would be interesting to create a Venn diagram comparing the sets of those who believe the riught wing booshwah that, 1) passing Prop 1 will result in common bathrooms and males taking over female sports, 2) that Trump won the 2020 election, 3) that Haitians are eating pets in Ohio, 4) that Trump’s civil and criminal court loses weren’t because he was as guilty as hell but rather because the justice system has been “weaponized”, 5) that the Jan. 6 thugs were patriots working to Stop the Steal, and 6) that Covid vaccines were created to “control” the population. I suspect the overlay of those six sets would yield a perfect circle.
Keep in mind folks, long lengthy debates are preferable. That translates into dollars and cents. The attorney will hash it out for the customer. That can bankrupt someone but will allow for the purchasing power of the lawyer. Can you say big bucks?
More often than not, too many voters fail to turn over their ballot, unaware that’s where most propositions are printed. When you vote YES for the proposition, look for it on the back after voting for all the Democrats on the front of the ballot.
After reading for months how New York lawmakers seek to enshrine women’s health care, including abortions, in the State Constitution, I was shocked to read signs throughout the county asserting that somehow the proposition had to do with female athletes being unfairly competed with by transgender males. Leave it to the foes of women’s health to extrapolate the darkest, most remote interpretation of one more safety net to protect the rights of women. I assume that the more inclusive protection in the final bill results from compromises to get more progressive legislators on board. New York is remarkable in its leadership, protecting the individual rights of our highly diverse population.
The proposition is a good thing for all New Yorkers. Don’t be taken in by cynical, manipulative, unfounded scare tactics propagated by the far-right Republicans.