Lisa OKeefe Receives New York State’s ERA Proposal 1
I want to talk to you about a proposal that will be on the ballot this November that is deeply concerning. It is the New York State’s ERA Proposal 1. Now you may have heard or read its about securing abortion rights but abortion is already codified in NYS and there is no where in the proposal where they use the word abortion rather they use words such as pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes which may or may not include abortion so it is left to interpretation unlike our current abortion laws that specifically use the term abortion. So its not about that. And then the supporters of the proposal know that so they for the most part have switched to say it is about equal rights and at first glance it seems like a step toward fairness and equality. After all, who could argue with the idea of ensuring that no one faces discrimination based on their national origin, age, sex, and other categories? But I ask you to look deeper. Because as you know we already have equal rights for all on the national level with the 14th Amendment to our Constitution and with Section 11 of the Equal Protection Clause in the NYS Constitution. So today, I want to explain why we must vote against this proposal and why putting it into our Constitution is a mistake we cannot afford to make.
The Constitution of our state is not just another law. It is our foundation—the bedrock that governs every law and every right we hold dear. Once something is embedded in the constitution, it is extraordinarily difficult to change. In the past 50 years, once a proposal is voted on and passed it is extremely rare that it is amended. And for good reason. Amending the constitution is meant to be a rigorous process because it is meant to protect us from hasty or poorly written laws that could harm us not just for the immediate future but for generations to come. Again, once something is in the Constitution, it is almost impossible to undo. Mistakes in wording, in scope, or in interpretation can leave us grappling with unintended consequences for decades. That is not a risk we can take with Proposal 1 or any proposal.
Wording matters because they have unintended consequences. So let’s talk about the problem with the wording of Proposal 1. It says that we cannot discriminate against people based on factors such as national origin, age, sex, and more. There are no qualifying terms. No specifics about in what context we are talking about discrimination. No distinction between areas like housing, employment, parental rights, or education.
For example, should age discrimination protections apply to housing? And what about parental rights” Under this proposal’s broad wording, what impact will it have on decisions regarding child custody, education, or parental responsibilities? It is left completely undefined. Without clear language, we open the door to an array of interpretations that could diminish the role of parents or redefine rights in ways we never intended and strip away the vested rights our national constitution has secured for parents for the upbringing and education of their children. National origin can lead to interpretations that may allow illegals the right to vote. Age could lead to pedophiles being given lesser sentences because to give them harsher sentences for hurting a child would be age discrimination. And men may be allowed to play on women’s teams thereby stripping away what we women have fought for with Title IX – we already have seen what happens when women compete against men or transwomen in various sports and this will result in women losing scholarships. It is especially harmful when you consider the fact that ¼ of all women who graduate from high school here receive some level of sports scholarships that will enable them to go onto college and make a better life for themselves.
Everyone, we need well thought out laws, not blanket statements, when it comes to protecting people’s rights. If this proposal passes, it will be up to judges and courts to interpret its broad language, leading to years of litigation and legal uncertainty.
Now you may ask if other states have tried to pass any similar ERA proposals and the answer is yes and we should use their experiences as a warning because their results have been troubling. New Mexico, for instance, passed a state-level ERA that led to lawsuits regarding gender-specific programs like women’s shelters and services that target certain age groups. Courts became the battlefield for defining what these protections really meant. And in some cases, those decisions undermined the very groups the ERA was supposed to protect. These broad, undefined amendments lead to legal chaos, where unintended consequences affect everything from education policies to health programs.
And there is one thing that makes New York’s proposal different than other states and that is in its timing and the process. New York’s ERA Proposal 1 was rushed through by the Democratic majority with little public debate and few hearings. They failed to include the qualifying language that many other states did to avoid unintended consequences. They pushed it onto the ballot without considering the far-reaching impact. In fact, there were legal challenges about the rushed process and missed procedural steps.
We have to ask ourselves: why the rush? Why is this proposal being pushed onto the ballot now, when so many questions are still unresolved? The answer is simple: politics. This proposal is being used as a tool to divide us, to push an agenda without the proper time and discussion to craft the right protections with the right wording. And we, the citizens, are being asked to approve something without knowing the full consequences.
I believe in equality and justice for every New Yorker. But those values must be crafted carefully into laws that reflect the complexities of our world, not rushed into the constitution with vague and dangerous language. Proposal 1 needs to be sent back to the drawing board, revised with the qualifiers and specificity it requires. We need to ensure that parental rights, property rights, and the rights of all citizens are protected in a balanced and reasonable way.
The Power is in Your Hands Let’s not make a mistake that will be written into the fabric of our state for decades to come. Once this is in the constitution, it will be incredibly difficult to change. We have a responsibility to be thoughtful, careful, and deliberate with such an important decision. Vote against Proposal 1, not because you don’t believe in equality, but because you believe in doing it the right way, with proper debate and clear language that truly protects us all.
Thank you.