Critics pointed out that Proposition 1 on the New York ballot is a “Trojan horse” with implicit discrimination, attempting to sneak controversial content into the law. Amy Chen, the founding president of the New York Association of Chinese Americans, submitted an opinion piece to the New York Post on the 3rd, bluntly stating that Proposition 1 has “deceptive, malicious, and despicable characteristics,” urging state legislators to “introduce more transparent and honest amendments.”
Amy Chen analyzed that Proposition 1 (Prop 1) is deceptive and carries implicit malice. Firstly, Prop 1 is promoted as an amendment to the New York State Constitution, claiming to be crucial in protecting abortion rights. However, abortion has already been legalized in New York before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, making this proposition unrelated to substantial protection. If legislators wish to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution, they should propose a clear amendment, such as directly stating “every pregnant individual has the fundamental right to choose abortion.”
Moreover, the real issue with Proposition 1 lies in the introduction of terms like “gender identity” and “age,” especially concerning the provisions in Section A causing concerns regarding transgender rights. The proposition may grant biological males the right to participate in women’s sports, reside in women’s dormitories, shower in female gym facilities, and be detained in women’s prisons.
Additionally, including “age” in the protected categories could give minors the unrestricted right to choose their “gender identity,” potentially putting parents at legal risk. This means that children not only have the freedom to change their “gender identity” and “gender expression” but also the “full right” to do so.
Activists of Proposition 1 deny these consequences, but the inclusion of “gender identity, gender expression,” and “age” in Section A’s “equal rights” leaves judges with no choice. Regarding issues involving transgender minors, Amy Chen urges for separate amendments to avoid conflating transgender rights with abortion rights and using one as a Trojan horse to sneak in another, imposing it forcibly.
Amy Chen further pointed out that Section A conceals up to 11 ambiguous definitions of “discrimination” in the constitution, making it difficult for voters to discern the true intentions behind it. Such practices are undemocratic.
Lastly, Section B of Proposition 1 is even more unsettling, as it allows exemptions for certain discriminations prohibited in Section A, as long as such discrimination is deemed necessary for “preventing or dismantling” another form of discrimination. This essentially gives the green light to “reverse discrimination,” even allowing for “preventative” actions against alleged discrimination that has not yet occurred.
Supporters of Proposition 1 argue that regardless of Section B potentially allowing certain (reverse) discriminations, the U.S. Constitution still provides anti-discrimination protections. However, Amy Chen believes this is not reassuring, as federal litigation on reverse discrimination was successful in the 2023 case of SFFA v. Harvard admissions but came at the cost of millions of dollars and unjust delays spanning decades. She urges New York state legislators that if they genuinely want to strengthen abortion rights, expand transgender rights, or legalize reverse discrimination, they should present separate, clear, and honest proposals rather than deceiving voters through mixed means.
She concludes by urging New Yorkers: Let’s vote against this deceptive, covert, and harmful Proposition 1.