Activists are influencing New York’s transgender law

Last week, Elon Musk made an announcement regarding the relocation of both X and SpaceX headquarters from California to Texas as a protest against a newly signed bill by California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Senate Bill 107, also known as the SAFETY Act, was passed mostly among party lines. The new law will make California the first state in the United States to prevent school districts from mandating staff to inform parents if their child adopts a different gender identity. The law will also allow a court to establish temporary jurisdiction because a child has not been able to receive gender-affirming health care. Additionally, the law prevents courts from utilizing a parent’s decision to seek gender-affirming care for their child against them in custody disputes.

However, it’s not just in California that children and gender ideology are being politicized. Similarly, in New York, Proposal 1, also known as the Equal Rights Amendment, was quietly reinstated on the November ballot after months of legal battles. Proposal 1 aims to amend the state constitution to protect “persons” against discrimination based on various factors including age, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive health care and autonomy. Both measures from these states are concerning, but New Yorkers should recognize that Proposal 1 introduces a particularly insidious element.

Proposal 1 in New York could potentially lead to a significant erosion of parental rights. The broad and ambiguous language of Proposal 1 is likely to open the door for legal challenges from left-leaning activist groups seeking to establish new “rights” for gender-dysphoric minors, enabling medical interventions without parental consent.

Both New York’s Proposal 1 and California’s Senate Bill 107 are undermining parental rights at a time when parents are pushing back. A recent measure in Nassau County to prevent biological males from participating in women’s sports demonstrates the continued influence of concerned parents in blue states. Polling from this month’s Manhattan Institute reveals that a 60% supermajority of voters nationwide and a 44% plurality of Democrats believe that schools should be required to inform parents if their children are using different gender pronouns in classrooms compared to at home.

Many parents in New York may not be aware of an existing State Department of Education policy that permits schools to withhold information from parents about their child’s gender identity. Proposal 1, if passed, could provide constitutional backing to this policy. Provisions like those in the California law regarding custody disputes for children undergoing gender-affirming care could potentially emerge in New York as a result of Proposal 1-related legal challenges.

The key distinctions between these controversial legislations lie in their scale and transparency. Despite its controversy, Senate Bill 107 has a more limited scope and is straightforward in its intent.

Similarly, Proposal 1 is misrepresented by elected officials and employs fear-mongering tactics related to the abortion debate to deceive the public. Governor Hochul describes the measure as part of a long fight to protect equality and reproductive freedom. State Democrats also frame the measure as essential for safeguarding abortion rights and bolstering anti-discrimination laws. However, this framing is unwarranted as New York already has some of the strictest anti-discrimination laws and expanded abortion access through measures like the 2019 Reproductive Health Act, which essentially enshrined Roe v. Wade into state law. Democratic lawmakers are framing Proposal 1 as an abortion issue for political purposes, but in reality, it poses a threat to parental rights.

Proposal 1 is a politically motivated measure that is not necessary to preserve abortion rights or prevent discrimination. The true aim of the proposal is to mobilize suburban women in purple downstate districts to boost Democratic voter turnout in the upcoming House elections in November. By exploiting baseless fears about abortion restrictions, Proposal 1 puts at risk well-established and widely accepted parental rights on a broader scale. It is a true Trojan horse on the ballot.

As November approaches, New York parents should observe California with caution. To quote the late Justice Scalia’s words regarding another law, this California law “comes as a wolf.” In contrast, Proposal 1 is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Paul Dreyer is a policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute.