ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) 鈥� A proposed amendment to New York鈥檚 Constitution that's intended to protect abortion rights might appear on the ballot this fall without any mention of the word 鈥渁bortion.鈥�
That鈥檚 partly because of sharp disagreements about what the so-called Equal Rights Amendment would actually do, if passed.
The state鈥檚 Board of Elections, which is charged with writing easy-to-understand explanations of proposed laws appearing on the ballot, decided Monday that rather than try and interpret the amendment, they would simply repeat its somewhat unclear language in material given to voters.
New York鈥檚 Constitution currently says that no person shall be subjected to discrimination based on race, color, creed or religion. The proposed amendment would add to that list: ethnicity, national origin, age, disability and 鈥渟ex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive health care and autonomy.鈥�
How to interpret discrimination based on those things, however, changes depending on who you ask.
In New York, Democrats and Republicans are both using the proposal as a vessel for some of their most pressing political issues in the hopes of driving voters to the polls this November.
Democratic state lawmakers put the question on the ballot in response to the U.S. Supreme Court鈥檚 and say the proposal is a way to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution.
Republicans have sought to frame the amendment as an underhanded move from Democrats to provide constitutional protections for transgender athletes, among a laundry list of other concerns.
The proposed amendment is part of a handful of abortion-related questions that Democrats in multiple states have put on the ballot this year, with the party betting that voters will be energized to cast ballots to protect access to the procedure. Voters have shown support for access to abortions for any reason, and 7 in 10 Americans think abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to a new poll from .
But while some states have explicitly included provisions to bar abortion restrictions in their proposed amendments, Democrats in New York did not do so. Instead, state Democrats chose to try to safeguard abortion access by expanding the list of classes in the state鈥檚 anti-discrimination protections.
On its face, barring discrimination against someone who has had an abortion would seem to have implications for things like employment and housing law.
But the amendment鈥檚 backers, and some legal experts, say it would also provide a way to challenge any future abortion restrictions in New York under the argument that a restriction would amount to discrimination against one kind of health care 鈥� abortion 鈥� over other kinds of health care.
鈥淚t鈥檚 not the prohibition itself that makes it discrimination, it鈥檚 the fact that the Legislature would be forbidding abortion but not other kinds of health care, which amounts to health care discrimination,鈥� said Michael C. Dorf, a law professor at Cornell Law School who focuses on constitutional law.
鈥淭he idea is that you鈥檙e singling out one form of reproductive health care and not other kinds of health care,鈥� he said.
State Sen. Liz Krueger, a leading sponsor of the proposed amendment, had joined other Democrats in asking the Board of Elections to include the words 鈥渁bortion鈥� and 鈥淟GBT鈥� in the explanation on the ballot, which people will see in the voting booth on election day.
The Democrats wrote a letter to the board that said the amendment 鈥渨ill protect abortion rights in the state constitution,鈥� adding that 鈥渢his critical point may be lost, however, if the word 鈥榓bortion鈥� is not included in the ballot language."
In a short meeting on Monday, the board instead voted to use an explanation that pulled language directly from the proposed amendment 鈥� excluding the terms 鈥渁bortion鈥� and 鈥淟GBT" 鈥� under the idea that voters should see the actual language of the amendment to understand its purpose. Still, one of the board members noted that the language of their explanation could eventually be subject to a legal challenge from Democrats.
The decision disappointed advocates like Sasha Ahuja, campaign director of the advocacy group New Yorkers for Equal Rights.
鈥淭he board has a mandate to ensure everyday voters can understand what they are voting on,鈥� she said after the board鈥檚 vote, adding that the abortion component 鈥渟hould be clearly reflected and spelled out in the ballot language.鈥�
Currently, until fetal viability, which is usually between 24 and 26 weeks of pregnancy.
Further limitations on abortion in the state seem unlikely any time soon. Democrats control a supermajority in the state Legislature and Democrats have a firm hold on the governor's office. Supporters argue the state should do all it can to ensure abortion rights anyway.
鈥淲e have good, solid statutes in New York state that make clear all these things but that can come and go if you have an anti-choice Legislature or governor,鈥� Krueger said.
Republicans, meanwhile, have since launched an aggressive campaign against the ballot question, warning that the proposal would allow transgender athletes to play on women's sports teams. A GOP lawmaker also unsuccessfully tried to block the amendment through a legal challenge.
David Laska, a spokesperson for the New York State Republican Party, said the ballot question 鈥渋sn鈥檛 about abortion."
鈥淎fter all, the word 鈥榓bortion鈥� isn鈥檛 in the text of the amendment and efforts to add it to the ballot language are deceptive and wrong,鈥� Laska said.
New York already has strong anti-discrimination laws that would block restrictions on trans athletes. The state attorney general is currently using those laws in a court case against a Republican county government's attempt to prevent trans athletes from using county sporting facilities.
Anthony Izaguirre, The Associated Press
