Getty Images
Last week, Elon Musk announced that he would move the headquarters of both X and SpaceX from California to Texas, in protest of a new bill signed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Senate Bill 107, or the SAFETY Act, passed mostly along party lines, will make California the first state in the US to prohibit school districts from requiring staff to inform parents if their child adopts a different gender identity. The law will also “authorize a court to take temporary jurisdiction because a child has been unable to obtain gender-affirming health care.” Additional provisions prevent courts from using a parent’s decision to seek gender-affirming care for their child against them in custody disputes.
But it’s not just California that is politicizing children and gender ideology. Similarly, here in New York, Proposal 1, also known as the Equal Rights Amendment, was quietly added back on the November ballot, without much media coverage, after months of litigation. Prop. 1 amends the state constitution to protect “persons” against discrimination based on age, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive health care and autonomy. Both states’ measures are nefarious, but New Yorkers should understand that Proposal 1 adds an extra level of insidiousness.
New York’s Proposal 1 could precipitate one of the most significant erosions of parental rights ever seen. The broad and ambiguous language of Prop. 1 is very likely to open a Pandora’s box of litigation from far-left activist groups aiming to establish new “rights” for gender-dysphoric minors, enabling medical transitions or other interventions without parental consent.
Both New York’s Proposal 1 and California’s Senate Bill 107 strip away parental rights at a time when parents are fighting back. Nassau County’s recent measure to prevent biological males from competing in women’s sports signals the continued power of concerned parents in blue states. This month’s Manhattan Institute polling shows 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 the classrooms than at home.
What many parents in New York don’t yet realize is that there is an existing State Department of Education policy that allows schools to not inform parents about their child’s gender identity. Prop. 1, if approved, could give this policy a constitutional basis. Other aspects of the California law, such as the adjudication of custody for a child receiving gender-affirming care, likely would appear in New York due to Prop. 1-related litigation.
The most important differences between these two pieces of controversial legislation are scale and transparency. Senate Bill 107, as controversial as it is, has a more limited scope and is self-explanatory.
Proposal 1 is likewise misrepresented by elected officials — and uses fear mongering surrounding the abortion debate to deceive. Gov. Hochul describes the ballot measure as part of a “decades-long fight to protect equality and reproductive freedom.” State Democrats also frame this measure as necessary to protect abortion and strengthen anti-discrimination laws. But their framing is unwarranted; New York already has some of the most stringent anti discrimination laws, as well as expanded abortion access with measures like the 2019 Reproductive Health Act, which essentially codified Roe v. Wade into state law. Democratic lawmakers are turning Prop. 1 into an abortion issue for political reasons, but in reality, it opens a legal minefield that jeopardizes parental rights.
Prop. 1 is a politically motivated measure that is not necessary to protect abortion rights, nor prevent discrimination. The proposal’s true purpose is to drive suburban women in purple downstate districts to boost Democratic turnout in November’s House elections. In the process of exploiting unfounded fears about abortion restrictions, Prop. 1 risks jeopardizing well-established and widely accepted parental rights on a large scale. It’s a real Trojan horse on the ballot.
Come November, New York parents should look to California with extreme caution. To borrow words the late Justice Scalia used to describe another law, this California law “comes as a wolf.” Prop. 1, on the other hand, is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Paul Dreyer is a policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute.