New York's "Equal Rights Amendment": how the globalists use similar tactics to hide their intentions. Amending a Constitution should be a very big deal

New Yorkers, this is important for you. Ireland has already been through this

Changing Constitutions over obscure gender/family issues: A direct attack on the Irish Constitution (the attack miraculously lost) is now being followed with a similar attack on the New York State Constitution.

The trick in Ireland was to say 2 Constitutional Amendments were needed to better support nontraditional families: it was all about supporting women and families, nothing more. But then, why didn’t the language specify how it would help them?

The language was confusing and ambiguous, as it so often is. However, seven parties supported it and two opposed it. The Parliament voted in favor. The media were all for it. Then, in the 11th hour, attorneys explained what the language change could really do. It changed the definition of a family, and could result in new immigrants bringing many additional family members into Ireland, for example.

The vote was held last March. The public used paper ballots, and they voted No to each amendment with a 68% and 74% majority—walloping their political class. The PM of Ireland, Mr. Varadkar, stepped down 2 weeks later.

According to Wikipedia:

The government of Ireland held two referendums on 8 March 2024 on proposed amendments to the Constitution of Ireland. The Thirty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution (The Family) Bill 2023 proposed to expand the constitutional definition of family to include durable relationships outside marriage. The Fortieth Amendment of the Constitution (Care) Bill 2023 proposed to replace a reference to women's "life within the home" and a constitutional obligation to "endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home” with a gender-neutral article on supporting care within the family.

So what is New York doing, trying to amend its Constitution? Same deal. It is an “Equal Rights Amendment” but again, the language is ambiguous and troubling. Why does NY need this? Is it just a trick (throwing red meat at voters) to try and get voters to the polls, either to vote in favor of abortion rights (which NY already has, until fetal viability at 24-26 weeks’ gestation) or against transgender sports and bathrooms?

Here is what the Associated Press had to say:

The amendment, called “Proposition 1” on the ballot, has emerged as one of the more unusual ideological battles of the 2024 election season, partly because of disagreements about what it will do if passed.

On paper, the proposed amendment would expand a section of the state constitution that now says a person can’t be denied civil rights because of their race, creed or religion. The new language will also ban discrimination based on national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes or “reproductive healthcare and autonomy.”

Duh? What is the difference between gender identity and gender expression?

More from the AP:

The leading group opposing the amendment, the Coalition to Protect Kids-NY, has held rallies across the state and put out advertisements against the proposal saying banning discrimination based on “national origin” could allow noncitizens to vote, and that the amendment would also take away parents’ right to have a say in their child’s medical care…

It is also plausible that the amendment, if passed, would become a factor if New York lawmakers ever decided to join the 25 states that have passed laws restricting or banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. Supporters of the amendment said it would prohibit discriminatory bans on medical care. The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments in its new term on whether such bans enacted elsewhere are unconstitutional or violate federal law.

On abortion, there has already been some debate in the courts about what Proposition 1 will and won’t do.

Democrats in the state legislature voted to put the amendment on the 2024 ballot after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Backers of the amendment say that while its language doesn’t explicitly enshrine the right to terminate a pregnancy, it would create a legal framework under which future restrictions on abortion would be interpreted by courts as an unconstitutional form of discrimination.

Attorney Bobbie Anne Cox has done the deep dive on this bill, and written extensively on it. Here is just a short summary from CBS News quoting her:

ALBANY, N.Y. (TNND) — A New York State ballot measure aimed at protecting residents from discrimination may allow illegal immigrants to vote in statewide elections, a civil rights attorney is warning.

Proposition 1, dubbed the Equal Rights Amendment, will appear before New York voters next month. The measure seeks to expand what is considered protected classes under the New York State Constitution, ensuring any such class is granted "equal protection of the laws."

If passed, Proposition 1 will add, among other things, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes as protected classes.

New Yorkers for Equal Rights, an organization backing Proposition 1, says the measure would cement reproductive rights in the state, guaranteeing they "cannot be rolled back by out-of-touch politicians in the future." It also argues the measure "closes loopholes" so the "most vulnerable" New Yorkers cannot be discriminated against.

However, Westchester County-based attorney Bobbie Anne Cox claims the proposition is a "Trojan horse" for a slew of other changes, including giving immigrants living in New York illegally the right to vote in statewide elections. She specifically points to the additions of ethnicity and national origin as protected classes in her argument.

"National origin means the place that you came from other than the United States ... if you're now saying in our constitution that every single person in New York State has a constitutional right to not be discriminated against ... you're opening the door for that argument of 'well, even people that are not from this country should have the right to vote if we're talking about being equal and being fair and not discriminating,'" Cox said.

Cox feels the "super broad" language of Proposition 1 opens the door for "unintended or unforeseeable circumstances." She pointed to the New York City Council passing a law in 2022 allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections. While a state appeals court struck down the legislation in February for being unconstitutional, proponents of the measure are fighting to appeal the ruling.

“So, you're already seeing this happening, the battle is already being played out," Cox said. "And so, if something like Prop 1 with this really broad language happens, that's just going to be fuel for the fire."