Many different kinds of people — across the religious spectrum and those who espouse no particular religion — understand that those of us who are in a more privileged place have a duty to stand strongly with special concern for the most vulnerable among us. Those who understand themselves to have such a duty must stand strongly against Proposition 1 (Prop 1) — which, if passed, would be a disaster for the most vulnerable. It is a wildly extreme proposition that would put New York even more out of step with the rest of the civilized world.

Although abortion is not specifically mentioned in the language of the proposition, its origin story as a response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade makes very clear what is meant by its references to nondiscrimination based on “pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.” This would effectively enshrine a right to unlimited abortion in New York’s constitution — a position that would put the state into wild extremist territory. The Washington Post found that the U.S. is one of only seven countries in the world that permits abortion beyond 20 weeks. That threshold is already extreme, but Prop 1 would truly take New York into bizarro world.

Also, the language of “pregnancy outcomes” and “autonomy” is interesting and provocative, especially given the recent debate over infanticide (intentional non-treatment of newborns which aims at their death) after a botched abortion or after medical teams were unable to convince a woman to have an abortion. New York state did something similar to protecting infanticide after abortion in passing the Reproductive Health Act (RHA). The original law required two physicians to be present at an abortion after viability to “ensure the health and safety of the mother and viable child” if there was an accidental birth. However, the RHA explicitly removed this requirement of protection for the newborn infant. A similar law was proposed in 2019 in Virginia which then-Gov. Ralph Northam said would allow the following: “The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

In light of all this, Prop 1 would likely enshrine protection of this kind of infanticide based on the right to “autonomy” concerning “pregnancy outcomes.”

Because Prop 1 also claims that there can be no discrimination based on “age,” this means that parents will have no way to shape their children’s choices, even though children (as non-adults) by definition cannot consent by themselves to medical decisions. This would apply not only to abortion and infanticide but also to “gender identity and gender expression.” This clearly plays into the biological illiteracy of so-called “gender ideology,” something that Pope Francis has described as “evil” and a classical example of ideological colonization. If Prop 1 passes, parents who want to keep their children from being poisoned and castrated based on such evil ideology will not be able to do so without violating their children’s (state) constitutional rights.

As with abortion, this kind of law would put New York dramatically out of step with many other civilized countries. Thanks in part to the impeccably researched Kass Report, the United Kingdom has ceased doing these dangerous and violent medical experiments on children — and now prefers to follow the established science of watchful waiting until (as happens in over 80% of the cases) the gender confusion simply goes away. The United Kingdom is not the only country to move to protect these vulnerable children: Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and other countries have reserved themselves on this issue in light of new evidence. Prop 1 assumes a regressive, anti-science, anti-biology, and evil posture on sex and gender.

Finally, it must be said that Prop 1 is anything but neutral with regard to these matters. It not only imposes a vision of the good onto New York that is not shared by most residents, but, again: it puts us dramatically out of step with the civilized world governed by science and a strong and clear sense that we must protect the most vulnerable. If it were neutral, it would make space for parents, churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, and secular communities to live with regard to their particular vision of the good on these matters. But Prop 1 explicitly and intentionally does not do this. It must therefore be rejected.