Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

 

 

 

New York’s so-called “Equal Protection of Law Amendment” is headed for November’s ballot after a tortuous journey through the courts.

 

On Friday, public comments on what will be listed as Proposition One closed, and the state Board of Elections moved to finalize its language.

 

But as we can expect from Democrats — remember the deceptively named federal “Inflation Reduction Act”? — this “Equal Protection” law is anything but.

 

The left is marketing Proposition One as critically necessary to protect abortion rights in New York after the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision.

 

But contrary to the fear-mongering, Dobbs did not ban abortion: It merely reminded the nation that the Constitution says nothing about abortion’s legality — leaving states free to decide their own laws.

 

And New York state needs more abortion protection like the Sahara Desert needs more sand.

 

New York enshrined legal abortion statewide with bipartisan support in 1970 — three years before Roe v. Wade — and reinforced it more recently.

 

Those state laws are not affected by Dobbs one smidgen.

 

The truth is that Prop. One originated as Democratic Party red meat for the November election.

 

Democrats learned that Dobbs alarmism really works to drive their voter turnout, especially with affluent white female liberals.

 

So for 2024, Democrats splattered proposals and referenda purporting to “protect abortion” on election ballots in more than half a dozen states nationwide, including New York.

 

Here, though, Democrats took the opportunity to range far beyond abortion paranoia.

 

If Prop. One were really about protecting abortion, one simple sentence would suffice: “Every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to have an abortion.”

That’s verbatim from the state public-health law already on the books in New York.

 

But this “abortion” amendment reads nothing like that straightforward sentence.

 

Instead, it aims to add superfluous abortion protections — while making breathtakingly sweeping changes to state anti-discrimination statutes that have nothing to do with abortion.

 

Prop. One’s Section A adds a whopping 11 new categories to the existing protections against discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed and religion.

Only two of them touch abortion.

 

But four of the new categories — sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and age — expand existing law to enshrine transgender minor “rights” in the state Constitution.

 

Alert parents instantly recognize these code words for what they mean in our schools right now: The left is coming after our children.

 

Meanwhile, Section B is the proposition’s knock-out punch.

 

It says any and all of the discriminations banned in Section A are permitted if such discrimination is done to “prevent or dismantle” another discrimination.

It basically adds to the state Constitution that much-ridiculed quote from racism trafficker Ibram X. Kendi: “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

 

https://nypost.com/2024/07/28/opinion/nys-faux-abortion-amendment-is-a-sneaky-leftist-wishlist/

Posted

 

Walz is WORSE than WEIRD. He is anti-parent.

 

He has passed 3 different laws in Minnesota to change the

birth sex of minor children and ask other children to come

to his state to get that done.

 

He has asked an anti-parent teacher who said parents

have no rights when their kids are at school to move to his state.

 

He locked down schools during the pandemic and now

only half of Minnesota students meet reading standards

— and LESS than half met math standards.

 

Walz has been name calling people as WEIRD, but anti-parents

and anti-freedom is WORSE than WEIRD.

 

American parents need to pay attention.

 

The most anti-parent person in the US could be the next VP.

 

 

 

 

Posted
16 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 


if you don’t like it, homeschool your kids. Enjoy having emotionally and socially stunted little freaks. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Roundybout said:


if you don’t like it, homeschool your kids. Enjoy having emotionally and socially stunted little freaks. 

Do you support the idea of taking children away from their parents over differences in “gender affirming care”? If so, why? Please be specific. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, Biden is Mentally Fit said:

Do you support the idea of taking children away from their parents over differences in “gender affirming care”? If so, why? Please be specific. 


Is this another spooky scary government boogeyman that you’ve made up in your head to be mad at?

Posted
Just now, Roundybout said:


Is this another spooky scary government boogeyman that you’ve made up in your head to be mad at?

Seems like you are in a screeching/seething mode.
 

No. It’s Minnesota law. I don’t blame you for deflecting. While Walz signed the bill, normal people everywhere find the idea insane. 

Posted
Just now, BillsFanNC said:

Roundy trying really hard to take up the Billsy slack of late.

Yes. He didn’t read the post he was commenting on but according to him he’s not a reactionary. Very emotional sort though. Book smart too!

  • Thank you (+1) 2
Posted
9 minutes ago, Roundybout said:


Is this another spooky scary government boogeyman that you’ve made up in your head to be mad at?

No, it's reality. The decline in his educational scores is real. His EOs and legislation in the last two years is real.

Posted
19 minutes ago, Biden is Mentally Fit said:

Seems like you are in a screeching/seething mode.
 

No. It’s Minnesota law. I don’t blame you for deflecting. While Walz signed the bill, normal people everywhere find the idea insane. 


Show me the law then.

18 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

Roundy trying really hard to take up the Billsy slack of late.


Don’t you have some communists to go yell at?

Posted
4 minutes ago, Roundybout said:


Show me the law then.


 

No. It’s more fun to watch your over the top reactions to things you haven’t read and know absolutely nothing about. Think yesterday’s hysterical claims that no harm was done in the Twin Cities because everything burned down in the riots has been rebuilt. It’s been four years already! 

Posted
6 minutes ago, Biden is Mentally Fit said:

No. It’s more fun to watch your over the top reactions to things you haven’t read and know absolutely nothing about. Think yesterday’s hysterical claims that no harm was done in the Twin Cities because everything burned down in the riots has been rebuilt. It’s been four years already! 


He signed a bill that provides safety from prosecution for people seeking trans-affirming care. Sounds fine to me. 
 

 

Now show me where you’re all hysterical about parents losing their kids. 

6 minutes ago, Biden is Mentally Fit said:

No. It’s more fun to watch your over the top reactions to things you haven’t read and know absolutely nothing about. Think yesterday’s hysterical claims that no harm was done in the Twin Cities because everything burned down in the riots has been rebuilt. It’s been four years already! 


He signed a bill that provides safety from prosecution for people seeking trans-affirming care. Sounds fine to me. 
 

 

Now show me where you’re all hysterical about parents losing their kids. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, Roundybout said:


He signed a bill that provides safety from prosecution for people seeking trans-affirming care. Sounds fine to me. 
 

 

Now show me where you’re all hysterical about parents losing their kids. 


He signed a bill that provides safety from prosecution for people seeking trans-affirming care. Sounds fine to me. 
 

 

Now show me where you’re all hysterical about parents losing their kids. 

HF 146 sec 518D.204. 
 

Back to the original question - do you support removing children from their parents over a matter like “gender affirming care”? If so, why? Please be specific. 
 

Are you aware that people that have undergone gender affirming surgery are, for varied reasons, 12-13x more likely to attempt suicide? Why would Tim Walz support something with such horrific outcomes? 

Posted
9 minutes ago, Biden is Mentally Fit said:

HF 146 sec 518D.204. 
 

Back to the original question - do you support removing children from their parents over a matter like “gender affirming care”? If so, why? Please be specific. 
 

Are you aware that people that have undergone gender affirming surgery are, for varied reasons, 12-13x more likely to attempt suicide? Why would Tim Walz support something with such horrific outcomes? 

You’re pretty obsessed with this stuff.  You’re also pretty weird.  
 

But you know what’s extra weird?  Banging couches.  I can’t imagine JD as VP.  Trump is gonna have the Russian ambassador in the Oval Office for Big Macs and espionage again and JD is going to be distracting everyone by dry humping the couch.  It’s just weird. 

×
×
  • Create New...