In a recent ruling by state Supreme Court Justice Daniel J. Doyle, a proposed amendment to New York's constitution aimed at preventing discrimination based on "gender identity" and "pregnancy outcomes" has been barred from appearing on the state ballot in November. The judge determined that lawmakers had made a procedural mistake during the initial approval process by neglecting to obtain a written opinion from the attorney general.

The decision to remove the politically charged question from the November ballot is consequential for both Republicans and Democrats, who had hoped it would drive voter turnout. The proposed constitutional amendment, passed by Democrats last year, sought to prohibit discrimination based on "pregnancy outcomes" or "gender expression" and was planned to be put to voters in the 2024 election for final approval.

Notably, the proposed amendment did not explicitly address a woman's right to have an abortion. Rather, it aimed to prevent discrimination against individuals who have had the procedure, with supporters arguing that it would effectively protect reproductive rights. This ruling serves as a setback to Democrats who were banking on the amendment to galvanize voter turnout and mobilize their base, particularly in key battleground House races related to abortion access.

Currently, the New York Constitution prohibits discrimination based on race, color, creed, or religion. The proposed amendment sought to expand this list to include additional categories such as ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.

As the 2024 election encroaches, Republicans have begun criticizing the proposed amendment's language regarding gender identity and expression. They aim to mobilize voters by raising concerns about transgender girls participating in girls' sports. However, it's important to note that the proposed amendment did not specifically address transgender participation in sports.

Attorney General Letitia James expressed disappointment over the court's decision and vowed to appeal it. She argued that the Equal Rights Amendment was intended to safeguard New Yorkers' fundamental rights, including reproductive freedom and access to abortion care. James affirmed that New Yorkers deserve constitutional protection, particularly when faced with attacks on their basic freedoms and rights.

The lawsuit leading to this ruling was filed by Republican state Assemblywoman Marjorie Byrnes. Chairman of the New York Republican Party, Ed Cox, commended the ruling, criticizing the legislature's lack of hearings and consultation with constitutional experts during the amendment's rush to passage. He asserted that the amendment was falsely presented as necessary for protecting abortion rights in the state.

While the fate of this proposed amendment remains uncertain, the legal battle surrounding it highlights the ongoing debate over discrimination and reproductive rights in New York. As the November elections draw nearer, the political landscape is sure to witness further developments on these issues.