Bishop's letter weighs in on Prop 1

This November, New Yorkers will have the opportunity to vote on Proposition 1 — a proposed amendment to the state’s constitution, which would expand anti-discrimination protections by adding categories such as ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy outcomes.

In a recent letter from Bishop John O. Barres of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre, he describes the amendment as “deceptive” regarding claims that it will protect reproductive rights, like access to contraception or abortion.

“Proposition 1 however does nothing to ensure ‘equal rights’ nor does it have anything to do with the legality of abortion in New York,” Barres states. “In fact, the word ‘abortion’ does not appear anywhere in the proposed amendment.”

According to the Bishop, while Prop 1 is framed as an equal rights measure, its implications could force institutions to adopt policies concerning gender identity.

“Voters will discover that, if adopted, Proposition 1 would prohibit discrimination based upon ‘gender identity’ or ‘gender expression,” Barres continues. “This language would transform the laudable and longstanding anti-discrimination article in the State Constitution into a legal weapon that would force institutions across the state—public and private, religious and secular—to accommodate the most radical forms of gender ideology.”

Barres cites an example of how Prop 1 could have an impact on Catholic education by forcing institutions to allow biological males to participate in girls’ sporting events. He further warned that by denying participation could yield legal recourse, which he expressed as an infringement on religious freedom.

His concerns with Prop 1 further extended to employment practices, which he stated could lead to future lawsuits over whether the Church refuses to hire or retain employees whose views or identities conflict with its teachings, and Catholic hospitals, which he fears may be required to perform gender-related surgeries under threat of legal consequences of discrimination.

Barres, in his letter, emphasized how the state constitution already provides robust protections against discrimination, questioning the need for Prop 1.

“New York’s Constitution has, for nearly a century, expressly prohibited discriminatory practices,” he wrote. “Proposition 1 does nothing to enhance the universally accepted principle of equality before the law.”

Nonpartisan advocacy groups, including the League of Women Voters and the South Shore Women’s Alliance, have been working to help spread the word and educate voters about Prop 1.

These groups contend that the amendment is vital to strengthening protections to ensure equal rights so that no individual can be discriminated against based on age, disability, gender identity, national origin, or pregnancy outcomes.

“This proposal will actually embed protections in the constitution, which is really important,” Susan Gottehrer, director of the New York Civil Liberties Union for Nassau County, said back in August. “It will put reproductive health care, including abortion, pregnancy and contraception, under the guise of sex discrimination.”

According to the New York State Bar Association, the constitution only prohibits discrimination based on race and religion. This would further ensure access to reproductive health care by making it so politicians cannot ban or restrict contraception or health care options.

Barres, however, insists the amendment’s language could be used to enforce controversial gender policies and restrict religious freedom.

“New Yorkers who do not wish to see the State Constitution used to implement a harmful gender ideology that would reach into nearly every facet of everyday life ... must vote ‘NO’ on Proposition One,” he concluded.

The outcome of the election will likely have significant implications for the future of anti-discrimination practices.

— Additional reporting by Jordan Vallone and Charles Shaw