The New York State Senate passed a bill called the "Equal Rights Ammendment" which protects the rights of New Yorkers to abortions and gives them rights to contraception.

The bill will now go to the state assembly for a vote, and they have a leftist/socialist majority, so it's sure to pass the assembly.

Then, it will (according to the news) be up for a referendum for the voters to decide on.

I'll vote against it. Abortions are already allowed in NYS, so this bill is just a sugar-coating of existing access to abortions. To support it would be like begging women to abort their babies.

For some reason, the leftist people want as many babies to die as possible; they're trying to maximize their yield of dead babies. Why? Why can't they
just get a life and stop all the baby-hate?

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: CompuBBS | Ashburn VA | cfbbs.scinet-ftn.org (1:275/99)

The New York State Senate passed a bill called the "Equal Rights Ammendment" which protects the rights of New Yorkers to abortions and gives them rights to
contraception.

The bill will now go to the state assembly for a vote, and they have a leftist/socialist majority, so it's sure to pass the assembly.

Then, it will (according to the news) be up for a referendum for the voters to
decide on.

I'll vote against it. Abortions are already allowed in NYS, so this bill is just a sugar-coating of existing access to abortions. To support it would be like begging women to abort their babies.

If it is already legal, it does not hurt anything. The Supreme Court
ruling turned it over to the states, so the state has a right to consider
new legislation. Do the current laws also give the right to contraception?
If not, that migth be what it is about.

Now, you may say "yes, we can buy contraception now," but there is another court case that was mentioned in the opinions of the justices which allows contraception access across the country, and it was mentioned as another one where the Right to Due Process may have been improperly applied. So, that previous ruling could be overturned, which would turn the right to obtain contraception back over to the states.

So your state could be acting proactively to make sure that contraception
is clearly covered. If it is not covered, and gets overturned, I would
argue that in some states lack of access to contraception would be more
likely to cause more abortions.

It is also your right to vote against it if it is put on a ballot.


* SLMR 2.1a * We're lost, yes.....but we're making good time.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

If it is already legal, it does not hurt anything. The Supreme Court ruling turned it over to the states, so the state has a right to consider new legislation. Do the current laws also give the right to contraception? If not, that migth be what it is about.

Current NYS laws do protect a woman's right to both contraception and
abortion (according to Politico) so I don't know what they mean when they say they want to "enshrine these rights into the state's constitution."

To me it seems like it's just a way for Kathy Hochul to polish her resume ("abortion law enshriner") ahead of her election later this year.

When the state starts helping me with my cause, I'll start helping them with theirs.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: CompuBBS | Ashburn VA | cfbbs.scinet-ftn.org (1:275/99)

On 07-02-22 23:03, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Mike Powell about Re: NY Equality Ammendmen <=-

Current NYS laws do protect a woman's right to both contraception and abortion (according to Politico) so I don't know what they mean when
they say they want to "enshrine these rights into the state's constitution."

Your previous post did not mention that this was a referendum to amend
the state constitution, but perhaps I should have assumed that.

There is a big difference between something being in the constitution
and something being a law. The latter can more easily be reversed by
future legislatures and/or courts. Not so easy for overturning the constitution (IMHO).

When the state starts helping me with my cause, I'll start helping
them with theirs.

What cause is that? Is it that you are against woman having the right
to control what happens to their own bodies?

Dale Shipp
fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
(1:261/1466)


... Shipwrecked in Silver Spring, Maryland. 00:40:40, 03 Jul 2022
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01
* Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)

Current NYS laws do protect a woman's right to both contraception and abortion (according to Politico) so I don't know what they mean when they say they want to "enshrine these rights into the state's constitution."

To me it seems like it's just a way for Kathy Hochul to polish her resume ("abortion law enshriner") ahead of her election later this year.

They could be trying to make sure the laws they have cannot be overturned
by putting them in the constitution. But, yes, I am also sure it helps out Hochul a lot politically.

When the state starts helping me with my cause, I'll start helping them with theirs.

Yes, it is frustrating when you believe you live in a state that never
seems to care about what you do.


* SLMR 2.1a * User: The hardest-to-setup PC peripheral you can buy.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Your previous post did not mention that this was a referendum to amend
the state constitution, but perhaps I should have assumed that.

I'm learning with help from you guys. Articles are often designed to confuse.

What you're saying makes sense; that they need the referendum to change the state's constitution.

There is a big difference between something being in the constitution
and something being a law. The latter can more easily be reversed by future legislatures and/or courts. Not so easy for overturning the constitution (IMHO).

Thanks for this clarification. That makes sense too. The Democrats (who are in power in this state) want these things added to the state's constitution
before (possibly) Republicans take control, that way Republicans can't just easily fix things to their own liking (like the Democrats did) and people will be forced to live under Democrat rules despite having (hopefully) a Republican government.

When the state starts helping me with my cause, I'll start helping them with theirs.

What cause is that? Is it that you are against woman having the right
to control what happens to their own bodies?

I want to protect kids from the Cuomo/Hochul crime crisis, but Hochul isn't interested in that. She's doubling down on Cuomo's policies. As far as
abortion goes, women will still have the right regardless of the results of the referendum.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: CompuBBS | Ashburn VA | cfbbs.scinet-ftn.org (1:275/99)

There is a big difference between something being in the constitution and something being a law. The latter can more easily be reversed by future legislatures and/or courts. Not so easy for overturning the constitution (IMHO).

Thanks for this clarification. That makes sense too. The Democrats (who are in
power in this state) want these things added to the state's constitution before (possibly) Republicans take control, that way Republicans can't just easily fix things to their own liking (like the Democrats did) and people will
be forced to live under Democrat rules despite having (hopefully) a Republican
government.

In some cases, that is what happens. However, in this case, it sounds like they are going to let you all vote on it before it is changed. So, if
everyone votes, and it passes (or doesn't!), then things are fixed to the liking of the majority of New Yorkers and not (necessarily) the liking of the politicians.

That is why, if it is important to you, it is important to case your vote.


* SLMR 2.1a * Limit Congress to 2 terms: one in office, one in jail!
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

On 03 Jul 2022, Dale Shipp said the following...

On 07-02-22 23:03, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Mike Powell about Re: NY Equality Ammendmen <=-

Current NYS laws do protect a woman's right to both contraception and abortion (according to Politico) so I don't know what they mean when they say they want to "enshrine these rights into the state's constitution."

Your previous post did not mention that this was a referendum to amend
the state constitution, but perhaps I should have assumed that.

There is a big difference between something being in the constitution
and something being a law. The latter can more easily be reversed by future legislatures and/or courts. Not so easy for overturning the constitution (IMHO).

When the state starts helping me with my cause, I'll start helping them with theirs.

What cause is that? Is it that you are against woman having the right
to control what happens to their own bodies?

Something tells me that the Father's of these babies had no idea that their woman was a murderer.
There is no logic or defense anywhere for slaughtering the innocent.
Adoption is always an option.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/64)
* Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)