Five months later, Gov. Cuomo introduces Women’s Equality Act legislation
Why, just this morning Karen DeWitt reported on what’s ahead for the New York state legislature in the three weeks or so it has before it goes on recess for the summer. Among the possible items up for debate in the legislature was the Women’s Equality Act, which Cuomo first introduced way back in January in his State of the State address, and lo and behold that bill has been released this very afternoon (here’s the press release from the governor’s office.)
You can read the actual bill here, should you be so inclined (thanks to the Albany Times-Union for the link.) The bill, which the governor’s press release describes as “designed to end discrimination and inequality based on gender and to restore New York as a leader in women’s rights,” would toughen existing laws against human trafficking, domestic violence, various kinds of gender discrimination, sex harassment and pay inequality. But the thing that’s getting the most attention is the portion of the bill that deals with abortion.
Actress Cynthia Nixon speaks at the rally supporters of the new Women’s Equality Act held today in Albany. Photo: Karen DeWitt
In its treatment of the bill, the Albany Times-Union’s Capitol Confidential blog says the bill doesn’t expand on current abortion rights granted by Roe v. Wade and other court decisions (as opponents have claimed), but “puts a referendum on abortion before the State Legislature.” You can find the actual bill language on page 58 (in part J) of the bill; the governor’s office describes it as follows:
This bill would codify existing Supreme Court law to protect a woman’s right to obtain an abortion prior to viability, or when necessary to protect her life or health. The law will ensure that New York’s laws are consistent with the law of the land. Currently, New York State’s law that protects a women’s freedom of choice is outdated and does not conform to protections outlined in Roe v. Wade and current state practice.
So that’s bound to be controversial. The Times-Union blog reports that “polls show a majority of New York voters support abortion rights along the lines of Roe, and consideration of the measure will have political consequences during the 2014 elections, particularly in the closely divided state Senate.” There’s some question of how the bill will fare in the Senate, which is Republicans control in coalition with the four-member Independent Democratic Conference. In the Democrat-led Assembly, the measure is expected to pass.
Several religious groups, including the Roman Catholic church, have come out in favor of the bill with the exception of the abortion provision. About 400 supporters of the bill held a rally just after the governor’s press conference.
Women should have the legal right to an abortion at any time they want one.
Men who are not married to the women they get pregnant should be forced to have a vasectomy.
“The law will ensure that New York’s laws are consistent with the law of the land.”
I guess consistency with the “law of the land” doesn’t apply to gun rights. No limits on abortion but plenty of limitations on constitutionally guaranteed rights. Nice.
Do fetuses have gun rights?
Too bad people don’t value the Constitution as much as they do the right to abortions.
this bill has nothing to do one way or the other with gun rights.
No, but the mind-set of the people who support it does. I find it strange that most of the people who rabidly support abortion rights are dead-set against gun rights, even though they are constitutionally protected.
Pete, why do you think that you should have to be married to have children? A very religious view I suppose?
Knuck, I was actually born with a fully loaded assault rifle!
Larry – abortions are also constitutionally protected – according to the supreme court. If I read the above description correctly, the law that Cuomo is proposes merely makes NY State Law consistent with the Supreme Court interpretation of the US constitution. You should be all in favor of that since you value the constitution so much.
Peter, I think that is correct. But I thought that the Supreme Court rejected the “trimester” thing about the RvsW decision? So I am a little confused. The fact that the right comes via the 14th amendment rather than being explicitly stated in the constitution like second amendment rights does make it a little different in my opinion. But yes both activities are constitutionally protected. Like it or not.
Paul, what I am suggesting and saying has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with males, not men, who like to play but don’t want to pay for the consequences.
If they think making babies makes them a man, they are so ignorant.
As far as women and abortion, we have many ignorant women who also like to play but aren’t smart enough to take any of the many available protections against pregnancy.
In this day and age, there is very little excuse for unwanted pregnancies except in cases of rape.
I guess we just have a bunch of dumb people playing around.
Yes, mistakes are made and that is why I am not opposed to abortion but do think it is a lousy form of contraception.
Pete, I see where you are coming from. From your comment I was also thinking that there are many “males” out there that might qualify for neutering even when they are married!
Paul, I hope your mother slapped you too.
First of all, abortion is most certainly not constitutionally protected. It is legal and the Supreme Court has affirmed that legality. A minor difference perhaps, but an important one. Gun rights, on th other hand, are explicitly protected by the Second Amendment. I value the Constitution but many obviously do not. They want it both ways.
Law, the Constitution and the Supreme Court are great things when it’s about things liberals believe in. Otherwise, not so much, I guess.
Larry Again. The Supreme Court ruled that the constitution protects the rights of women to obtain abortions. I am guessing you don’t think that’s a great thing.
larry, how do you actually say something like that? conservatives are no better than liberals on that count.
Say something like what? The truth? Whenever someone mentions that the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Constitution I hear all sorts of rhetoric about how that right needs to be restricted and regulated, despite the fact that the Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed” and despite Supreme Court rulings affirming that right. Change the word “gun” to “abortion” and the chorus of indignation begins whenever anyone suggests ANY restriction of that right. Whether I approve of abortion or not isn’t the point. Gun rights are in the Constitution and abortion rights aren’t but you would never know it if you listened to liberals.
I honestly don’t know how a “doctor” in good conscious can perform an elective abortion on a woman that is 22 weeks pregnant. Just the thought of it is enough to sicken me.
Sorry. I met conscience.
larry, my point is that you could change “liberals” to “conservatives” in your 7:23 comment, and it would be just as true.
Planet Larry, Planet Larry, Liberal World calling…do you read me Planet Larry? Clarification coming in from Our Nebulous Liberal Leader, please hold. Message: the United States Constitution specifically mentions the Right to Bear Arms. We are all in agreement on this issue. Did you read the part about a “well regulated militia” or did that portion disappear in transmission? Over.
This is a 10-point plan – not one of which deals with gun rights. Lets stay on topic. One of the 10 points merely makes NY State law consistent with the Supreme Court interpretation of the constitution. Thats the most controversial point, but only because abortion is involved. Lets get this law passed. Most New Yorkers favor this bill and almost everybody favors most of it. The religious conservatives should defer to the US constitution on this one.
“The religious conservatives should defer to the US constitution on this one.”
One more time: abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. I know you wish it was but it isn’t. If anyone should defer to the Constitution, Liberals ought to defer to the Constitution on gun rights.
The Constitution does not mention the Right to Tie Your Shoe either, but I think that a judge might be able to find that a person has the right in this country to tie their shoe – if it were to become an issue.