Blue state ballot initiative that opponents say would trample parents rights removed by judge

This thing is really, it's really crazy. I mean, they, they had a, the Dobbs decision came out and they called a special session at the end of the session, July one, they were supposed to have gone home, but they, they did this Hochul called the special session so they could ram this thing through. And they didn't follow the procedures that are in the Constitution. And you know, we've seen this time and again. We saw it with redistricting. They violated the Constitution, both Governor Hochul and the legislature. And they treat the requirements in the state constitution as mere suggestions rather than requirements. And it's really amazing what they think they can get away with. The New York legislature adopted abortion rights in 197054 years, and there's no credible argument to suggest that those rights are in jeopardy at all. This is a cynical maneuver to try to boost turn out based on a false premise that abortion is at risk. In actuality, this amendment though does much more than that. It would for instance, give a minor the right to so-called gender affirming care, puberty blockers, even surgeries without permission without consent of their parents. This is unheard of in New York. You can't go into a tanning parlor in New York under 18 without your parents permission or have a nurse give you a Tylenol in school without permit parental permission. And yet this amendment would open the door to a radical gender ideology, which would facilitate the complete overriding of parental rights. Democrats basically make it plain they think they politically control the courts. I think that's unfortunate that they make that claim, but you never know what happens when it gets to a higher court. But the Legislature, you know, again, they never held a hearing. They rushed this through at the last minute and it it really is, is reckless and irresponsible. There's another provision in this constitutional amendment that would basically make constitutional reverse discrimination policy. So, for instance, if the legislature were to adopt reparations for slavery, that would become legal. If the legislature were to say that we should have quotas for admissions by race or ethnicity to academic institutions, that could be legal under this amendment. There, there are a lot of permutations, a lot of factors that go into this amendment that frankly, the the public is is being willfully, the Democrats are willfully denying the public the right to see all this stuff because it's a lot more than just what they say. When you have one party having complete rule over how the state is run, you really do need to make sure they're following the Constitution and not doing things that they're not supposed to do. And it is very obvious that when they went through this process of trying to put this amendment, this proposed amendment on the ballot in November, that they didn't follow the proper procedure, which is clearly laid out in our Constitution on how you amend the Constitution. If you do want to make a change. And you know, the point of this lawsuit is that you, you meaning the politicians, have to follow the rule of law. You know, we citizens follow the rule of law every day. The politicians are not exempt from following the rule of law. They are not exempt from following the Constitution. And in fact, when they're elected, they swear an oath of office to uphold and to defend the Constitution. So for them to violate the Constitution and want to, to do that in order to change the Constitution, it's, it's not acceptable. And it's actually, it's very dangerous for, for the people, for the citizens, because the Constitution is how we speak. Constitution is our voice, and the Constitution is the rights of the people. And we are supposed to tell the politicians how and what they can do. It's not the other way around.