Of course, the areas where it would attack parental rights are a feature, not a bug. Fortunately, there are some who see what New York’s government is trying to achieve.

A New York ballot initiative, the Equal Rights Amendment, is facing fierce backlash over its vague language that critics say could prevent parents from having a say on whether their children undergo gender reassignment surgery.

"Any decent lawyer will take one look at the Proposition One language and say, ‘you’ve got to be kidding me," Greg Garvey, the executive director of the Coalition to Protect Kids - New York, a group "dedicated to defeating the so-called Equal Rights Amendment," said in a press statement provided to Fox News Digital.

"This ballot initiative is written so broadly and so poorly that it could cause irreparable harm to children and families. This is no soft-sounding equal rights amendment, it’s nothing less than The Parent Replacement Act."

The New York Legislature passed the Equal Rights Amendment in January 2023, bringing the amendment to voters on the Nov. 5 ballot this year for ratification. Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul celebrated its passage last year, adding that New York would "combat discrimination" and "protect abortion access" following the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, which ended the recognition of a constitutional right to abortion.

Hochul further affirmed that “we will continue to take bold measures to protect the rights of New Yorkers.”

The proposed amendment highlights how it would protect residents from discrimination based on certain traits.

No person shall, because of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, creed [or], religion, or sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy, be subjected to any discrimination in [his or her] their civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state.

The legislation also affirms: “Nor shall any characteristic listed in this section be interpreted to interfere with, limit, or deny the civil rights of any person based upon any other characteristic identified in this section.”

The inclusion of “gender identity, gender expression” among the protected categories seems intended to protect the rights of transgender individuals. However, the language could also be interpreted in ways that would allow the state to usurp parental rights if a child suffering from gender dysphoria seeks to receive “gender-affirming care,” which involves puberty blockers, hormones, and even surgical treatments.

The amendment could lead to courts or healthcare professionals to conclude that requiring parental consent to these questionable treatments constitutes discrimination. This could result in minors being allowed to consent to these treatments without the involvement of their parents.

This could also apply in school settings, where many districts are actively helping students “transition” to the opposite sex without notifying the parents. Schools could feel compelled to make decisions about a child’s gender identity without parental involvement.

Even further, the passage of the amendment could create a situation in which legal challenges could be brought against parents who refuse to affirm their child’s chosen gender identity. This could apply to custody disputes or even child welfare. If a court finds that a parent is violating the amendment by refusing to subject their child to “gender-affirming care,” the state might deem it to be cause for removing the child from the home. This is already happening in other states.

None of this is surprising when one understands the nature of Marxists. Those adhering to that ideology believe that children do not belong to their parents; They belong to the state, which should have the ultimate authority in deciding how kids should be raised and educated. This is why they are actively seeking to undermine parental rights in any way possible.