Because that isn't what NY law requires, the law requires a summary, not the statutory language itself. But the summary was accurate, there was actually a lawsuit because the summary doesn't use the word abortion and the Democrats wanted the word in the summary. The court held that the language of the proposition was not clear as to how it would protect abortion rights, so the word abortion shouldn't be in the summary.

The proposition changes nothing about existing NY anti-discrimination law. Our Human Rights statute already covers all these categories. The difference is this is now in the state Constitution, not just a statute. It really doesn't change the existing litigation landscape, TIPs can already sue.

I see your points. That does make sense.

I guess I was hoping for something more...positive.

My comment was about a federal law, i.e., statutes, in response to this "So if the federal government passes a thing that says there's only two sexes like they promised and that women have rights to single sex spaces it won't matter what bullshit new york passes."

Yes, SCOTUS' interpretation of the federal constitution is the final word, but Congress does not have the vast powers to make laws people think it does. What Congress usually does is tie funding to things it doesn't otherwise have the power to do. Title IX is only enforceable through loss of funding. Congress has no power to regulate HS and College athletics, other than threatening institutions with loss of funding.
Congress's power to legislate is limited by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: Section 8 enumerates Congress’s specific legislative authorities, including the power to tax and spend, to borrow money, to regulate interstate commerce, to establish uniform rules on naturalization and bankruptcy, to coin money, to punish counterfeiters, to establish post offices, to regulate intellectual property, to establish courts, to punish maritime crimes, to declare war, to raise and support armies, to govern enclaves, and to make other laws necessary and proper for executing these enumerated powers. That is a lot of power, but it doesn't go as far as people think.

The 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to legislate to enforce equal protection, but that is generally against state actors. I.e., Congress doesn't have the power to force stores to keep single sex bathrooms, unless SCOTUS were to hold that denying women single sex bathrooms is a violation of the equal protection clause. This is the same issue with "codifying Roe", if the federal constitution does not protect the right to abortion, Congress has no power to legislate with respect to abortion. It can pass laws like EMTALA that say if a hospital gets federal funds it must provide emergency abortion care to stabilize a pregnant woman, but even that just got cut back by SCOTUS. The real danger we face with respect to abortion laws and litigation is if Congress passes a nationwide ban, some group or state challenges it, and SCOTUS takes that as an opportunity to declare fetal personhood. All the state constitutional amendments women have worked so hard to pass would all become unconstitutional.

The long answer is complicated, but the short answer is under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution federal law, treaties, and the federal Constitution trump state laws (as long as they have a basis in the Constitution). States can still go to federal courts to have the laws deemed non constitutional.

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-vi/clauses/31

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/federal-crime/medical-marijuana-federal-laws.htm

Edit to add: anything not specified at the federal level is state level, like policing is considered state level generally. which is why weed laws are illegal federally but not criminalized at many state's local levels. So while you won't get hit with a lawsuit for weed at a state level in New York if the federal government decided they could go after you at a federal level since it is still federally illegal... It world just be a huge waste of money to go after random citizen for weed position.

One example of federal law superseding state is the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment. It guarantees the right of all citizens to be treated equally under the law and has been interpreted to apply to the states as well. It was used to strike down Jim Crow laws even though those laws were passed at the state level.

On the other side, the Tenth Amendment extends all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government to the states or the people. Among other things, this means that states are free to extend additional rights to its citizens that the feds don't. Handing privileges to TIPs at the expense of women would almost definitely fall under the Tenth, unfortunately.

Explaining federalism on social media with one or two examples is like trying to squeeze a lake in a thimble. But here's one that is very timely. Marijuana is a controlled substance at the federal level, but states are either decriminalized it or legalizing it left right and center.

I tried to find a good article explaining federalism and the separation of powers, but nothing relatively simple popped up. But governmental power is divided between the federal and state governments. In some areas, the federal government has exclusive authority (i.e., no state can make its own currency), some areas the authority is shared, some areas the states have exclusive authority. Marriage is a good example. No one files for divorce in federal court. Congress cannot make laws governing marriage, that is why DOMA was eventually struck down. And Congress could not pass a law saying same sex marriage has to be legal nationwide, it took a SCOTUS decision to do that.

I really don't want this to come off as an "educate yourself" comment, but it is really important that people understand how complex our government is, and where the power and authority to make laws lies. People are voting without understand how our government works.