The Mercury News Editorial Board recently wrote that Prop 1 is needed to “protect women’s reproductive rights.” But those rights are already guaranteed under California law, including the right to abortion and contraception, and are not threatened by the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Roe v. Wade ruling.
While The Mercury News argues that Proposition 1 “would ensure that only future state voters, not politicians or justices, could alter those rights,” just the opposite is true.
Because the language of Proposition 1 conflicts with state law, it will become an easy target for lawsuits and legal challenges where judges, not voters or their elected representatives, will be the final arbiters. Is this really what we want?
The author of Proposition 1 claims that “it is consistent with current California law.” In fact, it is not. California law limits late-term abortions after the fetus becomes viable. The law is clear on this point: “The state may not deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose or obtain an abortion prior to viability of the fetus, or when the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.”
Proposition 1 doesn’t say this. Instead, it says only that, “The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.”
Not one word, phrase or sentence mentions “limit” or “viability.” If Proposition 1 was meant to limit late-term abortions, why doesn’t it say so?
As written, Proposition 1 clearly allows abortion at any time in a pregnancy for any reason, with no limits on late-term abortions and with no requirement that a physician be part of the decision-making after the fetus becomes viable, which the Mercury News argues is “critical that the final decision be left to a patient and doctor bound by medical ethics standards.”
For an initiative claiming to protect “women’s reproductive rights,” it’s ironic that Proposition 1 never uses the term “woman,” saying instead that “an individual’s reproductive freedom” shall not be denied. This invites more legal challenges. With Proposition 1 granting men new and equal rights in the reproductive process, could a man demand that a woman carrying his baby be made to take it to term? Again, judges will likely decide, not voters.
The Mercury News assures voters that “the Legislature would still be able to pass laws governing the parameters of when an abortion could be performed.” This also is not true. Former Silicon Valley Rep. Tom Campbell, a law professor who is solidly pro-choice, opposes Proposition 1, warning that “If California imposes any restrictions on abortions in years to come, we can expect the California Supreme Court to strike them down.” Other legal scholars have also warned of this “fatal flaw.”
Claims that Proposition 1 will have “no direct fiscal effect” are misleading. With Gov. Gavin Newsom declaring California an abortion “sanctuary,” the Legislature has increased funding for reproductive services this year by over $200 million, including millions to pay the cost of abortions for women coming to California from other states, with abortion advocates telling lawmakers “this may not be enough.”
Clinics in California are already seeing steep increases in out-of-state abortion seekers. If Proposition 1 passes allowing late-term abortions without limit, this influx will swell to even greater numbers, putting an unfair strain on California taxpayers struggling with inflation and high taxes.
Proposition 1 isn’t needed to protect a woman’s right to choose, nor does it protect this basic right from future court fights and judicial interpretations. It invites them at substantial risk to women and California taxpayers.
Christopher J. Bakes, a registered Democrat, is a trial attorney and litigator whose case list includes representing the rights of gay men and women seeking to serve in the United States armed forces.
Source: www.mercurynews.com