Campaigning for the Nov. 8 ballot measure that would protect abortion rights in the California Constitution, Attorney General Rob Bonta and two law professors attacked opponents on Friday for claiming — contrary to the language of state law — that Proposition 1 would legalize abortions up to the moment of birth.
Prop. 1 says 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.” California law already provides the right to an abortion, but the Legislature is asking voters to approve a state constitutional amendment, which could not be changed by future legislative action, in response to the
U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in June
overturning the nationwide right to an abortion that the court had declared in 1973.
“Despite the Supreme Court, California will continue to be a leader in reproductive freedom,” Bonta said at a news conference. Noting that the state is becoming a haven for women whose states have restricted or banned abortion since the ruling, he said, “If you seek abortion and reproductive care, you will be protected in California.”
But opponents, includ ing the state Republican Party and the California Conference of Catholic Bishops, describe Prop. 1 as an extreme measure that would remove any legal limits on abortion. In their
ballot argument, the No on 1 campaign said the measure “will allow late-term abortions at taxpayer expense WITHOUT limitation for any reason at any time up to the moment of birth — even when the mother’s life is not in danger, even when the healthy baby could survive outside the womb.”
The Republican candidate for California governor, state Sen. Brian Dahle,
said during a debate
with Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday that he opposes the measure because it would permit abortion until birth.
Those claims are simply unfounded, two law professors told reporters.
“Prop. 1 does not bar the Legislature from regulating contraception and abortion. It does not allow abortion up to the moment of birth,” said Cary Franklin, director of the Center on Reproductive Health, Law and Policy at UCLA Law School.
“The state will still be able to regulate abortion,” said Brietta Clark, who teaches health care law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “Constitutional rights are never absolute,” and late-term abortions are “extremely rare,” she added.
Both professors said the abortion rights that Prop. 1 would add to the Constitution are those defined in current state law. That law specifies that an abortion after the fetus could possibly survive outside the womb, generally 23 to 24 weeks into pregnancy, is legal only if, “in the good faith medical judgment of the physician,” the pregnancy poses a risk to the woman’s life or health.
In response, Catherine Hadro, spokesperson for the No on 1 campaign, said Friday that Prop. 1 “contains no such limits or language, allowing abortion at any time, for any reason – or no reason at all…. Prop. 1 politicians are intentionally being deceitful because they know Californians do not support late-term abortion.”
The issue isn’t completely clear, said Mary Ziegler, a UC Davis law professor who did not take part in the news conference. Because Prop. 1 does not mention fetal viability, she told The Chronicle, it “opens the door” for opponents to argue that it would legalize late-term abortions. But she said it can be plausibly read as a constitutional guarantee of abortion rights that now exist in California law.
“Recognizing a constitutional right to reproductive autonomy doesn’t mean you can get an abortion till birth, just like free speech doesn’t mean you can yell fire in a crowded theater,” Ziegler said.
At the news conference, Lisa Matsubara, general counsel of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, noted another threat to abortion rights: the possibility of a federal law banning abortion if Republicans take control of Congress and the White House. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-N.C., has proposed a ban after 15 weeks of pregnancy, and other Republicans are advocating tighter limits.
If such a law passes, it “is likely to take effect even here,”
overriding state abortion-rights laws, Matsubara said. Voters should pass Prop. 1, and similar measures proposed in other states, she said, to “stop the notion of a federal ban before it gets off the ground.”
Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: begelko@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @BobEgelko
