Prop 1: California's Abortion Rights Amendment Explained

CALIFORNIA — If voters approve Proposition 1 on Nov. 8, California would become the first state to explicitly protect the right to abortion and birth control in its constitution.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that protected abortion across the nation. In doing so, the high court unsettled what many had taken for granted as a settled law, prompting 14 states to pass abortion restrictions and rattling pro-choice advocates and lawmakers in blue states such as California.

It was this legal paradigm shift that prompted lawmakers to put Proposition 1 to voters even though abortion is currently legal in California. With about a month left until the election, polls show Proposition 1 easily passing. A UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies Poll shows more than 70 percent of registered voters support Proposition 1. However, California is a state where 1 in 3 residents identify as Catholic, and the church is leading the charge to defeat the ballot measure. A coalition of religious groups are urging the faithful to vote no on Proposition 1.

Just what the amendment would mean for abortion rights in California is up for debate.

Proposition 1 would add to the state constitution the following text:

“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. This section is intended to further the constitutional right to privacy guaranteed by Section 1, and the constitutional right to not be denied equal protection guaranteed by Section 7. Nothing herein narrows or limits the right to privacy or equal protection.”

Supporters of the measure, which include Gov. Gavin Newsom, the state’s two senators, the California Medical Association and the ACLU of California, contend it is needed to protect reproductive freedom from a right-wing Supreme Court willing to discard precedent that doesn’t serve their partisan goals.

“California will not sit on the sidelines as unprecedented attacks on the fundamental right to choose endanger women across the country,” Newsom said. “This measure will ensure that women in our state have an inviolable right to a safe and legal abortion that is protected in our constitution.”

Critics of the measure, however, argue that it goes too far. The amendment could be interpreted to allow for late-term abortions in California, critics contend. Currently, state laws allow abortion up until the fetus is considered viable. After that, abortion is only allowed to protect the life or health of the mother.

The amendment's vague wording will invite endless legal challenges, opponents argue.

“Proposition 1 is an extreme law that allows late-term abortions at taxpayer expense up to the moment of birth—even if the baby is healthy and the mother’s health is not threatened,” the official argument on the ballot reads. “Current California law already guarantees a woman’s right to choose, making this extreme and costly proposal unnecessary.”

Bishop of Sacramento Jaime Soto issued a statement opposing the proposition and denouncing the state’s support for abortion rights.

"The state's political leadership continues to stubbornly cling to the practice of abortion and the throw-away culture. It is reprehensible to enshrine in the State Constitution the practice of abortion even until moments before delivery,” he said. "I call on the faithful to imagine a new vision for California, to imagine a society without abortion."

Opponents of the measure include the California Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Republican Party of California.

According to the state’s Legislative Analyst’s office, the passage of Proposition 1 is not likely to have a fiscal impact because California already allows abortion, but the office offered one caveat.
“However, whether a court might interpret the proposition to expand reproductive rights beyond existing law is unclear,” according to the analyses. “If a court finds that the proposition expands these rights, there could be fiscal effects to the state.”

Campaign donations and spending on the measure have been decidedly lopsided. Proposition 1 supporters have raised more than $9.2 million and had spent nearly $1.2 million through the end of September. The opposition campaign, conversely, raised almost $72,000 and spent less than $1,000.