The inanity of post-Dobbs posturing
Just to be clear, the U.S. Supreme Court's reversal of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision has absolutely no effect on California law whatsoever.
The ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization does not make abortion illegal in the United States. It does not prevent California or any state from allowing, enabling or publicly funding abortion. The court's ruling says the federal courts do not have the authority under the U.S. Constitution to make policy for the states on this issue. The justices made the decision to “return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”
So even after the Dobbs ruling, California law protects the right to privacy and the right to obtain an abortion “prior to viability of the fetus, or when the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.”
Further, the California Supreme Court, since even before Roe v. Wade, has defended the right to an abortion based on the California constitution. In other words, abortion rights are already protected by state Supreme Court rulings and state law.
If that surprises you, it could be because politicians in this state have been fanning the flames of fear, posturing to rally voters to turn out in November in a blue fury.
Immediately after the opinion in Dobbs was leaked, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that he was working with legislative leaders to amend the state constitution to “enshrine” the right to choose abortion. This was completely unnecessary in order to protect current law, but it provided the ambitious governor with an opportunity for high-profile news coverage as the defender of abortion rights.
One day after the June 7 primary, the actual wording of the proposed Senate Constitutional Amendment 10 was made public. It actually goes further than current law, creating a “fundamental right to choose to have an abortion” without any limitations. The amendment will go before voters for approval in November.
That gives politicians up to five months to fundraise and campaign on the false assertion that SCA 10 is needed to protect the rights of “women and birthing people,” as lawmaker after lawmaker said on the Assembly floor ahead of the vote on the proposed amendment.
The posturing is underway. “We're not waiting until November to take action,” Newsom declared as he announced an executive order banning the nonexistent extradition of patients from other states and the doctors who provide care for them. The governor also announced a splashy new alliance with Oregon and Washington to “protect patients and providers” from nothing that is happening.
Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins intoned that California is providing “a ray of hope” with SCA 10 after “a dark day.” Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon suggested that “our rights are in free fall” without SCA 10.
A poll by UC San Diego's Yankelovich Center for Social Science Research shortly after the June primary found that voters were “much more likely to say that they would definitely vote in November” after they were shown a Newsweek article about abortion rights. The effect was “strongest among Democrats,” according to co-director Thad Kousser, who said they also saw that this reaction “was particularly strong among young women” who are swing voters.
With other polls showing that voters are concerned about inflation and gas prices, incumbent Democrats nationwide are happy to change the subject to reproductive rights, where pollsters are finding an advantage for them.
However, in California, it is irresponsible for politicians to “stoke unfounded fear,” as the majority opinion phrased it, with needless posturing.