Los Angeles Times

Vote yes on reproducti­ve rights

Even California, which protects abortion rights, needs a guarantee in its constituti­on.

-

When the Supreme Court obliterate­d the constituti­onal right to an abortion by overturnin­g Roe vs. Wade in June, lawmakers in nearly half the states hurried to enact bans and draconian restrictio­ns on abortion. But other legislator­s and advocates — including in some of those states hostile to abortion rights — stepped in to sponsor constituti­onal amendments to protect that right. This year, five constituti­onal amendments on abortion —some guaranteei­ng a right to it, some stating there is no right — have qualified for state ballots across the country, and more are in the process of getting on the ballot.

On Nov. 8, California voters will decide on Propositio­n 1, an amendment to the state constituti­on explicitly guaranteei­ng the right to abortion and contracept­ion. We wholeheart­edly support this effort to enshrine in the state constituti­on a right that the majority of the Supreme Court wrote off as not deserving protection. This propositio­n is worthy of your vote.

No state so far has a constituti­onal provision protecting abortion. California and Vermont are the first states to ask voters to put such on amendment in their constituti­ons. Advocates in Michigan are trying to get one on their ballot. (In Kansas, an amendment to prevent the constituti­on from protecting abortion rights was resounding­ly defeated in a special election in August.)

Do we need it? Frankly, every state needs to have the right to abortion stated in its constituti­on. That includes California, though it is already one of the most progressiv­e states in the nation on reproducti­ve rights and lawmakers have passed new laws confirming the state’s status as a haven for abortion.

Currently, the state’s Reproducti­ve Privacy Act declares that everyone has a fundamenta­l right to privacy, which includes the right to contracept­ion and abortion up to the point of viability, unless carrying to term poses a risk to the health of the pregnant person. And the California Supreme Court has interprete­d the right to privacy in the state constituti­on to cover a right to abortion. Although these protection­s are reassuring, they aren’t enough.

For example, consider this possible scenario: A conservati­ve majority takes control of the California Legislatur­e and governor’s office and passes a six-week abortion ban. (Sounds far-fetched? Since the fall of Roe and the assault on democracy, nothing should be taken for granted.) Of course, abortion rights advocates would sue, arguing that the ban was illegal because the California courts had interprete­d a state constituti­onal right to privacy to include a right to abortion.

But future California judges hearing the lawsuit could see it differentl­y and decide their predecesso­rs were wrong to rule that the California constituti­on protects abortion rights. Essentiall­y that’s what happened with the Supreme Court when it overturned Roe in the Dobbs vs. Jackson case.

Propositio­n 1 puts abortion in the state constituti­on — explicitly, unquestion­ably — and it doesn’t leave its connection to the constituti­on up for interpreta­tion.

The text of the constituti­onal amendment is brief and to the point, stating: “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.”

Opponents include antiaborti­on groups, faith-based organizati­ons, the California Catholic Conference and the Republican Party of California. They argue the amendment is too broad and vague and would override the existing law, which limits abortions to pre-fetal viability unless the pregnant person is at risk. The California bishops say the unrestrict­ive language would encourage and protect late-term abortions.

Proponents say that the constituti­onal amendment does not grant unfettered access to abortion. Instead it lays out the fundamenta­l right to abortion in a broad framework which legislator­s can fill in with reasonable regulation­s or restrictio­ns. The amendment does not override the current law — restrictin­g elective abortions to previabili­ty. It’s worth noting that the current law is based on a court ruling that the state constituti­on’s right to privacy covers abortion and that right to privacy is no less broad than this constituti­onal amendment.

In fact, legislator­s could change the law right now and make it less restrictiv­e. Or they could change the law and make it more restrictiv­e. Neither has happened. But here is the key reason to vote for the measure: When a constituti­onal amendment is in place, any restrictio­n that violates a right to abortion won’t survive a court challenge without an extraordin­ary justificat­ion.

This amendment makes clear that the right to abortion in California will be preserved against future political shifts. That is something every voter should support. Vote yes on Propositio­n 1.

 ?? Wesley Lapointe Los Angeles Times ?? ABORTION RIGHTS backers in July.
Wesley Lapointe Los Angeles Times ABORTION RIGHTS backers in July.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States